hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Mike de Geer : Page fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG .  BlakeIsHereStudios ( talk | contributions ) 12:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 12:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - clearly no attempt at a BEFORE, giving a very quick Google for this guy brings up 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 .  Clearly a notable figure.  Giant Snowman 12:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Netherlands .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes WP:BASIC for me on sources added by GS.  Govvy ( talk ) 13:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Unclear why this article was nominated.  Neither fails SPORTCRIT or the GNG.  The nomination does fail NEXIST and BEFORE.  gidonb ( talk ) 14:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Per @ GiantSnowman .  Svartner ( talk ) 16:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw : This nomination was meaningless.  The page does pass WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT and research proves his notability.  Duke of New Gwynedd ( talk | contrib. ) 17:55, 28 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: speedy keep
Siviwe Mpondo : JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby league ,  and South Africa .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all South African rugby league players who played at the same qualifying tournament and were created by the same user under now-deprecated WP:SNGs , with little to no chance of ever receiving WP:SIGCOV : Johan Fritz ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Francois Greyvensteyn ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Deon Kraemer ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Andre Loader ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Andre Olwagen ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Procedural keep Discussion needs to be held individually on whether or not these individuals pass WP:GNG .  Combining them together could well lead to WP:TRAINWRECK .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Amature player with minimal coverage.  Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Mn1548 , which article subject are you talking about?  L iz Read!  Talk!  01:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Originally made the comment about Johan Fritz before releasing it was a group AfD, but left comment here as it applies to all.  The South African league isn't professional and non of these articles have more that two references.  Not enough coverage of these players cited nor do I think any at notable if more coverage could be found.  Mn1548 ( talk ) 13:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural keep per Rugbyfan's comments.  Articles should be re-nominated separately.  J Mo 101 ( talk ) 11:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural keep .  Renominate separately.  Desertarun ( talk ) 19:09, 23 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: speedy keep
Los Angeles Clippers accomplishments and records : Excessive listings of unexplained statistics.  microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 21:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Lists .  Shellwood ( talk ) 21:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , unfortunately I only saw this page at NPP and didn't realize the can I've opened here...  This appears to be a pretty prevalent practice.  My personal opinion, based one my above reasoning, is still that this article should be deleted.  I also understand that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ; those should be examined as well, although I am choosing not to group them here lest we start down the path to a WP:TRAINWRECK .  microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 21:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and California .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Same thinking as Specific Sports Team records.  The records are based on the primary source (the players and team completing the accomplishments), but the written-down records are established by the League then notably distributed by reliable, secondary, independent sources.  For example, Kawhi Leonard made the NBA All Defensive Team in 2021.  [18] Also, these types of lists are backed up by independent almanacs such as Los Angeles Almanac .  Conyo14 ( talk ) 23:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep per WP:SPINOFF .  More specifically, I think this information does deserve to be on Wikipedia, but not in the Los Angeles Clippers primary article.  I would like to see these related "awards and accomplishments" articles beefed up with more references, but I think the topic in general satisfies notability because these are much-reported-upon stats and awards.  SportsGuy789 ( talk ) 00:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep (nom).  Despite my opinions on whether or not I believe these articles should exist on the project, given the letter of guidelines, I understand there is a lot of precedent to leave these up.  Conyo14 ( talk · contribs ) and SportsGuy789 ( talk · contribs ) have raised valid points, so I've withdrawn to save valuable volunteer time.  microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 03:19, 20 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: speedy keep
Gingerah, Western Australia : Satellite images show no roads and no signs of human activity in the area.  Does not fulfill WP:NGEO .  Broc ( talk ) 07:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Australia .  Broc ( talk ) 07:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Previous census data and gazetteers should be checked.  The population was probably greater than zero once.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 14:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The population was 5 in the 2016 Australian census.  Also, it doesn't have to be populated/residential to be notable—for example, the area seems to be a proposed renewable energy hub [43] . -- Canley ( talk ) 00:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Don't know where you looked but I see roads and evidence of human activity.  duffbeerforme ( talk ) 01:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] OK, I see, coordinates on the page are way off.  duffbeerforme ( talk ) 01:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] comment It's not a town, at least not according to the census, and the energy project seems to affirm this.  Mangoe ( talk ) 03:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think it meets the notability criteria per WP:POPULATED , which states Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low .  In this case, it is an officially recognised locality as shown on official map services like https://nationalmap.gov.au/ and https://maps.slip.wa.gov.au/landgate/locate/ .  Calistemon ( talk ) 15:24, 22 April 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!  07:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per long-standing precedent of keeping articles like this.  As an editor who often works on Western Australian places, if I'd noticed this article in the state it was in when it was nominated for deletion , I would have redirected it to the relevant local government area (in this case the Shire of Broome ), but the article has enough content now that this doesn't seem to be a good idea anymore.  Graham87 ( talk ) 13:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the editing of the article, and the comments by Calistemon and Graham87 JarrahTree 13:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm withdrawing the nomination, thanks to the editors that added additional material to the page.  Broc ( talk ) 14:33, 23 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: speedy keep
