hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Rae the Doe : I can't find any mention of the comic, other than proof of publication.  Not meeting GNG.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] https://www.totallicensing.com/king-features-launches-first-lgbtq-focused-digital-series/ https://www.comicsbeat.com/interview-olive-brinker-on-her-webcomic-rae-the-doe-comedy-and-plushes/ https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/45156794 https://www.dailycartoonist.com/index.php/2020/06/07/olive-brinkers-rae-the-doe-joins-comics-kingdom/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9494676/ But it's a syndicated comic strip that's been running for over three years.  Does that not, in itself, make it notable?  Tiggum ( talk ) 10:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L Faraone 22:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Query : Picked up for syndication, but has it actually been published in newspapers?  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 01:24, 12 June 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!  23:10, 18 June 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, ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 08:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep published for a month so far in USA Today [36] which definitely suggests notability.   First feature was May 26, 2023 .  We don't seem to have a guideline for syndicated comics, but as one of the largest middle-market newspapers in the US, USA Today is about as big of a boost as syndicated comics can get.  This provides us with sufficient verifiability to keep a stub.  — siro χ o 09:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  In addition to USA Today , in a Comic Book Resources article , it is implied that it is in the same league as established strips: "Participating strips [in No Pants Day] included Dennis the Menace , Dick Tracy , Rhymes with Orange and Zippy . Some made a direct appeal to readers, like Rae the Doe and Arctic Circle ".  It also shows up (in some capacity) in the May 19, 2022, Editor & Publisher .  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 12:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  agree with this per nom Pumpkinspyce ( talk • contribs ) 03:12, 28 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
Singleton field : The lead is supposed to be understandable with the tough stuff in the body of the article.  Chidgk1 ( talk ) 17:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions .  Chidgk1 ( talk ) 17:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions .  XOR'easter ( talk ) 23:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It's discussed in several papers in Gscholar, but I'm not sure of what it is exactly.  Needs a rewrite, perhaps review by a subject-matter expers.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I do not believe that the nomination presents a valid deletion rationale.  An article about advanced mathematical physics is going to be incomprehensible to readers who aren't mathematicians or physicists, and there's just not much we can do about that.  A stub lacking an introduction that holds the reader's hand is not a reason to delete it.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 23:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep First, speedy keep criterion 1 applies: being too technical isn't a reason for deletion.  It isn't even a problem, necessarily: we're talking about a niche subject that a physics student wouldn't even encounter until a couple years into graduate school at the earliest, not the opening paragraphs of the Albert Einstein biography page.  Second, sources exist with which the article could be expanded.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 02:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Browsing the Google Scholar entries, (and being outside my scientific field), it does seem like there's enough coverage to warrant a stub, but it definitely needs to be encyclopedia-ified given how technical the subject is. I wonder if there may be a better home to nest this subject under for more context, but that would take someone well-versed in quantum mechanic subjects to assess.  Until then, keep but definitely leave the tag from 2009.  KoA ( talk ) 04:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep as no valid reason for deletion has been advanced.  PianoDan ( talk ) 20:15, 16 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: keep
Simon Says (band) : Tryin to make a change :-/ 21:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 19 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 21:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California .  Shellwood ( talk ) 21:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Allmusic is a WP:RS , not UGC, and the band had three hits at rock radio over two major-label albums.  Flies over WP:MUSIC .  Chubbles ( talk ) 04:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Seems that WP:ALLMUSIC shows no consensus as to whether it is a WP:RS .  I thought it was UGC, looks like it isn't, though.  Still don't think it's notable enough for an article though.  Tryin to make a change :-/ 05:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wow, that's actually news to me - because of Allmusic's comprehensiveness, editors have been trying for years to casually prove it unreliable, and somehow they succeeded.  I consider that a tragedy for this site, because Allmusic is really the backbone of its musical knowledge, and it has proven to me to be reliable time and again.  Allmusic published multiple edited books of its biographical information; they have editorial control over their content, and I disagree that there is general cause to suspect the site's prose writeups.  The biographical information and capsule reviews of the two albums on AMG have in-text attribution, so they meet the most stringent standards that the consensus asks for in considering reliability.  In any case, meeting several other bullets of WP:MUSIC makes AMG alone unnecessary for the article to be retained.  Chubbles ( talk ) 14:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Bylined bios on Allmusic are not UGC.  And more coverage is available on newspapers.com accessible through the Wikipedia library.  duffbeerforme ( talk ) 00:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as AllMusic biographies are considered reliable sources per WP:MUSICRS .  Darling ( talk ) 15:44, 24 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
