hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Wayne Perryman: Boleyn ( talk ) 18:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - While the NYTimes article isn't really WP:INDEPENDENT , Huffpost contributor article is not WP:RELIABLE , the Intellectual Conservative review is not bad.  It actually helped me find a strong Sports Illustrated piece, Seattle Times (though this isn't very WP:INDEPENDENT so marginal contribution to notability), and claims that there are several others, though I can't find them online at the moment.  There are multiple YouTube videos from news organizations/reliable sources too (though they are speeches).  Regardless, I think notability is met here.  TLA (talk) 04:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am leaning Keep , although for opposite reasons sated above, and userfy .  The New York Times , whatever you might say about their editorial choices, is a reliable source .  I think, again, without agreeing to his opinions and controversies, appears to pass WP:SIGCOV .  However, the current state of the article is terrible, and it needs a lot of work.  Bearian ( talk ) 16:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I added to the article that Perryman is himself African--American and had first-hand experience of the issue of which he writes.   Seemed odd that the article never mentioned that.  — Maile ( talk ) 03:48, 17 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
Opolans: Crainsaw ( talk ) 16:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I added references from the corresponding articles in the Polish and German Wikipedias.  "Long gone" is never a valid reason for deletion.  Once notable, always notable.  And even before these references were added, the article included the statement that the tribe was mentioned by the Bavarian Geographer .  WP:BEFORE is really important.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 17:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Eastmain.  Mccapra ( talk ) 19:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 22:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Was a WP:BEFORE search even attempted?  I was able to easily find multiple books seemingly providing WP:SIGCOV ( [22] [23] ); [24] also provides good supplementary coverage.  That is also me only looking through English language sources; Silesian historiography is primarily written in German and Polish, so academic literature is far more likely to exist in those languages.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 23:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Found additional coverage in a German book: [25] .  Curbon7 ( talk ) 23:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Obviously notable as mentioned by the Bavarian Geographer.  Volunteer Marek 13:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Early Keep per WP:SNOW .  Good faith nominator may have missed WP:BEFORE B2 and D4, as both gBooks and gScholar search results have clear, non-trivial references.  Anyone here read both German and Polish?  Odds are this could be a very strong article with a little Liebe and Miłość.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 19:46, 20 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: keep
Ahmad Nabeel: Nothing of note found.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Medicine .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - mainly because he is the recipient of the Innovators Under 35 award by MIT, inventor of Klens, and was appointed as the state ambassador for Kuwait Vision 2035.  This leads me to believe that he has substantial notability.  Coverage is in major Kuwaiti newspapers such as Kuwait Times ( [48] ), Arab Times ( [49] ), Al-Anba ( [50] , [51] ), Al Qabas ( [52] ), or TV such as Al Majlis , or govenment publication [53] .  His research has been covered by Arabian Business ( [54] ) and MIT Technology Review ( [55] ).  The nominator's hint that these are SEO sites is egregious.  There is much more about him in Arabic.  Veltkemp ( talk ) 04:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  WP:NEXIST : appears to be very notable.  His biography has been included in the Arabic language curriculum in all of Kuwait's schools.  More coverage found: [56] , [57] , [58] , [59] , [60] , [61] .  142.189.8.164 ( talk ) 16:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets WP:GNG .  The person who loves reading ( talk ) 00:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Like to see more assessment of the sources provided.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  20:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: No comments since last relist Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, - 🔥 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌) 🔥 00:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist, it would be nice to hear from some editors experienced at AFD discussions.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I manually assessed the first three sources, they are independent and significant (never heard of these news sources before but I didn't find any outstanding problems).  This person got a lot of coverage for his breakthrough "Klens" and received the aforementioned international award, which should meet WP:NACADEMIC #2.  While this isn't exactly an academic I believe it's close enough, and the sources should meet GNG.  Also they definitely aren't SEO sites.  Aaron Liu ( talk ) 00:34, 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
