hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
The Girl, the Gold Watch & Everything: — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and then redirect , per said discussion.  - Sumanuil .  (talk to me) 00:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm a bit confused, as this article was BOLDly merged without opposition, and categorized {{ R from merge }} .  Today, the nominator restored the article and placed the AfD notice in a single edit

Discussion outcome: keep
Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining: Most contributions to this article are from connected contributors, as noted on talk page.  -- Beland ( talk ) 07:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Engineering .  Beland ( talk ) 07:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep By definition learned societies lead research and thinking in their field, publish the authoritative journals, and have all leading figures in their fellowships.  There is rarely going to be a plethora of third party sources as there might be for k-pop stars, Pokémon or footballers.  Nevertheless a quick search brought up 1 , 2 and 3 .  Mccapra ( talk ) 21:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : the Institute meets all the requirement for WP:SIGCOV .  It is THE institute for material scientists and recognised by both the UK Science and Engineering Councils.  IOM3 came to existence following the merger of the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy (founded 1892 which also a result of a different merger that involved the Iron and Steel Institute followed by the Metal Institute) and the Institute of Materials.  Actually the prizes/awards that this institute give defines the notability of multiple academics here (e.g., Bessemer Gold Medal ) not to mention their fellows ( FIMMM ) although their notability based on FIMMMM alone can be debated when compared to FRS and FREng .  I won't lie, I am bit baffled by this nom!  : FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 12:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Mccapra and FuzzyMagma.  Passes WP:SIGCOV .  Sal2100 ( talk ) 15:35, 21 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
Jaxson Rahme: JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby league , Lebanon ,  and Australia .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Lebanese international rugby league footballer who played multiple times at the Rugby League World Cup.  Nine sources.  Fleets ( talk ) 15:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Whilst not having an extensive coverage nor a known first grade career, we tend to keep articles of those who have played in the World Cup.  LibStar ( talk ) 01:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to see if editors arguing to Keep can address the nominator's concern about a lack of significant coverage.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : World Cup player, needs expansion.  Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:36, 22 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
ALCO 251: Only sources are from railfan websites, which lack proper sourcing.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Transportation .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 14:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Info - Note to closer for soft deletion : This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum .  There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located.  This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.  Related discussions : 2011-06 V18 engine (closed as Kept - withdrawn by nominator) -- Cewbot ( talk ) 00:02, 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!  01:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Since it has two general independent published sources, its age should give it grandfather rights to prevent deletion.  As for inline citations using RS, I note that one of the two listed sources (Steinbrenner) is heavily quoted on the ALCO 241 and ALCO 244 articles, and that there is a section on the 251 in Kirkland, John F. (1989).  The Diesel Builders, volume 2: Alco and MLW .  Glendale, California: Interurban Press.  ISBN 0-916374-81-5 .  .  Kirkland was not a railfan, he was a fomer Baldwin engineer.  So, I feel that the proposers supposition that there are no RS for this article is false.  — Iain Bell ( talk ) 09:00, 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!  02:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  It would be helpful if there was an evaluation the addition of new content to the article since its nomination.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per WP:HEY due to the added sourcing.  - UtherSRG (talk) 16:39, 12 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
Hochheim, Thuringia: This article has only 3 sentences as the article has no references.  This article should be deleted.  Geko72290 ( talk ) 21:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Germany .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] comment This article is going to be kept, based upon the content of the German and French WP articles, which are extensive.  There is even a claim to notability (which our article on Meister Eckhart says isn't true, but...).  It has a population in the hundreds, so it's not just a dot on the map.  That said, it's a junk stub that could just as well be recreated from scratch as expanded.  Mangoe ( talk ) 01:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There is abundant material at German Wiki, some of which I've just added to get things going.  Bermicourt ( talk ) 08:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  From the German article, this is a notable village.  It could have potentially been merged upwards at nomination time, but thanks to Bermicourt now has enough content to stand on its own.  — Kusma ( talk ) 16:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GEOLAND .  Markussep Talk 10:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Clearly meets WP:GEOLAND .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:25, 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: keep
