hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Hey Everybody: This a procedural nomination and I am neutral.  2 different IPs have also attempted to PROD this article, so let's just get this discussion out of the way.  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions .  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Perfectly reasonable dab with seven entries.  * Pppery * it has begun... 16:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep per WP:CSK #3.  WP:ONEOTHER refers to one other topic , not one other article .   This is a perfectly reasonable disambiguation page.  IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️ ) 17:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I already made additions to fix the WP:ONEOTHER problem yesterday, so there's no need for this article to be deleted or have PROD templates placed on it anymore.  B3251 ( talk ) 17:38, 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
Polly Namaye: Sources 2-4 are dead.  Fails WP:BIO .  No notability from the roles she has had.  LibStar ( talk ) 00:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Uganda .  LibStar ( talk ) 00:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Subject not notable, just known as a police woman.  From searches on google she still doesn't meet WP:GNG . -- Meligirl5 ( talk ) 10:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Please review improvements made to the article since its nomination.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There is coverage of Namaye in the news, with the three best sources as follows [26] , [27] , [28] .  These articles discuss her career path, her role in the police department, and cases she has been involved with.  DaffodilOcean ( talk ) 22:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Sources provided above by DaffodilOcean enable subject to pass WP:GNG .  - The Gnome ( talk ) 13:15, 29 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!  06:24, 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: keep
Freight Farms: Doesn't pass WP:CORP .  Four of the references are from the company's own webpage and one is from Kickstarter.  The only real source is BI.  Uhooep ( talk ) 13:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Some coverage from an NPR story [56] .  With the BI article, I think we're ok.  Needs a rewrite though.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions .  A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 14:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions .  A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 14:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep When I created the article years ago I referenced the ample coverage in reliable sources at https://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2013/06/27/grow-produce-anywhere-in-freight-farms-60000-truck/? sh=321f4d0e4cb0 and https://newatlas.com/freight-farms-cropbox-shipping-container-farms/36689/ but the current version seems to not have those.   I click the news search at the top of the AFD and I easily find https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/apr/16/boston-organic-food-farming-agriculture-startups and https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-17/boston-based-freight-farms-takes-high-density-urban-farming-to-a-new-level as well.  D r e a m Focus 15:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Analysis of the proposed source material would be quite helpful.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The sources listed above by Dream Focus (which need to be re-added to the article) are sufficient to pass the WP:SIGCOV test.  A. Randomdude0000 ( talk ) 17:21, 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: keep
Radio Reșița: -- NGC 54 ( talk ｜ contribs ) 15:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Romania .  Shellwood ( talk ) 15:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Czech government thinks they're useful (?) Elinruby ( talk ) 23:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Link Elinruby ( talk ) 23:30, 10 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!  23:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Seems to have ample coverage (and also considerable importance).  Looks to have been at the center of some significant political controversies in 2019 and 2020 .  Even the subject of some English-language analysis from journalistic and technical perspectives (although I suspect that the latter "journal" is not an RS) and some very interesting political analysis .  One show from the station appears to have given rise to an entire book.  Here is a story from RRC about the station's 25th anniversary that contains some interesting background (independence may be an issue for that one, although I'm a bit unclear how closely the different public stations in Romania are related).  In sum, although I am ill-placed to evaluate the sources, even with my very poor Romanian search skills there doesn't seem to be any shortage of sources.  Unclear why nom considered what appears to be a prominent and fairly controversial station to be "not notable".  -- Visviva ( talk ) 00:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the great work done above by Visviva . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 15:39, 23 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
Chesley Awards: Only primary sources and non independent sources seem to exist.  Big Money Threepwood ( talk ) 15:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions .  Big Money Threepwood ( talk ) 15:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:07, 22 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!  18:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If this is to be an encyclopedia, then it should be encyclopedic.  Deleting articles because an editor is not familiar with a topic, as seems to be the case here, where this chap @ Big Money Threepwood refers to the award as being "non notable," is counter to the very concept of creating an encyclopedic source of information.  Independent sources abound for those willing to look.  The award has been around for many decades.  Edifice of the Cosmic Overarch ( talk ) 05:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There's a whole book about them .  They are cited frequently in this reference work about fantasy art .  The results are covered every year by trade publications ( ProQuest 232540284 , ProQuest 205466020 , [34] , [35] ).  Jfire ( talk ) 00:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Was a literature search even done before starting this AfD?  Yes, the article needs work and more citations.  However, saying the " pinnacle award in the (SF/F) genre for art " is non-notable is ridiculous.  This article absolutely meets notability guidelines. -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 19:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Why in the world would this article be deleted?  The article may need some work, but the Chesley Awards are of historical and contemporary significance.  This is an important article.  Look at the awards that the biggest names in SF&F art mention in their bios and you will see the Chesley listed.  Look no further than Bob Eggleton as an example.  JollyGreenOgre ( talk ) 19:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Funny coincidence, I have literally read the book listed (a long time ago, grant you).  This clearly meets WP:GNG .  Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 18:17, 5 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