Freeciv: This version of the game was anyway [12] .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And here [13] .  Multiple versions of the same article on wiki, this needs SALT.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I don't believe that Freeciv is the same as FCIV.net, although they are related.  The outcomes FCIV.net deletion discussions shouldn't affect this one.  – Pbrks ( t • c ) 15:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, came to say the same thing.  This article has been around since 2004 .  Haven't had time to check if it's notable or not yet, but the nomination should be revised to clear up this misunderstanding.  Sergecross73 msg me 16:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Actually, the article has been around since 2001.  Cardamon ( talk ) 05:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep Come on... research.  The prior AFD shows more than enough acceptable sourcing.  Conflating different topics together, this AFD is just procedurally wrong.  -- ferret ( talk ) 18:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the sources identified in the last AfD.  FCIV.NET is another topic.  Sungodtemple ( talk • contribs ) 21:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per my rationale in the previous AfD (see sources I listed there).  Pavlor ( talk ) 05:02, 19 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
Antonio Susini (baseball): Joeykai ( talk ) 12:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Did you try WP:BEFORE ?  [28] [29] – Muboshgu ( talk ) 15:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep clear pass of GNG based on the references presented by Muboshgu along with references currently in the article.  Frank Anchor 14:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep made national headlines for his murder of another ballplayer Agent Vodello OK, Let's Party, Darling!  03:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The recent sources added to the article each provide WP:SIGCOV of the subject.  Let'srun ( talk ) 14:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes GNG.  L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 20:48, 19 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
Rosenery Mello do Nascimento: Mooonswimmer 04:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This subject passes WP:GNG .  If there's a sourcing or WP:BLP problem that merits deletion, please specify.  I'm not used to ! keeping, so convince me.  JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 04:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] PS.  I'm not asking you to swallow everything on the Portuguese article , but my impression is enough sources are right there even if not every one of them meets our criteria here.  I am not saying the sources are "out there" because they are "right there."  Em português so what.  If you cared enough to AfD, why not spend time reading 30-odd (auto-translated if you need) publications?  And still AGF, maybe you'd add the ones you find reliable from pt wiki to this article?  But if you'd like WP:NAC instead, I'll help you there.  JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 05:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Brazil .  Shellwood ( talk ) 10:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - seems like a borderline case but subject appears to meet for inclusion based on coverage from 1989 World Cup match, the Playboy cover, and obituaries at her death.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 20:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In my opinion, it's more fame than notability.  Per WP:BIO1E : It is important to remember that "notable" is not a synonym for "famous".  Someone may have become famous due to one event, but may nevertheless be notable for more than one event.  Conversely, a person may be generally famous, but significant coverage may focus on a single event involving that person.  Most of the articles appear to cover her mostly in the context of the minor role she played in a (relatively insignificant) event.  Mooonswimmer 21:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree the case is borderline, on the other hand the Portuguese article seems to have pretty good coverage.  We should generally lean towards inclusion for such cases in my opinion.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 21:32, 23 August 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!  04:57, 30 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: keep
Anil V. Kumar: Youknowwhoistheman ( talk ) 12:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers .  Youknowwhoistheman ( talk ) 12:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Fairly meets WP:DIRECTOR/WP:FILMMAKER as director of multiple notable series....... Added a few sources for verification. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 17:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Meets WP:DIRECTOR.  Has several notable directions.  Rydex64 ( talk ) 19:57, 5 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!  23:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Passes GNG per WP: SIGCOV.  A bit WP: DIRECTOR since some of the films which are inarguably notable were co-directed.  As the case may be, the subject passes WP: CREATIVE in filmmaking having been cited in sources for his Entertaining styles and film directing.  Fills a bit of WP: ENT All the Best!  Otuọcha ( talk ) 23:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Looks like XFDcloser failed the "transclude to new log" again on this one.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 13:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't understand the relisting when a simple consensus is met.  All the Best!  Otuọcha ( talk ) 09:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Otuọcha , XFDcloser screwed up the relisting.  When a discussion is relisted, it's taken off the old AFD daily log page and put on today's AFD daily log page.  It looks like neither one of those things happened so it was wise to relist this discussion as no editors or closers would have gone back to the AFD daily log page from March 12th to review this discussion.  It brought the discussion up from several weeks ago to this past week so fresh eyes could see it.  Unfortunately though, we didn't get any new participants here but it will probably close over the next 24 hours.  L iz Read!  Talk!  23:35, 6 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
