hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Michael Acevedo : BLP, see tagging in article for problems with in article references, nothing found meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth .  BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk 00:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Finance ,  and Argentina .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : If you are wondering why the article is written like crap, it is because it is machine translated from the corresponding article in the Spanish Wikipedia .  Even the article title is incorrect; the subject's name is Miguel Acevedo, not Michael.  Regardless, the other sources in the article, primarily [44] , as well as this article I found, should be enough to fix the verification issues.  Subject passes WP:NPOL as an Argentine vice governor, which is equivalent to an American lieutenant governor.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 06:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have cleaned up the article, which cost me nearly an hour.  I hope that the article creator learns from this and no longer creates machine-generated garbage blindly copy-pasted from other language projects.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 07:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have blocked the creator from creating new articles due to failing to attribute original sources, and lodged a WP:CCI report.  Stifle ( talk ) 07:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Meets WP:NPOL as a vice governor per Curbon.  TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 14:44, 21 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: keep
Paula Surridge : No RS or SIGCOV (The Guardian link is to contributed content), fails WP:GNG; WP:NACADEMIC Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 10:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom .  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 10:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Not my area but the top citations in GS [10] are quite promising (201,179,127,93,87) though total citations are fairly low.  There are 3 coauthored books, for which reviews should be sought.  The Guardian appears to treat her as an expert.  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 02:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing to Keep per reviews found by David Eppstein.  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 21:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  I found two reviews each of two books, added to the article.  Because the books are coauthored and two of the reviews are of multiple books, I think by themselves they would only make a borderline case for WP:AUTHOR but putting them together with the citation record above and WP:PROF#C1 I think it's enough.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 04:51, 28 September 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: keep
Bharat Mandir,Rishikesh : can we blow it up?  lettherebedarklight 晚安 09:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions .  lettherebedarklight 晚安 09:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Uttarakhand .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - article was hijacked.  It was previously Silhua , an article about a village that is likely notable.  That article should be restored really.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:11, 10 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: keep
John Hoberman : Multiple WP:BLP issues with the page, as well as sourcing issues and WP:NOR .  The article was created by a WP:SPA IP address back in 2005.  GuardianH ( talk ) 19:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Language , History , Sports ,  and Texas .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning delete unless better sources can be found.  I couldn't find anything independent of Hoberman himself or University of Texas.  Cnilep ( talk ) 01:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning keep -- ugh, this article is a mess, a minefield of BLP and SPA and NOR problems (even the photo!).  I won't weep for it if it's deleted.  But we do have a full professor at a major research university (usually a good sign of a WP:PROF likely pass) with books by U. Chicago Press and Houghton Mifflin, which is probably enough with any of the controversies to pass WP:AUTHOR.  But what a mess.  There's the old saying "AfD is not cleanup" but a Soft Delete (=expired PROD, no prejudice against creating again) might be a good way to deal with the major BLP issues.  And yet, I think the subject is more likely notable than not. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:12, 1 May 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!  23:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as NACADEMIC.  I did some bold editing, removed promotional stuff, but also added in some academic references.  His most controversial book gets over ~1100 cites on G-scholar.  It is quite possible that many of those are debunking his thesis, but I believe that still counts toward academic qualifications.  Lamona ( talk ) 05:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I counted 14 reviews of his books (not all the same one) on JSTOR.  I think he passes WP:AUTHOR .  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 06:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Desertarun ( talk ) 21:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   Passes both NACADEMIC and NAUTHOR.  I stopped counting reviews of his books when I got to 20 for just the first two books I tried, and there is even published back-and-forth about them.  Few academics can equal that for two books.  Zero talk 10:10, 15 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: keep