Pavan Sadineni : -- Syed A. Hussain Quadri ( talk ) 09:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Actors and filmmakers , India ,  and Kerala .  Syed A. Hussain Quadri ( talk ) 09:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete - per nom; I was shocked for few mnts, when I saw this nomination, This article is in here and author of this article they creates this article is on article mainspace, and I don't see any Notability for this subject, so article can be deleted ,This article is original article already exist in Draft Namespace .  ~~ αvírαm | (tαlk) 03:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Aviram7 , this subject meets WP:NDIRECTOR SNG, not WP:GNG .  – DreamRimmer ( talk ) 16:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Clearly meets WP:NDIRECTOR as he has directed five notable films.  – DreamRimmer ( talk ) 16:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per WP:FILMMAKER .  The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work.  In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work.  He has directed 3 movies and 5 web series'.  There are problems with the article's tone and wording.  But AFD is not cleanup .  For this reason, while I was reviewing it, I marked it with tone concerns.  Some Telugu-language (పవన్ సాదినేని) sources were also found using a Google search.  Thilsebatti ( talk ) 16:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please let me know the corrections needed.  I am new to Wikipedia.  Help me please. ￼ Aaseeshpreetam6 ( talk ) 13:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I changed the content as required.  Please check and approve.  Aaseeshpreetam6 ( talk ) 08:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you don't know about him that's your problem.  He is well known in states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. ￼ Aaseeshpreetam6 ( talk ) 13:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I agree with both ! votes above that he meets WP:NDIRECTOR.  The award he won is a  clear confirmation of that. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 19:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : OTT is a minor award.  David notMD ( talk ) 16:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Passes WP:NFILMMAKER 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:NDIRECTOR .  Seems to have been tidied up since nomination.  Zenomonoz ( talk ) 09:58, 24 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
Evernew Pictures: All I found on the web is some ROTM coverage, but nothing significant or in-depth.  On a related note, this  film production company produced some films that do not even meet WP's standards of notability.  Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 07:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions .  Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 07:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 09:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Agha G. A. Gul .  I agree with Saqib's assessment.  This is a company so it has to meet WP:NCORP criteria.  Unfortunately, the coverage is trivial and mostly related to Evernew Studios which is a notable topic.  I still think there might be some offline coverage which we are missing in a simple before so please redirect it to Agha G. A. Gul for now.  2400:ADCC:144:8200:8483:7158:CABA:36A ( talk ) 11:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirection.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Evernew Studios or Agha G. A. Gul , both of them are notable topics and already have reliable references.  I agree both with Saqib's above nomination and the other above Wikipedia editor's suggestion of a Redirect...  Ngrewal1 ( talk ) 22:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Agha G. A. Gul as per WP:ATD - this company does not appear to meet our notability criteria so a redirect is the best option.  HighKing ++ 20:24, 4 July 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: redirect
WDWW-LD: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 09:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Georgia (U.S. state) .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 09:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.  : Looks like this has only carried full-time national services in its nearly 20 years, even before DTV America/HC2/Innovate took over.  I doubt this station has had any significant coverage at any point.  A remnant of the lower inclusion standards of 2009, and yet another nominal survivor of a 2023 bulk nomination of many HC2/Innovate station articles.  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 15:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:41, 31 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: redirect
Tap (gaming): There is Glossary of video game terms for this.  Does not seem independently notable.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 16:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 16:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I'm not overly familiar with the topic, but is the term "tap" only officially used with Magic, with other card games that use the same style of gameplay using their own terms for it?   That is the impression I am getting from the current article, at least.  If that is the case, then a redirect to Magic: The Gathering rules#Tapping and untapping might be the best bet.  The suggested Glossary of video game terms would not really be appropriate in this case, as this is a Collectible card game term, not a video game term.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to collectible card game .  Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICTIONARY and the best way to cover this is in the context of the style of game where it comes up.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 01:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] redirect Actually, with the related patent and coverage of it maybe there is enough to get an article?   