Trilby (1912 film) : I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 24 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 05:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment -- Do you plan to offer a rationale for deletion?  There seem to be plenty of sources.  Central and Adams ( talk ) 05:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Austria .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep .  No reason presented for deletion, not even a word.  And a brief look at the page even in its current state  would give plenty of reasons to keep anyway......- My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 08:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep , plenty of sources...no reason for deletion given.  Donald D23 talk to me 12:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep To me even the four books that are now referenced on the page are enough to show notability.  Shaws username .  talk .  13:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The existing sources are enough to demonstrate notability.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 15:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep : Bad faith nomination with no explanation.  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment nominator put their explanation on the AfD talk page Shaws username .  talk .  15:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ StreetcarEnjoyer @ Donaldd23 @ Mushy Yank @ Central and Adams Shaws username .  talk .  15:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The explanation they put is: "Very small article .No importence".  Size of an article is not a reason for deletion.  If an article is a notable subject it could be just one line as long as the citations support notability.  The "no importance" part sounds like personal opinion...which also is irrelevant.  As stated by myself and others, there is sufficient citations to support notability (importance).  Donald D23 talk to me 16:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- No policy based deletion rationale given.  Sources already in article more than sufficient to meet GNG.  Central and Adams ( talk ) 15:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep ,some editor developed the article.any one can close discussion.  Nomination withdrawn.Any one can close discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cronals ( talk • contribs ) 16:51, 24 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: speedy keep
Ali Hajizade : I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 17 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 06:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Azerbaijan .  Shellwood ( talk ) 11:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Journalism ,  and Politics .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 14:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Correspondentman : What does "feels like PROD" mean?  Also, this article has already survived one deletion nomination – it's a good idea to summarize the previous consensus and give at least a brief argument against it.  jlwoodwa ( talk ) 22:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jlwoodwa It seems that most of the users in the previous discussion are from Azerbaijan.  A link to a website is like an advertisement.  Correspondentman ( talk ) 06:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy close , because AFD is made by sock of the banned user.  User:Correspondentman is banned in Azerbaijani Wikipedia as a sock of User:Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) .  Here is the discussion .  He ( User:Elshadiman ) is banned on English Wikipedia too for sockpuppetry.  On top of that he continues to use the same sock accounts in English Wikipedia that he used in azwiki: User:Redaksiya , User:90AA123 and User:Correspondentman , which has only 36 edits, all in AFD.  Sock accounts cannot create AFDs, and this article was nominated and kept.  — Toghrul R ( t ) 06:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I read your comment, you mixed something up Correspondentman ( talk ) 07:16, 18 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: speedy keep
Hannah Kihalani Springer : ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk ) 13:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Environment ,  and Hawaii .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] *I added a notification to this discussion at WT:IPNA CT55555 ( talk ) 15:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC) *:And Wikipedia:WikiProject Polynesia Wikipedia:WikiProject Oceania CT55555 ( talk ) 17:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Successful community-based environmental activist and go-to source for local knowledge.  (Co)authored works.  1 , 2 , 3 , 4 .  Interviewed or quoted for inspiration in books and other publications.  5 , 6 , 7 .  Source for environmental impact documents 8 .  Noted as "key" to establishing the Kaʻūpūlehu Marine Reserve 9 .  -- Jaireeodell ( talk ) 18:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions .  Netherzone ( talk ) 18:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Netherzone ( talk ) 18:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * I added a notification re: this discussion at WT:WikiProject Hawaii .  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 20:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Nomination is a misfire.   This woman has served as advisor and etc. on many projects and boards of Hawaii.  Also a former trustee of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, The Nature Conservancy Hawai‘i and present trustee of Hawaii Preparatory Academy.  1 and she sits on the Board of Directors on the Akaka Foundation for Tropical Forests, alongside other formidable public figures in Hawaii.  2 They don't put "Does not reach GNG" people on these boards.   They place formidable accomplished people who can work within the power structures to get things done.  — Maile ( talk ) 23:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep She was elected as a trustee to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs , which is a statewide office, so she has some WP:NPOL notability, in addition to what appears to be WP:BASIC notability as an advocate, speaker, and writer.  Beccaynr ( talk ) 02:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Agree with the reasoning of Beccaynr .  CT55555 ( talk ) 04:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: speedy keep
