hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Euro Quebec Hydro Hydrogen Project : Chidgk1 ( talk ) 07:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  I was expecting this to be an easy delete, but on looking for sources: nope, actually there's a ton of stuff out there.  I see half a dozen books ( e.g. ) and dozens of journal articles ( e.g. ) which discuss it. — Moriwen ( talk ) 17:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed.  If anything, it needs expansion to make it more substantial, not deletion.  Retroity ( talk ) 19:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete without prejudice against a developed article.  Nom nailed it.  gidonb ( talk ) 02:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : the Google books search actually provides some pretty substantial coverage including whole chapters on the subject.  The nom says that Too small a snippet of history to be notable enough (emphasis mine) but I don't agree that's a very valid argument for deletion.  Instead, we have to look for notability and I think this clears the WP:GNG threshold.  microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 00:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: no consensus
Pedant : Violates WP:NOTDICT .  - Skipple ☎ 03:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions .  - Skipple ☎ 03:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to Pedantry , as per Chiswick Chap .  - Samoht27 ( talk ) 17:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I don't wish to be, er.  pedantic here, but the criterion for notability is not whether the article is poorly-cited, but whether there are suitable sources out there in the world.  Pedantry is unfortunately definitely a notable topic.  Sources include the famous essay Of Pedantry by Michel de Montaigne , alongside a mass of modern research papers on a wide variety of aspects of pedantry .  A good newspaper article is Why do pedants pedant?  in The Guardian .  There's plenty more out there.  The article needs to be rewritten, but that's not a matter for AfD.  Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 09:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This feels... pedantic... but I agree with your argument yet think it supports a move to Pedantry .  Orange sticker ( talk ) 16:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That would make good sense, yes.  Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 16:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't necessarily disagree with the creation of Pedantry but it seems that would be a new article rather than a move of the current article.  Certainly once it's created we can redirect, but until that's the case I'm not convinced Pedant should remain.  - Skipple ☎ 13:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per nomination.  This is just a dictionary definition with a couple of cites.  Per WP:!  , it needs expansion to be useful which might be possible.  If someone does this then perhaps reconsider.  Ldm1954 ( talk ) 07:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Are there editors up for rewriting this article?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Liz If needed, I can put this on my backlog.  I have a few major tasks that I wanted to complete beforehand, but I volunteer to fix article up if it is kept and/or moved.  Thanks, Neuropol Talk 14:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Dicdef.  Desertarun ( talk ) 16:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  19:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and move to pedantry .  This is certainly notable, and could be expanded greatly.  Wikipedia may not be a dictionary, but pedantry as a concept is a very notable topic which could be applied to the fields of psychology, linguistics, and sociology.  Deletion should not be a substitution for improvement.  Thanks, Neuropol Talk 13:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: no consensus
Enga Veetu Meenakshi : Karnataka ( talk ) 17:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , what do you mean by insufficient references.  The article is well sourced.  DareshMohan ( talk ) 04:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Have Notable sources and cast are also well known. -- Monhiroe ( talk ) 17:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Actual analysis of the available sources, demonstrating either the presence or lack of significant coverage, would be helpful Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep : It now have notable citations and cast, which are known.  CastJared ( talk ) 08:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Still waiting for Rosguill's requested source analysis.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: no consensus
Marthal : Tooncool64 ( talk ) 02:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Appears to be contiguous with Thittuvilai .  May once have been a separate settlement, but may not be any more.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thittuvilai is not officially a settlement, either .  Uncle G ( talk ) 09:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: More discussion surrounding this article's subject's relationship with Thittuvilai would be helpful in determining whether there's a suitable ATD .  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge?  You can find it on Google maps .  It does seem to now be a neighbourhood of Thittuvilai .  You can also spot most of the mentioned landmarks.  Most of the article are things that are nearby, which is just as relevant to the larger town.  - SimonP ( talk ) 19:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is not a neighbourhood of Thittuvilai.   And Thittuvilai is not a town.  Neither this article nor your merge target are a village or a town, and both articles are misleading.   The town here is Boothapandi (also spelled Bhuthapandy and Boothapandy), which is a town panchayat of Kanyakumari district

Discussion outcome: no consensus
Manoj Kumar Singh (civil servant) : Couldn't find anything better than the sources cited in a WP:BEFORE search.  Previously soft deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manoj Kumar Chauhan under this article's original title Manoj Kumar Chauhan ; moved to current title by article creator in 2022.  Wikishovel ( talk ) 14:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India .  Wikishovel ( talk ) 14:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  08:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: no consensus
Angrezi Mein Kehte Hain : Tagged for notability since 2020 Donald D23 talk to me 13:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India .  Donald D23 talk to me 13:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 15:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: no consensus