Fox Cave, Shmankivtsi: Микола Василечко ( talk ) 17:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  Микола Василечко ( talk ) 17:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 20:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] … and with sources authored by Volodymyr Dobrianskyi [ uk ] already in the article.   Your personal estimation of significance is not what we base things on.  Notability is not subjective , and fame and importance was rejected as a criterion in 2004.   Unless you have a counterargument to the several sources in the article, that at first blush appear to be authored by a Ukrainian expert in the field and give multiple detailed physical characteristics of the subject at hand, you do not have an argument for deletion.  Uncle G ( talk ) 07:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I generally agree with Uncle G but would like to see one source that's not from Dobrianskyi.  My search quickly became difficult, but can't yet argue for deletion.  SportingFlyer T · C 10:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   The sources listed in the article and described by Uncle G above make a prima facie case for notability that has not been refuted.  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 01:30, 22 January 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!  22:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In enwiki is 9 pages about caves in Ukraine .  Really in Ukraine more caves about which there are no articles and which have natural history, cultural history, etc.  Fox Cave (Really name is English? Please source for this name. ) is not without nature history, without geological history.  -- Микола Василечко ( talk ) 16:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
Takanobu Takahashi: His most well-know publication is "Tamil love poetry and poetics" which received good reviews according to my research, but still there is nothing to prove significant academic notability.  Chiserc ( talk ) 08:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Japan .  Chiserc ( talk ) 08:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Takahashi is one of the academically well cited Japanese Indologist known for his scholarly works on Tamil literature .  That he is one of the two translators of the Kural text into Japanese indeed has encyclopedic merit.  Rasnaboy ( talk ) 17:33, 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!  23:45, 19 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!  22:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Likely language barrier in the listing here.   I do think this subject meets WP:NACADEMIC even when viewing easy-to-find English sources alone.  Google Scholar puts this subject's most famous work Tamil Love Poetry and Poetics at 50 citations, and Google Scholar tends to under-count citations for such disciplines.  I wonder if someone with access to a citation index can help.  It's cited by other academic books to be sure search eg1 eg2 .  We don't have a callout policy on notability of translators, but certainly translating the Kural boosts the academic notability.  But still, keep in mind, this person is translating from Tamil to Japanese, there aren't going to be a lot of easy to find English language sources, but they've clearly published even more in Japanese language: [1] [2] [3] [4] .  — siro χ o 00:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , seems very likely to meet point 1 of WP:NACADEMIC .  Even his English-language scholarship has attracted no small amount of critical attention.  -- Visviva ( talk ) 01:10, 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
Mirai (band): The cited sources can't establish the subject's notability.  Breakdown of cited sources: 1: https://www.idnes.cz/kultura/hudba/mirai-navratil-hudba-andel-clours-of-ostrava-rozhovor-kytara-japonsko-premium-frydek-mistek.A190919_175244_hudba_jum (May provide in-depth coverage but I can't confirm as it is locked for non premium members, but GNG requires multiple in-depth coverage) 2: https://english.radio.cz/mirai-czech-pop-act-eye-future-8758890 (No significant or in-depth coverage of the subject, as the article is shorter than ever. Fails WP:SIGCOV ) Grab Up - Talk 12:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Czech Republic .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : If indeed this band has won a Český slavík award, that would seem to me to meet WP:NMUSIC , specifically criterion #8.  Jdcooper ( talk ) 11:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Is this a major award that makes this band notable?  I don’t think so.  The article about the award itself is not well-cited with reliable secondary sources.  Grab Up - Talk 12:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not sure what you mean.  Anděl Awards and Český slavík are the two main pop music awards in the Czech Republic, and obviously the winners were widely reported as such (Andel: [11] , Slavik: [12] , many more sources available but those were just the first that came up on Google).  Jdcooper ( talk ) 00:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Plenty more independent sigcov here: [13] [14] [15] [16] .  Jdcooper ( talk ) 01:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Convinced by the sources provided by @ Jdcooper : : At the time of my BEFORE check, I did not look for sources in the Czech languages.  These sources provide in-depth coverage.  Grab Up - Talk 08:49, 28 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