Violet Coco : Her subsequent trial is related to this event.  LibStar ( talk ) 06:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I am of the view the subject of this article firmly goes beyond BLP1E.  A quick Google search would have shown that Coco is continuing to feature in the media for her activism and clearly unrelated to the Harbour Bridge event, e.g. this Guardian Article featuring event in Western Australia .  The original incident has prompted a wide-ranging discussion (not just in New South Wales but a number of states) on the right to protest and whether state laws imprisoning someone for doing so are too harsh.  Deus et lex ( talk ) 20:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (as article creator) She is notable for at least two events, and I've just updated the article to illustrate that.  Also, for WP:BLP1E to direct us towards making this an event article (which is what it does for people notable for one event) the subject would also need to be "a low-profile individual (defined here ) and yet she is a " high profile " activist.  The multiple reliable sources providing significant coverage prove the subject meets WP:GNG and the coverage is sustained, ongoing, and international in nature, provoking commentary beyond just the event, but about the wider more complex issue of protesting, freedom of expression, public safety etc.  CT55555 ( talk ) 23:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  BLP1E only applies if all three conditions are met: If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.  - maybe met If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.  - probably not met; she appears to actively seek publicity If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented.  - not met; she was central to the event, and the event is sufficiently significant that it's still being written about a year later.  pburka ( talk ) 19:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Although the Protest Law coverage involving Coco is a result of the Harbour Bridge protest, the Protest Law issue is significant in itself.  Therefore coverage goes beyond WP:BLP1E .  Spinifex&Sand ( talk ) 05:55, 29 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: keep
Theatre Brook : Fails the general and band-specific notability policies.  - UtherSRG (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Japan .  UtherSRG (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  This group has had 13 (sic) albums on the national Oricon chart in Japan, three of which are listed here , and thus this easily passes WP:NBAND .  Their latest single went to #12 on the chart and stayed on the chart for over 3 months, as shown here .  They also pass several other criteria of WP:NBAND , including #5, #6, #10, and #11 (some of these were already reflected in the English article).  Please check Oricon when making these kinds of nominations.  Dekimasu よ!  01:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Dekimasu .  Darling ( talk ) 15:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per clear sources provided by Dekimasu .  DCsansei ( talk ) 13:51, 27 November 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: keep
Drake–Kanye West feud : Concerns WP:TRIVIAL , WP:FANCRUFT , WP:GNG and WP:REFERENCE .  Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 ( my talk page / my sandbox ) 15:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 15:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ...Doesn't seem helpful to redirect to the broadest possible article on the matter.  Anyhow, keep , notable feud.  I see no problems with the article unsolvable by normal editing.  Mach61 ( talk ) 16:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also WP:TRIVIAL doesn't link anywhere relevant.  Mach61 ( talk ) 16:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah at first I intended to add to the Drake article under the feuds part but the information I found would have over expanded the page and I thought it would just be better off as an individual article.  I was hesitant at first fearing it's irrelevant but later I saw there was numerous coverage on this and is actually notable for Wikipedia inclusion.  I'm of the opinion it should be kept but I would love to hear your output on it.  Best regards, Serrwinner ( talk ) 17:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] keep This seems to meet WP:N .  Trivial to some of us, vital to others (including the authors of RS cited).  Llajwa ( talk ) 15:35, 26 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: keep
Movieguide Epiphany Prize for Most Inspiring Movie : BrigadierG ( talk ) 00:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Non-notable.   I came up with no coverage beyond the cursory.  Weak keep per RunningTiger123 and a few column inches in the LA Times in 1996.  JSFarman ( talk ) 00:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Awards .  SL93 ( talk ) 00:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions .  SL93 ( talk ) 00:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – the awards are covered in industry publications such as Variety , The Hollywood Reporter , and Deadline .  Based on practices for other awards, once the overall awards are established as notable and have run for a few years, individual category lists such as this are acceptable (especially since the listed films mostly have their own articles, fulfilling a navigational purpose as well).  RunningTiger123 ( talk ) 01:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - As others have noted, there's some press coverage, if not much.   But even if there weren't, notability isn't proportional to coverage.   The moral implications of the culture is a huge issue, and this award is the biggest thing I know of that deals with that.   It's true that it's partisan, and that's a reason to provide a counterpoint, but it isn't a reason to suppress information about it.   That would be far more partisan than the award is.  - Burner89751654 ( talk ) 13:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as a valid split from the main article and has reliable sources coverage such as Variety, Deadline, and Hollywood Reporter, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 18:34, 26 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: keep
