hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
2023 Reddit API controversy : I don't think this event as a standalone article meets WP:GNG.  1keyhole ( talk ) 05:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Passes GNG.  [16] [17] [18] Has been in the news for a couple weeks now, so is showing good signs of eventually passing WP:PERSISTENCE .  The article Reddit has 10 paragraphs about this, and the subarticle 2023 Reddit API controversy has 18 paragraphs and is likely to grow, so a WP:SPINOUT here seems reasonable.  – Novem Linguae ( talk ) 05:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Internet .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Pass GNG.  It's an WP:OKFORK .  CastJared ( talk ) 09:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Agree with Novem Linguae above.  Additionally, note that Reddit is a huge topic and other sub-topics have grown their own articles such as r/place , r/IAmA , etc.  — siro χ o 09:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This event is very different from r/place is a repeated event and r/IAmA is a perment fixture.  1keyhole ( talk ) 10:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep : This event has stand-alone notability and passes GNG, with plenty of sources.  Reddit 's article is already over 200k bytes.  There's no need to shove it back into that bloated article; if anything, Reddit needs to be split further.  I would argue for a procedural close here, as this really should be a merge request instead of an AFD discussion based on the nom, as this article is over twice as long by bytes as Reddit#2023 API changes ; I'm not a fan of the giant AFD banner on what could easily become a heavy-traffic article when deletion is barely supported by the nom (if this did not meet GNG, the !votes would be for merging, not deletion).  Skarmory (talk • contribs) 10:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Clearly seems to pass GNG.  — Czello ( music ) 10:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Passes GNC and is an acceptable WP:OKFORK .  ReneeWrites ( talk ) 11:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Passes GNG and meets Wikipedia:PERSISTENCE .  Wikentromere ( talk ) 11:56, 21 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
David T. Beito : There are only two references cited on the page; one only mentions the subject in passing, and the other is an article by the subject that has no bearing on notability.  The subject also does not appear to meet any of the eight criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) ; e.g. the article does not show that the subject "has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."  Orser67 ( talk ) 05:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , History ,  and Minnesota .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 05:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Alabama ,  and Wisconsin .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Plenty of book reviews, easy pass of WP:AUTHOR .  The nomination's phrasing of "only two references cited on the page" suggests a failure to perform WP:BEFORE .  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 19:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- Five books published by academic publishers, together with an unspecified number of academic articles ought to be enough to keep.  Peterkingiron ( talk ) 11:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
Nicholas Griffin (philosopher) : Seems promotional Very Average Editor ( talk ) 07:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC) (sock strike L iz Read!  Talk!  07:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC) ) [ reply ] Delete As nominator.  Also worth noting, most of the contributors are a sock master and his socks.  Very Average Editor ( talk ) 07:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC) (sock strike L iz Read!  Talk!  07:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC) ) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada .  Shellwood ( talk ) 07:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  "Canada Research Chair in Philosophy" should be an automatic pass of [{WP:NPROF]].  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 07:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The article is outdated, as he has retired [23] .  The reviews of his solo-author books tip me in the direction of a "keep" by WP:AUTHOR .  For Relative Identity , we have at least [24] [25] [26] [27] , and for Russell's Idealist Apprenticeship there's at least [28] [29] ).  For The Cambridge Companion to Bertrand Russell, which he edited, a quick search finds [30] [31] [32] [33] .  XOR'easter ( talk ) 16:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:AUTHOR and the many published reviews of his authored books.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 23:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I was leaning in this direction, but now there's even more in the article than what I found, so I'm content to say that WP:AUTHOR is met.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 17:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Ironically, the nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet.  Maybe this is cause for a speedy close?  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 19:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No objection from me.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 20:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep - nom.  was from a sock, and consensus clear per WP:SNOW .  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 18:25, 27 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
Brian Renfroe : Does not appear to meet WP:NBIO or WP:GNG , and is sourced with fairly trivial coverage primarily from small local papers.  GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk ) 22:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - leaders of major labor unions are generally notable, but as Renfroe has just been elected, the sources are less strong.   There are three articles profiling him from local newspapers, a mention in The Guardian which gives some brief biographical information, and a thorough profile from his union, which doesn't provide evidence of notability, but is helpful for additional biographical facts.  Warofdreams talk 23:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Mississippi .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It is notable because of leaders of major labor unions.  CastJared ( talk ) 09:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep President-elect of fairly large union, even if not much coverage now likely to get it given time.  PatGallacher ( talk ) 12:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There is enough media coverage of him.  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 21:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets WP:GNG with secondary sources.  Lightburst ( talk ) 14:26, 27 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
