hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Armenians of Julfa: We don't need this article.  Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 21:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Armenia ,  and Azerbaijan .  Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 21:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Support : per nomination.  Nemoralis ( talk ) 06:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose well sourced, passes WP:GNG .  - K evo 3 2 7 ( talk ) 08:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We can't have articles for the historical Armenian population of every place once inhabited by them.  I am aware of the cultural importance of Julfa for Armenians, but we have a lot of much better articles where this information can be perfectly covered.  Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 11:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge the history section to Julfa, Azerbaijan (city)#History , but the cemetery portion is already covered by the dedicated article, so no need to merge that.  ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 20:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose per above rationale.  Archives908 ( talk ) 19:20, 28 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!  00:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: No consensus so far.  Also "We don't need this article" is not a strong deletion rationale as editors, in good faith, can disagree on what articles are "needed" on the project.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Appears to pass WP:SIGCOV .  Oppose merge through this AFD for procedural reasons.  The content could possibly be merged as suggested above but that should be done through a formal merge proposal at WP:MERGEPROP where notices can be placed at the targeted merge article and the threat of deletion removed from that discussion.  I advocate for this because in my opinion merging this content could create WP:UNDUEWEIGHT in the suggested merge article, and it it might be preferable to either let it remain a stand alone article, or merge to one of the other articles mentioned by the nominator (such as Armenians in Azerbaijan which I think would be a better merge target than Julfa, Azerbaijan (city)#History ).  4meter4 ( talk ) 01:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Plenty of sources and notability.  Nocturnal781 ( talk ) 02:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and do not merge per 4meter4 's thoughtful analysis.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:27, 10 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
Nadine Rohr: Fails WP:SPORTBASIC Shinadamina ( talk ) 19:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Sportspeople ,  and Switzerland .  Shinadamina ( talk ) 19:10, 12 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
Christopher Green (legal scholar): Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators , Law , United States of America ,  and Mississippi .  UtherSRG (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Not seeing evidence that the subject meets WP:PROF.  Possibly too early career, the subject appears to have received his PhD in 2006.  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 02:22, 7 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!  23:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- found that he holds a named chair as a full professor at a well-established large institution which is an automatic keep category per WP:NPROF .  -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per User:Mscuthbert .  BD2412 T 02:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Clear pass of WP:PROF#C5 .  His citation numbers are respectable but not huge (134 for "Originalism and the Sense-Reference Distinction" and then going down from there) but I have the impression that constitutional law is a low-citation subject so I don't find this particularly concerning.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 20:27, 20 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
Rugby League Conference Yorkshire Premier: Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia.  Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply.  Mn1548 ( talk ) 20:34, 11 June 2024 (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/2024 June 11 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 21:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Rugby league ,  and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : As it is known where this league falls into the wider structure via refs on the RLC page, I would lean towards keeping the article if a few more references could be found.  Will work on incorporating those refs onto this page.  Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Alternative : Redirect to Yorkshire Men's League .  Mn1548 ( talk ) 15:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Update after 1 week : Merge and Redirect to Yorkshire Men's League as successor competition.  Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:52, 18 June 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
Osirica: The concept is spelt as either 'Osirica' and 'Osiriaca'.  Although tagged as a possible hoax, it doesn't seem to be one.  The idea exists, though it's not notable enough and the works it appears in are rejected by most historians.  Sgubaldo ( talk ) 12:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions .  Owen× ☎ 13:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- In addition to the (probably not RS) books mentioned above this order is also discussed in C.H. Vail's "Ancient Mysteries and Modern Masonry" and "African-American Artists and Art Students: A Morphological Study in the Urban Black Aesthetic." which is a Penn State dissertation by M.N. DePillars.  This is enough to meet the GNG even though these sources aren't currently used in the article.  Central and Adams ( talk ) 15:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you mind specifying the page numbers?  I've managed to find online copies of both sources, but I can't find where the topic is mentioned.  Sgubaldo ( talk ) 08:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , as per Central and Adams .  - Samoht27 ( talk ) 18:18, 10 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!  07:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep it documents a notable historical and cultural organization that significantly contributes to the preservation and promotion of ancient Egyptian heritage and African identity.  Additionally, the article provides verifiable information about Osirica's unique initiatives and influence, supported by reliable sources that affirm its impact and relevance. -- Improvised but so real unicorn ( talk ) 11:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What are you talking about?  The article talks about a historic masonic order, not a cultural organisation promoting ancient Egyptian heritage.  It also has no sources, so where are these "reliable sources that affirm its impact and relevance" you speak of?  Sgubaldo ( talk ) 11:56, 16 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