Or maybe we could get a "standard mechanics of CCGs" article?    But for now, I think Shooterwalker is correct even if that merge target isn't ideal.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit ( talk • contribs ) 19:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to the entry on Wiktionary [8] .  It has an entry there already, refs might be merged but I don't think the details in the article are appappropriate for a merge.  // Timothy :: talk 04:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  21:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to collectible card game .  Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICTIONARY I believe Shooterwalker has the best suggestion.  Equine-man ( talk ) 10:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect for now, GNG does not appear to be met.  I wonder if we need a glossary of board game terms ?  PS.  To be clear, I think this term may be used in board games (card games) other than CCGs too.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:17, 25 April 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: redirect
SMC 018136: Either delete the page or redirect it to list of largest stars .  SpaceImplorer ExplorerImplorer 08:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of largest stars .  User:Hamterous1 ( discuss anything!🐹✈️ ) 19:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of largest stars .  Non-notable topic by itself, but suitable for a list article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praemonitus ( talk • contribs ) 23:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of largest stars as {{ R to list entry }} : not notable but mentioned in the appropriate list.  InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 12:40, 29 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: redirect
Abdulmenam Al-Ghaithi: I was unable to find any reliable sources that are directly about him, only passing mentions in news articles about the floods.  He certainly fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV .  FatCat96 ( talk ) 02:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions .  FatCat96 ( talk ) 02:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Libya-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment He is the mayor of a state capital city in Libya.  Has anyone WP:BEFORE D Libyan sources to see if there's anything there?  If all we have is international flooding coverage he probably fails WP:GNG .  TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 21:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , without prejudice against recreation if somebody can do better.  As always, mayors (even mayors of capital cities) are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and pass NPOL #2 only if they're the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage to enable us to write a substantial article about the mayor's political impact : specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his leadership had on the development of the city, and on and so forth.  But that's not what's on offer here: "got quoted in media during floods" is not sufficient in and of itself, and the sources aren't about him in any non-trivial way.  Bearcat ( talk ) 15:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : as the mayor of the city worst affected by one of the deadliest typhoons in recent history I thought that notable.  I started the page because I thought it would be beneficial because Libya is so underrepresented on Wikipedia.  I've also noticed that most "notable mayors" are from western countries because media coverage is more prevalent.  Instead of deletion it should redirect back to Derna, Libya .  - Moondragon21 ( talk ) 18:22, 16 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: redirect
2019 Mesterfinalen: Geschichte ( talk ) 21:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Norway .  Shellwood ( talk ) 22:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Mesterfinalen#Editions#2019 .  It's a possible valid WP:STUB , place holder page with information, but I don't see much point off whats on the main article, so I suggest a redirect as it's covered what happened on the main page.  Govvy ( talk ) 09:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 15:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as above.  Giant Snowman 15:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect – Per above.  Svartner ( talk ) 19:20, 17 July 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: redirect
Joanie Taylor: Happy for a merge into The_Catherine_Tate_Show but even that character entry has a citation needed tag.  Qcne (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions .  Qcne (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to The_Catherine_Tate_Show .  Nothing to merge since there are no sources.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 09:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or redirect as WP:ATD .  No apparent sources, and safe to say there isn't enough WP:SIGCOV for a separate article.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 17:02, 23 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: redirect
Veterans Against Terrorism: The only source that mentions it in detail is the express.co.uk article.  Vice mentions it in passing.  Most of the sources lead to the dead website.  Qcne (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Politics ,  and United Kingdom .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] REDIRECT So I originally created this article just as a redirect to go along with this edit but when that edit was deleted in this diff the redirect no longer linked to anything about Veterans Against Terrorism.  If the article is to be deleted then I would request that the material in it be reinstated as a redirect to the history section of UK Independence Party to avoid WP:NOTCENSORED being breached.  The Vintage Feminist ( talk ) 02:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ The Vintage Feminist I think that's a good idea.  A subsection of the UKIP article makes sense.  Qcne (talk) 19:42, 16 August 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: redirect