1996 Abakan Ilyushin Il-76 crash : No significant lasting effects (demonstrated).  Whilst it does have coverage, this is what would be considered a run-of-the-mill event.  Aviationwikiflight ( talk ) 14:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Aviation ,  and Russia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The first AfD for this article can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RA-78804 .  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 17:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] • Keep although it has no lasting effects, the number of fatalities is significantly larger than its peers in the afd listings around it.  The article itself has multiple issues however and needs extensive work to be fixed.  The article indefinitely does not fail Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not however due to the large number of fatalities in this incident.  Another thing is that it has a larger count than the 2024 Ivanovo Ilyushin Il-76 crash , standing at 16.  These two factors combined can be sought to keep this article in particular.  Lolzer3000 ( talk ) 15:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The event does not have many reliable sources that can be used with the verifiability of sources lacking and doesn't exactly meet WP:GNG , fails WP:INDEPTH due to sources not providing much in depth analysis of the accident.  One source used in the page [23] , states that it is a first hand account of the accident which makes it a primary source.  Aviationwikiflight ( talk ) 11:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And stating that an article should be kept because of another article is not an argument .  Aviationwikiflight ( talk ) 15:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep An accident with 23 fatalities is definitely not a "common, everyday, ordinary item".  Skyshifter talk 16:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not necessarily a "common everyday ordinary item" but controlled flight into terrain accidents are mostly common.  Nothing was inherently unusual about the accident that would make it notable on itself.  Aviationwikiflight ( talk ) 11:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Considering the number of fatalities along with the value of the cargo on board this is very an accident that is not “common”.  Alex Hoe ( talk ) 19:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Could you please specify what the cargo consisted of that would make this accident notable?  As tragic as this accident was, this event doesn't have much notability other than the number of deaths.  Other than that, there is basically nothing that gives this accident any enduring significance.  The accident has not resulted in any lasting effects nor any long-term impacts .  Aviationwikiflight ( talk ) 08:38, 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: keep
Marlboro Friday : Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Somewhat famous event that has inspired case studies [10] [11] and is referenced in reliable sources with regards to stock prices and branding eg [12] .  The event is famous on its own and would not necessarily be appropriate for merge into any Philip Morris -related page.  There's already a citation that has SIGCOV.  Event is famous enough to demonstrate WP:PERSISTENCE .  Seems like a perfect invocation of WP:NOTPAPER .  — siro χ o 09:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep it's still taught in business schools, plenty of examples in Gbooks.  [13] .  It's even mentioned in History Channel [14] .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Siroxo and Oaktree b -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 05:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Passes WP:Sigcov .  Maliner ( talk ) 08:59, 22 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
Popplio : Toketaa talk 20:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions .  Owen× ☎ 20:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the nominator's argument is inherently flawed.  What is POKEMON meant to prove here?  And even then, that is an essay, not a proper policy of any kind.  Also "many more notable Pokemon" not having a page does not immediately rule out an article for being notable.  Popplio, while I agree is one of the worse off articles among the Pokemon lineup, does have a pretty large amount of significant coverage discussing it in depth that many other characters in the series do not have.  There is no rationale in this argument that communicates to me a valid reason to delete this article.  Has one ever considered Magneton?  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 20:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep , nominator makes no arguments based on policy or guidelines, and is merely WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST , which is considered an invalid argument for deletion.  The nominator doesn't explain why it is "the least notable article," and their arguments about the quality of the article both lack foundation and are irrelevant to this discussion.  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 20:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Idk how to close this page but yeah this should of been articles for creation for more notable pokemon, this is my first AFD so I will just remove the AFD notice on the article for now.  Toketaa talk 20:45, 12 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