Talafi : Tagged for notability since 2012.  Minor awards Donald D23 talk to me 12:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan .  Donald D23 talk to me 12:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of television programmes broadcast by PTV#Dramas , where it is listed. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 18:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As nominator, I am okay with a redirect as stated above.  Donald D23 talk to me 20:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 12:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Referencing is a bit low but still can be kept as stub as Pakistani dramas from that time has similar referencing from primary sources mostly.  Showbiz news websites were very few back then, even very few newspapers maintained efficiently online presence.  Muneebll ( talk ) 18:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 14:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: no consensus
SGUL Teddy Bear Hospital : Fails the general and organization-specific notability policies.  - UtherSRG (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Education , Medicine , United Kingdom ,  and England .  UtherSRG (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment With a quick check in ProQuest, I see some coverage of similarly named programs in Ireland [4] and Canada [5] [6] , Australia [7] , Singapore [8] , etc. I wonder if this is a more general concept?  If a concept, will surely meet WP:GNG but of course would need to be at Teddy bear hospital or Teddy Bear Hospital — siro χ o 19:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 22:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: no consensus
Filament Games : It's entirely possible one of their games could be notable, but that is not inherited by the company.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games , Companies ,  and Education .  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete None of their games are notable, and there's lack of coverage of their company.  -- M asem ( t ) 15:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment found some sources.  [81] , [82] , [83] , [84] Timur9008 ( talk ) 18:07, April 29, 2023 (UTC) Those are quite good.  However, to quote WP:GNG , "multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability."  Therefore I am not 100% sold on withdrawing the AfD unless something else significant pops up, as three of those are from the same newspaper, so essentially there are only a couple so far.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 17:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I got this hit in the NY Times, but I think it talks more about the founder [85] and it's paywalled so I can't see what it says.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's almost entirely about their games, not the studio itself.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 03:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If it goes into the studio's products, that could be helpful.  M asem ( t ) 02:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Courcelles ( talk ) 18:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep - scratches the surface of notability per given sources and my own searches.  Merko ( talk ) 01:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: no consensus
Brie Gabrielle : Let'srun ( talk ) 01:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Actors and filmmakers , Women , Beauty pageants ,  and Florida .  Let'srun ( talk ) 01:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  A quick Google search turned up more than enough coverage in sources to pass WP:NACTOR : [5] [6] [7] [8] — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 05:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: no consensus
Tales of Nazir : The only claim of notability being attempted here is that it exists, which isn't automatically enough in and of itself in the absence of sufficient media coverage about it to pass WP:GNG -- but this is referenced overwhelmingly to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as its own website, IMDb and/or the episodes themselves on YouTube, and what precious little it shows in the way of third-party coverage is very, very short blurbs that aren't substantial enough to pass GNG all by themselves, along with one citation (duplicated as two separate footnotes for no apparent reason) which appears to be here solely to create the false impression that this has coverage in an academic book so long as you don't actually look at the source to discover that it has absolutely nothing to do with this, and just happens to coincidentally mention a completely different Nazir in a completely different work.  Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have much, much better sourcing than has been offered.  Bearcat ( talk ) 17:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Websites ,  and Ghana .  Bearcat ( talk ) 17:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Sources on the page indicated some notability.  I've added more.  Primary sources can be removed or not, but this is more a matter of cleanup, as secondary sources exist. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 10:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What sources are indicating notability, when every single footnote in the entire page (even after your additions) is still either primary or unreliable ?  Bearcat ( talk ) 15:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You're welcome.  What sources?  Answer: GhanaWeb or Pulse among other things.  And I cannot see any reason to consider GhMoviefreak unreliable.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 22:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 21:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: no consensus
Barby Storage Reservoir : It certainly exists, the trouble is finding substantial reliable sources about it.  As an ATD we could merge to the reservoir section on Severn Trent JMWt ( talk ) 07:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and England .  JMWt ( talk ) 07:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Now sourced.  However, if there is merge, it should be to Draycote Water .  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 12:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Any comments on the improvements to the article since its nomination?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: no consensus
Billy Reil : Worked on independent level.  sources only make passing mentions about him WP:ROUTINE results.  No in-deep coverage about him.  HHH Pedrigree ( talk ) 09:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and Pennsylvania .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 10:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 02:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: no consensus