Deanna Troi : Sources are almost exclusively tabloid character rankings by websites like Screenrant and the like.  Notability not shown F.Alexsandr ( talk ) 06:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Popular culture .  F.Alexsandr ( talk ) 06:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Question @ F.Alexsandr : With regards to Notability not shown , Wikipedia's deletion process asks the nominator to look into the notability of a topic ( which is largely independent of the current status of an article ) before starting the AfD discussion.  Was this WP:BEFORE search done and what were the results?  Daranios ( talk ) 11:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  Daranios ( talk ) 12:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I mirror Daranios ' question. What due diligence was performed in researching this article for deletion? Yes, this article needs improvement, but would you then move to delete all of the major characters from TNG ? The most serious change I would agree to is consolidating all the characters into one article, but looking at the length of some of them, this would be stupid. Star HOG ( Talk ) 14:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The current "Reception" section of the article definitely needs to be rewritten to not be a series of "times the character was mentioned in some top ten list", but even just a very quick, cursory search brought up several different books and journal articles on gender depictions in Star Trek and TV in general that have non-trivial discussion of Troi as part of them, such as these three examples . Rorshacma ( talk ) 15:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Sources 3, 5, 9 and 10 are fine for GNG. Rest is gravy. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Rorshacma's examples are excellent sources. Keep per WP:NEXIST . Toughpigs ( talk ) 16:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : There is enough already in the article and shown here to satisfy GNG in my opinion. Rhino131 ( talk ) 17:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per Oaktree b, sources are there. This is never going to fail GNG. There may be PAGEDECIDE questions for fictional characters, but I suspect this one will always be judged to merit a spinout. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 12:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Notability is clearly established with the sources in the article plus those provided here. Daranios ( talk ) 16:16, 28 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: keep
Sargam Koushal : Fixthetyp0 ( talk ) 15:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: I also wish to nominate the photo on Wikimedia Commons for deletion because I doubt this person who created a new account just to post this photo was truly submitting his "own work" (I suppose admin will have to look behind the scenes to see if this claim was convincing) but I do not know how to nominate photos for deletion.  Fixthetyp0 ( talk ) 15:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Beauty pageants ,  and Jammu and Kashmir .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Sandstein 19:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This article receives significant coverage according to the Wikipedia guideline on significant coverage per WP:SIGCOV .  It also includes citations for different events like she was judge in Mrs South Africa 2023 (a national event), so it doesn't fall under the guideline for bio notable for single event per WP:BLP1E .  However, the nominator claims that past winners lack Wikipedia articles.  While some winners might not have articles, the presence or absence of articles for past winners is not a validity criterion for this specific article.  Every article is evaluated on its own merits based on whether it meets the notability guidelines per WP:GNG and having WP: SIGCOV .  Regards GAGIWOR ( talk ) 07:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This is a case of WP:BLP1E and so is notable.  There are SIGCOV and bearing the title for "Miss world" is heavy that it can be a stand-alone entry for Wikipedia!  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  01:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:BLP1E is generally an argument against notability, not for it.  Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 21:27, 7 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: keep
FC Echichens : A single source which is about one of the team's players.  Fails WP:GNG .  UtherSRG (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Switzerland .  UtherSRG (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Local media seems to cover their matches in significant depth quite regularly: 1 , 2 , 3 .  Unfortunately, these paywalls are not bypassed by the Internet Archive, so I can't evaluate this coverage in detail right now.  Actualcpscm ( talk ) 19:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Does that suffice for WP:AUD ?  - UtherSRG (talk) 11:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I found [4] , [5] , and [6] , among many more French and German sources.  Gets consistent coverage from media as well.  Article needs improvement, not deletion.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 17:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above which show notability.  Giant Snowman 09:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep per above, per sources provided.  Govvy ( talk ) 10:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per sources provided by Dad Osmenzz.  Carson Wentz ( talk ) 21:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep clearly passes GNG. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 05:02, 27 July 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: keep