Ronald Colson: Award won seems notable, but there is not sourcing that discusses him.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , unless I am missing something, this individual has been nominated for three Grammy awards thus meeting WP:MUSICBIO#C8 .  (some verification from a trade publication [72] ) — siro χ o 00:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I figured as much, but I was unable to locate sources that confirmed the nominations for the Grammy.  To me, it seemed like a name in a list of people; I'd assume for the article to be kept, we'd need some other discussion of the person.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Indeed, the guidelines state notability is presumed, not guaranteed, so other discussion can help affirm that presumption, but with the SNG being met, we don't need to go so far as to meet GNG or WP:BASIC .  I think that when the notability guideline is met, we would need clear consensus that the presumption is not valid in the specific case to not use the guideline in that case.  I guess we'll see where the consensus lands.  Either way, we do need some amount of sourcing for WP:V .  — siro χ o 05:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The claim of notability is there and it's backed by sources like this one which provide in-depth coverage about the subject, with ample additional sources available to be added to flesh out further details about the subject beyond the list of songs.  With that, the notability standard has been met.  Alansohn ( talk ) 12:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep In addition to what others have noted, the Grammy  website has a page for Colson stating his nominations.  Significa liberdade ( talk ) 20:45, 24 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
Courtney Niemiec: Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 01:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Pennsylvania .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 01:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  W C M email 07:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Does not meet WP:GNG , with a complete lack of secondary sources.  Let'srun ( talk ) 15:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Note when searching for sources that her name is now Courtney Tole per her current employer .  - Socccc ( talk ) 22:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep.  The Oregonian ran a short feature on her going from undrafted to starter in 2014, as did CBS News Philly/KYW Newsradio ; unclear if that's enough.  The rest I could find were more clearly not SIGCOV.  The club appearances count was also wrong (21, not 27).  Also added detail about her post-retirement move to coaching and changed her name.  - Socccc ( talk ) 23:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - @ Wee Curry Monster : , @ Let'srun : , Per Soccc.  Has sources like [33] , [34] , and [35] , made 27+ appearances in the NWSL , regarded as one of best women's league in world...  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 17:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Due to sources listed by Das osmnezz.  MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above which show notability.  Giant Snowman 09:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY , per sources highlighted within this discussion which are now cited in the article.  Kudos to Socccc for improving the article which is in much better shape than when it was first nominated for deletion.  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 04:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources provided by Socccc and Das osmnezz, enough to meet WP:GNG .  S.A. Julio ( talk ) 18:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep - I think there's just enough coverage in The Oregonian and CBS New Philadelphia pieces to suggest WP:GNG can be met here.  Jogurney ( talk ) 14:33, 25 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
Antisemitism in Columbia University: Mostly just a list of vaguely related incidents.  Esolo5002 ( talk ) 15:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination , Ethnic groups , Education , Schools , Religion , Judaism ,  and New York .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 16:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep You have at least three things going on here:  1) Historic antisemitism at ivy league schools, which have plenty of RS'es  2) current protest events being alternatively branded as anti-Zionist or antisemitic, also covered in a lot of RS'es but as current events rather than historical reflection, and  3) commentaries connecting the two.   I don't see how we can avoid covering this, even if the ultimate focus needs to be bigger than Columbia and the ultimate title needs to be different.  An AfD may be a good place to start such a discussion, but I doubt it will end up resolved well here.  Jclemens ( talk ) 17:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] For the record, the protests themselves are already being covered at 2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus occupation .  Esolo5002 ( talk ) 17:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Some parts of this page might be merged to 2024_Columbia_University_pro-Palestinian_campus_occupation#Allegations_of_antisemitism .  Or they might be used to cover the alleged recent wave of antisemitism in multiple US universities, not just Columbia.  However, given the framing of the subject of the page (i.e. it even covers 20th century), it seems to stand as a separate page.  My very best wishes ( talk ) 17:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Unfortunately given what's happened, an article like this needs to exist, despite the creation by a sock.  WP:GNG MaskedSinger ( talk ) 05:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Why was there no discussion on the talk page before it was nominated for deletion?  MaskedSinger ( talk ) 05:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep by SNOW.  The issue of quality may be valid, and the creation issue definitely is, but it meets GNG (whether or not some content needs to be merged somewhere else), and no reason for deletion exists.  FortunateSons ( talk ) 11:07, 2 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