Edolo language : Mimi Ho Kora ( talk ) 21:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose No reason given.  — kwami ( talk ) 21:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Default oppose .  What's the rationale?  – Austronesier ( talk ) 21:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as no deletion rationale has been offered.  If the nominator wishes to propose the merger of two articles the instructions are here and this can be speedily closed.  Mccapra ( talk ) 22:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] how about this here Mimi Ho Kora ( talk ) 01:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There’s a bit more to it than that, including adding tags to the top of both article pages, but basically yes, thus is a matter to be discussed at the article talk page, not at AfD.  Mccapra ( talk ) 04:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] how about here 1 and here 2 Mimi Ho Kora ( talk ) 20:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - languages are inherently notable, and this one seems well-referenced given its length. -- IdiotSavant ( talk ) 23:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Not much to add, languages are inherently notable as stated above.  Pladica ( talk ) 00:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Even minority languages, even tiny minority languages, are worth covering here.  "Inherently notable" is one way to put it.  Note that the merge proposal on the article talk page was closed as "Oppose".  – .  Raven .  talk 05:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  We merge a language article into the corresponding ethnicity only if there's no prospect for it to ever grow beyond a stub (that most typically happens for extinct undocumented languages).  That's not the case here, there's enough literature out there for a fully developed article [11] (which is also enough to pass WP:GNG ).  – Uanfala ( talk ) 09:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - First of all, there's no reason given.  Second, it's notable and has multiple sources, and it passes GNG.  // 💪 Benzo Aid 💪 🖊️ 16:12, 26 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: speedy keep
Mike Woessner : None of the sources in the article provide significant coverage.  The coaching positions themselves do not confer notability; there needs to be at least one reliable source providing significant coverage (see SPORTBASIC).  Actualcpscm ( talk ) 10:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and American football .  Actualcpscm ( talk ) 10:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment He does have some coverage that goes into his career [15] [16] Alvaldi ( talk ) 11:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't know enough about those newspapers to say this with certainty, but this looked like relatively routine coverage to me.  Maybe someone who knows these newspapers well can evaluate if I was wrong about that?  Actualcpscm ( talk ) 11:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The only thing that matters here is whether those sources cover him "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" (SIGCOV's definition) - ROUTINE is the notability guideline for events.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here is another: [17] .  Cbl62 ( talk ) 15:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Searching...  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's plenty of coverage from the Athol Daily News ( 1 , 2 , 3 ), plus The Recorder piece Alvaldi found ( 1 ).  All I've found so far.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Found another through ProQuest : "Woessner realizes dream; Falcons' defensive coach appointed to head position" from the Telegram & Gazette - at 400 words, its another piece of SIGCOV.  Woessner looks like a GNG pass at this point.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Actualcpscm : Given that SIGCOV had now been discovered in three different newspapers, would you consider withdrawing this so that everyone can move on to other matters?  Cbl62 ( talk ) 16:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, that seems reasonable.  Actualcpscm ( talk ) 16:24, 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: speedy keep
Anne Huff : Not yet looked at this nomination in particular, but the nominator made a few edits last December and then started up on 13th with an apparent sole focus on various types of deletion/draftification.  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 11:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors , Women , Management , Technology , Germany , Ireland , England , California , Colorado , Illinois ,  and New York .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment That's a rather paltry deletion rationale.  What does "suspicious" mean?  And lacking sources isn't itself a reason for deletion; the more important question is whether sources can be found .  Anyway, a quick check of Google Scholar finds 3 publications with over 1,000 citations each, and 22 with over 100; the h-index is somewhere in the upper 20's.  That makes passing WP:PROF#C1 at least plausible.  JSTOR gives a review of Writing for Scholarly Publication [28] , one of the co-authored When Firms Change Direction [29] , and three of the co-edited Mapping Strategic Knowledge [30] [31] [32] , so while WP:AUTHOR isn't immediately satisfied there's at least a chance that, if other reviews turn up, it could be met that way.  And the high citation counts for the two single-author books [33] [34] don't exactly hurt.  Being president of the Academy of Management [35] may also qualify for WP:PROF#C6 .  XOR'easter ( talk ) 15:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I think there are enough reviews of enough books to make a case for WP:AUTHOR , even if one discounts the reviews for edited volumes.  Head of the Academy of Management is plausibly a pass of WP:PROF#C6 .  I think her works are highly-enough cited for #C1.  And no valid deletion rationale has been provided.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 02:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , several of her papers and books are highly cited and she probably passes NPROF-C1.  The reviews show a pass of NAUTHOR.  -- Mvqr ( talk ) 11:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The WP:PROF#C6 and WP:AUTHOR passes are at least plausible, and the case for passing WP:PROF#C1 is good.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 18:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:HEY and that the nomination has been discredited.  Geschichte ( talk ) 09:32, 15 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: speedy keep