List of gacha games: QuietCicada ( talk ) 13:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  QuietCicada ( talk ) 13:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep "A category already exists" is not a valid argument to delete a list.  Lists and categories serve different purposes and can exist together.  The idea of a gatcha game passes WP:LISTN as a viable subject matter to merit a list.  The idea of it only encompassing English games is indeed nonsensical, but deletion is WP:NOTCLEANUP .  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and I support this reasoning fully.  Killuminator ( talk ) 15:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I'm blanking on what the link is, hopefully someone else can find it - but it basically says that redundancy to categories are not an issue, so you may want to take another angle or this will likely be kept pretty quickly.  There might be some sort of WP:INDISCRIMINATE type argument towards deletion - there's a lot of gacha games out there these days - but I'm not sure.  Sergecross73 msg me 14:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You're probably looking for WP:NOTDUP .  — siro χ o 20:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, thank you, that's it.  All I could think of was CATDUP which is of course irrelevant to this.  Sergecross73 msg me 22:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Defaulting to Keep , as it's been a few days and the nominator has failed to advance a rationale that doesn't violate WP:NOTDUP .  Sergecross73 msg me 14:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep Took a moment to evaluate, readily passes WP:NLIST .  And indeed, WP:NOTDUP .   — siro χ o 03:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Yeah this passes WP:NLIST and I am not seeing anything else wrong with this list.  Mori Calliope fan talk 17:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above -- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:36, 2 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
Murder in Small Town X: Spent 10+ years with additional citation requests.  Only lasted 8 episodes, and only claim to notability is that a contestant died after the show finished airing in the 9/11 attacks, which have nothing to do with the show.  Macktheknifeau ( talk ) 20:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  Macktheknifeau ( talk ) 20:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Without exception, most American primetime broadcast series always meet WP:N and pass GNG easily (and will easily pass with one additional source), and I'd argue that a contestant being a victim of that tragedy only adds to that N/GNG.  Nate • ( chatter ) 20:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Although this was MANY years ago, I provided a lot of information from every episode I have watched.  I don't think this should be deleted.  And the episodes should still be available on YouTube.  DarkFireYoshi ( talk ) 03:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I added references from three newspaper articles: " Fox's Murder in Small Town X turns players into detectives " (Quad-City Times), " Reality TV, 'murder' intertwine in new series " (Lansing State Journal), and " Tue Best Bets " (Fort Worth Star-Telegram).  This is enough to satisfy WP:NTV .  Toughpigs ( talk ) 03:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Those are all routine, insignificant coverage and not enough to establish notability.  In my opinion.  Macktheknifeau ( talk ) 10:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The first article is 12 paragraphs long from an independent, reliable source.  The second is 22 paragraphs long.  They discuss the subject in detail, including production information and quotes on the creators' intentions.  If this seems routine, that's only because, as Nate says above, American primetime broadcast series tend to get coverage like this, and are therefore considered notable.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 15:27, 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
Tashika ni: Fails WP:ALBUM .  UtherSRG (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Japan .  UtherSRG (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The single went to #15 in the national Oricon chart in Japan in 2007, per Oricon , so this does pass the requirements of WP:NALBUM .  Direct coverage (including interpretation of the composition and discussion of the commercial indicated in the article) includes this and this .  I'm sure there is more out there, so inclined to keep .  Dekimasu よ!  01:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The song went to #15.  The single is distinct from the song.  - UtherSRG (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, Oricon does not distinguish between the song and the single.  The normal version of the song and an instrumental version of the same song were the entirety of the single, and this was before songs were generally being sold alone online in Japan.  If you want the article to be edited so that it is made clear what satisfies WP:NALBUM / WP:NSONG , that doesn't seem like a problem.  As far as the deletion discussion is concerned this seems like a distinction without a difference.  Dekimasu よ!  12:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 21:25, 20 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!  21:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Dekimasu's analysis above.  Also, Oricon introduced its digital sales charts only in 2017 and the combined chart (which sums digital and physical sales) in 2018, i.e. the 2007 charting only belongs to physical sales, i.e. the single.  -- C avarrone 07:03, 4 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