Deadly Descent: The Abominable Snowman : No RS either.  Htanaungg ( talk ) 14:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America .  Htanaungg ( talk ) 14:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , leaning keep .  themoviescene.co.uk has a review , that also lists various alt titles ("Deadly Descent", "Abominable Snowman", the combination of the two "Deadly Descent: The Abominable Snowman" and even the even longer "Deadly Descent: The Legend of the Abominable Snowman"). The film is ... #36 in this listing , that includes a small assessment. — MY, OH, MY !  09:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] After further research: Strong Keep .  There is a review in Czech ( @ Onel5969 : , pinging you at your request).  But most of all,  2-3 pages in Ski Films: A Comprehensive Guide , by Bryan Senn (McFarland, 2022), pp. 50-53, an extensive and comprehensive analysis of the film .  The 2 reviews + this make the film appear quite notable. — MY, OH, MY !  22:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG or WP:NFILM .   If more reviews are found, feel free to ping me.  Onel 5969 TT me 18:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - changing my ! vote as per WP:HEY , in light of the sources found by My, Oh, My.  Onel 5969 TT me 23:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of the additional reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion that shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 00:51, 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
Yusuf Haroun : Macbeejack ☎ 12:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Health and fitness ,  and Nigeria .  Macbeejack ☎ 12:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Psychology .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Passed WP:GNG .  The subject had received significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources.  Shoerack ( talk ) 19:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - this article passes WP:GNG .  The subject has received significant coverages in a good number of secondary reliable sources.  SuperSwift ( talk ) 07:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – clearly passes GNG after more than three GNG passable sources found.  In addition, two full webpages that are independent talks about him in detail.  Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 08:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep — Ogwo, Charles (28 October 2023).  "Meet Haroun Yusuf: A life committed to healthcare, education, others" .  Business Day .  Retrieved 26 February 2024 .  this is a full feature published by Business Day .  Edema, Grace (28 September 2023).  "Leadership empowerment aids creativity, says medical expert" .  The Punch .  Retrieved 26 February 2024 .  — this is a significant coverage from The Punch where this subject is considered an expert.  Koiki, Olusegun (12 February 2024).  "Yusuf Haroun Shows Commitment to Health Equity, Catalysing Change" .  The Independent .  Retrieved 26 February 2024 .  — another feature in a national daily.  I didn't do any WP:BEFORE as these articles where just in the Wiki entry.  Best, Reading Beans 12:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Clearly passes WP:GNG .  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 14:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per Reading Beans and others; it definelty passes WP:GNG .  Kaizenify ( talk ) 17:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I can't find anywhere it passe Otuọcha ( talk ) 19:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : strong coverage in mainstream Nigerian sources ( WP:NGRS ).  She was a fairy 00:44, 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
Noureddine Bikr : It's been repeatedly draftified / declined at AfC, so I thought an AfD discussion to establish a consensus on notability would probably be more useful than moving it to draft yet again.  Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 12 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 07:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Theatre ,  and Morocco .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  Searching in . ma websites, the gov't put out a statement when he died and the King talked about the individual in the press.  [20] , [21] .  Says he was a well-known Moroccan stage actor and had success in a play in the 1990s.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep multiple sources in Sky, France24, Moroccan Ministry of Culture, Al Watan, Al Sabah etc.  Mccapra ( talk ) 22:17, 26 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
Jeroen van Wetten : A web search finds two short articles in [53] and [54] but no WP:SIGCOV .  There may be offline sources but it seems doubtful to me.  The article fails WP:GNG .  Robby.is.on ( talk ) 00:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Robby.is.on ( talk ) 00:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Netherlands .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 01:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  As a three-year professional, including in the Dutch premier league, offline sources are anything but unlikely.  In fact, it is EXTREMELY unlikely these wouldn't exist.  This AfD is part of a  mass nomination of Dutch footballers, who have played in a period for which the online newspaper articles are no longer available, while these are not yet included in the national newspaper archive, Delpher.  I'm not going to bother with the others that are oneliners and contribute little to WP.  gidonb ( talk ) 19:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I found several sources in a regional archive so this easily passes the WP:GNG even with what is now available online.  [55] [56] [57] [ [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] .  gidonb ( talk ) 20:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Delete Not sure if Sigcov is meeting here.  Okoslavia ( talk ) 20:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you are not sure, why are you ! voting?  Dorsetonian ( talk ) 22:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks Dorsetonian .  Okoslavia ( talk ) 07:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above which show notability.  Giant Snowman 09:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Gidonb.  Govvy ( talk ) 10:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per above.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 16:13, 23 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
London International Hot Air Balloon Festival : Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Transportation ,  and Canada .  UtherSRG (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , I found CTV coverage from the 1990s.  As it has apparently historic value, it was republished in 2017.  See here .  109.37.149.106 ( talk ) 10:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 01:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Note WP:COMMONNAME is London Balloon Festival , and the article should probably be moved there.  ProQuest shows coverage for WP:GNG over several years in various papers.  Here's the first several hits, but there is more: [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] — siro χ o 05:04, 21 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