R. Brian Ferguson: The sources don't seem to say anything about him receiving any awards, honors, fellowships, etc.  Just looks like he's sold some books and been featured a couple times by Scientific American , but I don't know how massive an accomplishment that really is.  It's also worth noting that the article may have been created by an editor with a conflict of interest who otherwise hasn't made a ton of edits .  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 18:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Social science , New Jersey ,  and New York .  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 18:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions .  TJMSmith ( talk ) 18:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In terms of meeting NPROF, it can be satisfied if they are often quoted as an expert in mainstream media.  Scientific American counts, but I think we'd need at lease one more other source quoting him.  Does anyone have any?  BhamBoi ( talk ) 18:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Passes WP:Prof .  Nominator is advised to learn the policy guidelines that apply to a topic before editing there.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 22:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC) .  [ reply ] I mean it's not like I didn't read those guidelines.  Calling something "not my area of expertise" doesn't mean I know nothing about it.  And by my judgment, as I said above, I don't believe this article passes by those standards, so I ask what makes you think otherwise.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 23:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  His books have reviews, and the citation count is fairly high for anthropology, passed NPROF-C1.  -- Mvqr ( talk ) 12:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : In defense of the nominator, it took me a while before I fully understood the nuances of WP:NPROF ; it's certainly one of our most complicated notability criteria.  The subject seems to quite easily pass on just raw citations, which is also an indicator that, as an anthropologist, he may also WP:NAUTHOR on reviews, though I haven't checked this latter part yet.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 16:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The alleged complexity of a policy is no excuse for failing to parse it correctly.  If you can’t stand the heat keep out of the kitchen.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 00:02, 1 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
Argja Bóltfelag: Boleyn ( talk ) 20:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , long and well-covered history, [4] and countless other sources.  Geschichte ( talk ) 20:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Football , Denmark ,  and Islands .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 21:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Long history, indeed; and it has been a first-division club in the Faroe Islands, whether or not it is semi-pro and fully professional is immaterial, as very, very few clubs in the Faroese system are fully professional.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 02:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No Faroese teams are fully professional, KÍ had 5 full-time players last season.  As you say, though, the pro status is not the deciding factor when it comes to the clubs' respective cultural relevance within their country.  It is however an unfortunate trend in Wikipedia to add the moniker "professional" to players and clubs to make them seem more important.  The other day, I removed "professional" from a club in the El Salvador third division.  It was obviously not true, and even when it is, a club only has one or very few teams that are professional when the rest (age-specific) are not.  Geschichte ( talk ) 07:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - top-level team, clearly notable. The fact it is semi-pro is totally irrelevant. Giant Snowman 19:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Per @ Geschichte . Svartner ( talk ) 14:20, 1 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
Garett Nolan: No new sources have been added since article was tagged two years ago.  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 07:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 07:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Military , Cycling , Internet ,  and Pennsylvania .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Coverage in the various entertainment tv shows and magazines.  This is a RS [84] .  This [85] .  On the whole, seems ok.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for sufficient sourcing and coverage.  Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 00:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Although sources in the article might not be adequate, sufficient SIGCOV can be found online.  It would help if the nom could add new sources instead of nominating this for deletion without doing a BEFORE .  Timothytyy ( talk ) 08:10, 29 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
Deshawon Nembhard: Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 00:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Belize .  Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 00:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 18:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - clearly no search for sources, given that the first page of Google News brings up 1 , 2 , 3 .  Giant Snowman 18:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , passes GNG.  No BEFORE was done. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 23:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , has enough sources. -- Mvqr ( talk ) 10:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails GNG.  8/9 sources currently in his article aren't independent of Nembhard.  amandala.com.bz source is a mention in a squad list.  1 is a match report where the Nembhard specific coverage is "man plays football match" and "has three caps", 2 has a paragraph on Nembhard, takes large quotes from a Football Federation of Belize press release and this article which is a copy and paste of this .  3 contains slightly more on him but nowhere near enough for a GNG pass.  Dougal18 ( talk ) 14:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per GiantSnowman, Ortiesp, and Mvqr.  Internatiojallt capped player withn ongoing career and already has good sources.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 16:29, 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
Hanoi University of Pharmacy: Perhaps merge into Hanoi .  Qcne (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions .  Qcne (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Vietnam .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] this is the same place as Hanoi Medical University .  PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 01:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  It seems okay now.  Hanoi Medical University is not the same.  The two institutions were split many years ago.  The article could be expanded by adding text from the corresponding article in the Vietnamese Wikipedia at vi:Trường Đại học Dược Hà Nội .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 08:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] we make it one article and provide the inital history & cover the splitting PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 01:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  We generally keep state-accredited universities.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Per Necrothesp 's comment.  Wikipedialuva ( talk ) 08:41, 4 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
The Queen's Head (Portland, Oregon): Only existed for 1 year.  Could not significant coverage except in local publications.  Even a search in oregonlive.com yielded nothing.  Fails GNG.  LibStar ( talk ) 01:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Business , Sexuality and gender ,  and Oregon .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on the WP:RS the place is notable per WP:NTEMP .  We also have no requirement that RS be national or international, just reliable.  Lightburst ( talk ) 18:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep interesting and substantive article, which is currently being edited for improvement, bringing its sources up to date.   Definitely informative and worth keeping.  — Maile ( talk ) 15:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per GNG (disclaimer: article creator).  The subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and in my opinion, this is too much content to merge into LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon .  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep given the quickly dwindling number of gay and lesbian bars in North America, they are by and large all notable.  Foxtrot620 ( talk ) 22:22, 2 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
Evelyn Terry (artist): Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  Artist of the year in a large  city, 1 , work acquired by a state museum, 2 , biography featured in state-wide media, 3 , and profiled in a book about artists from Wisconsin, 4 .  -- Jaireeodell ( talk ) 13:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Noted Wisconsin artist.  Meets WP:ARTIST #4(d) with works in the collections of several notable museums.  Significant coverage includes a multiple page entry in Famous Wisconsin Artists and Architects .  gobonobo + c 10:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  As per @ Gobonobo , seems sufficiently notable, a benefit to the encyclopedia.  CT55555 ( talk ) 22:46, 30 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