Rosea Kemp: Fails WP:BIO .  LibStar ( talk ) 23:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , United Kingdom ,  and Australia .  LibStar ( talk ) 23:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Part of a set of articles on Desert Island Discs castaways (see List of Desert Island Discs episodes (1961–1970) ).  Featured subject in an entire episode of a national radio programme.  Mentioned in several print sources by dint of that appearance and more.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 23:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Described as "a trailblazer for women in Australian meteorology" in The Encyclopedia of Australian Science and Innovation .  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 23:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Science .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  In addition to the sources noted by

Discussion outcome: keep
William Field (Australian pastoralist): All the rest are passing mentions of some kind.  NN, fails WP:GNG .  UtherSRG (talk) 12:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Businesspeople , Crime , United Kingdom , England ,  and Australia .  UtherSRG (talk) 12:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  You have the book Cattle King of Van Diemen's Land, William Field (1774-1837) , as well as the articles in The All-Time Australian 200 Rich List and the Launceston Historical Society.  That adds up to notability.  I agree that the court documents don't count for notability.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 14:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Eastman, with one exception that I think the Court documents are still relevant to the article and should be kept even if not specifically counting to notability.  Deus et lex ( talk ) 23:57, 24 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!  19:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per WP:GNG.  Good sourcing.  Court documents should be kept as well.  BabbaQ ( talk ) 18:48, 30 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
Barbara H. Stuart: All 7 sources provided are primary.  LibStar ( talk ) 03:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Women , Science ,  and Australia .  LibStar ( talk ) 03:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - She has a high h-index score of 39 on Google Scholar.  Her work has been cited over 13,000 times.  [23] Netherzone ( talk ) 04:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The citations count, h-index, and i10-index seem respectable enough.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 04:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Passes WP:Prof#C1 .  Would the nominator care to comment?  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 04:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC) .  [ reply ] I trust your judgement Xxanthippe so will withdraw this.  LibStar ( talk ) 04:45, 20 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: keep
Chris Mayotte: A search on the web shows that there are no secondary sources about him, so there are no spaces for improvement.  Timothytyy ( talk ) 10:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Tennis ,  and United States of America .  Timothytyy ( talk ) 10:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - it looks like it has citations to me.  He was a notable player in his day.  Fyunck(click) ( talk ) 07:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] FYI the sources were added later.  Timothytyy ( talk ) 10:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The fact that these sources were added shows your claim "there are no secondary sources about him" to be incorrect. -- Wolbo ( talk ) 10:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Wolbo I couldn't access all the newly-added citations.  All of them were local newspapers.  So yeah, I agree, my claim "there are no secondary sources about him" is incorrect after all, just because I couldn't find them online.  Timothytyy ( talk ) 11:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Then perhaps what you should be doing is adding a template that we need more sources rather than frivolous deletion requests.  Fyunck(click) ( talk ) 19:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - notable player who won three doubles titles on the highest tour level and is sufficiently sourced. -- Wolbo ( talk ) 10:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The Berkshire Eagle 's cited article is a very good source (clip [43] ), The State's less so as it consists of little secondary coverage and mostly relies on what Mayotte's saying/quotes instead.  Hartford Courant's one is more of a Chris Mayotte vs Jeff Aarts match recap.  I'm struggling to find something more in Newspapers beyond passing mentions, routine announcements or match recaps and listings.  However, it's hard to put down someone who played over 170 matches total in ATP Tour, was in top 90 in singles and won 3 doubles titles, that's an overwhelming pass of WP:NTENNIS .  If there was not a single significant coverage I'd lean on delete, but collectively I think it edges out a keep from me.  Jovanmilic97 ( talk ) 23:40, 17 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: keep
KCNZ-CD: Could merge into KOFY-TV as they share spectrum.  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 02:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 02:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It got full writeups in the San Francisco Chronicle , Mercury News , and USA Today between 1998 and 2000.  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 06:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 04:44, 18 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!  05:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep per sources added by Sammi Brie, which I cannot access but AGF based on the editor and my impression of them that there is enough here.  Eddie891 Talk Work 13:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : apart from clear WP:NSUSTAINED over the years, there is now strong sourcing both in local publications as well as international (like BBC ) She was a fairy 02:00, 3 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