Bridge 9 Records: Graywalls ( talk ) 11:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Companies ,  and Massachusetts .  Graywalls ( talk ) 11:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep : I found these articles: [31] , [32] .   They seem sufficiently in-depth, but might be too interview-y to establish notability.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 15:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Certainly one of the more important indies in the sense used at WP:MUSIC ; the label released some of the most noteworthy punk rock of the last two decades (note that the nominator gutted this article of its discography immediately before nominating it for deletion, and it should be restored).  As for coverage, there's more beyond what WeirdNAnnoyed dug up: [33] , [34] , [35] , [36] .  Amusingly, the label even makes the punk tabloids when Ben Affleck wears their t-shirt .  Chubbles ( talk ) 18:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above.  Also want to add: The Athletic: "one of Boston's most influential hardcore and punk labels" and Washington Post coverage .  Issan Sumisu ( talk ) 16:54, 20 December 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
Under the Radar Volume 2: Shellwood ( talk ) 21:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for pinging me. I don't have a huge amount of emotional investment or interest here (I was more interested in the topic five-ten years ago, when I worked on these pages), but I think there are a range of sources which can help establish notability.  These look useful, for instance: https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/2017/0711/889410-robbie-williams-to-raid-old-songs-for-new-album/ https://www.nme.com/news/music/robbie-williams-announces-new-album-under-the-radar-volume-2-2107942 https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/3118657/robbie-williams-set-to-release-new-album-under-the-radar-volume-2-on-youtube/ (n.b. godawful as it is, I think The Sun is still considered an RS on Wikipedia?) https://www.digitalspy.com/music/a832882/robbie-williams-new-album-arse-out-again/ https://www.attitude.co.uk/culture/film-tv/robbie-williams-gets-naked-on-cover-of-new-album-293288/ -- Jonie148 ( talk ) 08:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Voting keep per Jonie148. I think there's enough coverage for a short but helpful album entry here. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:34, 24 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!  21:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per Jonie148's findings.  Bhivuti45 ( talk ) 10:58, 30 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
David Shimer: He doesn't seem that notable based on Wikipedia:Notability_(people) criteria , having only published one book and that book does not seem to be that impactful to me.  EvilxFish ( talk ) 10:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Journalism , History , England , Connecticut ,  and Washington, D.C. .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The book reviews cited in the article exceed notability standards.  Showrunner312 ( talk ) 18:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Probably passes AUTHOR with book reviews in the Guardian, Washington Post and NY Times [61] , [62] and [63] Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : And a long, rambling NPR discussion/review/analysis thing [64] .  Not to be negative, but they always have lots to say about stuff...  Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as the book reviews included above show that he passes notability standards for authors.  DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 04:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This article plainly passes Notability standards.  81.134.244.122 ( talk ) 23:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This strikes me as having been written by the author.  Ambleside1805 ( talk ) 23:12, 29 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
Roll No 21: It does not have in-depth analysis or substantial coverage in reputable publications.  The references cited are primarily primary sources or do not offer the necessary independent verification of the show's notability.  M S Hassan ( talk ) 14:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Comics and animation ,  and India .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Article in The Hindu.  Award.  One of the first Indian original production of Cartoon Network.  Maybe that would have deserved a more elaborate rationale for deletion this time?  See also https://showtimepandit.com/roll-no-21-shocking-story-behind-its-downfall/ (expert "blog"); mentioned here (see table) https://www.business-standard.com/article/specials/tv-shows-for-kids-enter-golden-age-in-india-116101700922_1.html .  Absolutely opposed to deletion.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 07:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have elaborated the rationale for deletion, Thank you for your feedback.  M S Hassan ( talk ) 08:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks!  I think the article in The Hindu is both in-depth and independent, though, and it's a pretty reputable newspaper.  The program has received an award and multiple sources describe it as very popular (see above, or this ) and significant .  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 08:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : passes WP:NTV and is a reputed and notable series.  Imsaneikigai ( talk ) 11:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Passes WP:GNG .  Cartoon is popular and has won significant awards at Cartoon Network Super Toon Awards with CN Super Toon of the Year, Chatur Toon and Loser Villain.  RangersRus ( talk ) 13:53, 17 June 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