hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Andrzej Mazurkiewicz (footballer): Thought he might be notable, as the one obit is of nice length and from a secondary source.   The other 3 sources consist of a primary source and 2 database entries, so doesn't come close to meeting WP:GNG .   As I said, was sent to draft, but returned to mainspace without improvement.  Onel 5969 TT me 20:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep 90minut.pl isn't a database (although it has one), its a news website, sport.pl is also a notable source.  Abcmaxx ( talk ) 20:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Poland .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per Abcmaxx.  Also definitely has offline sources, having played 10+ years for one of mosts successful Polish teams in the fully pro Polish top flight.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 20:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Offline, perhaps.  I looked for Polish online sources (mentions in Google Books) and got nothing.  Also, no pl wii article?  (There's a draft, worse than ours: pl:Wikipedysta:Brudnopis gościnny/Andrzej Mazurkiewicz (piłkarz) ).  Current sources are stat pages and obituaries.  I am not impressed.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 15:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep there is sufficient coverage to show notability.  Giant Snowman 10:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , coverage is significant and passes GNG. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 19:29, 3 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
BS 7799: Boleyn ( talk ) 10:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and United Kingdom .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Not a great article, but seems to be notable.  Some sources that talk about it at varying degrees of depth (mostly academic): [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] .  Popo Dameron ⁠ talk 20:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- sources found by Explicit are sufficient to meet the GNG.  Central and Adams ( talk ) 16:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per new sources.  The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 04:47, 27 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
Parental abuse by children: It also contains a lot of original research with no third-party sources added on the introduction.  People in the talk page also seem to agree with me on this decision.  DJskywrd ( talk ) 06:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - seems like there are sufficient high quality references to show notability.  I can see that there are issues requiring clean-up but I'm not seeing sufficient to require WP:TNT .  JMWt ( talk ) 17:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I see what you mean on it could just use a clean-up, but even if we do this article is always going to seem like an essay report instead of a topic in an encyclopedia.  Now I could be wrong and other people might see how this could be a topic, and I would love to see the visions other people have for this article to make it better.  But so far I don't know how this could look like an encyclopedia topic.  DJskywrd ( talk ) 00:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Unfortunately that argument rarely works at AfD.  If there are academic papers which directly reference the topic, it is notable.  Whilst I understand your frustration, I don't really agree that it is impossible to write a fair article on this topic.  JMWt ( talk ) 08:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but cull - remove all sections or sentences without citations or substantiating links to articles.  Rick Jelliffe ( talk ) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: This seems like a controversial article and I'd like to hear from more editors before closing this discussion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Definitely has the sources to be notable.  Child-to-parent Violence has over 300 scholar hits .  A move to Child-to-parent violence should be considered as well as a significant restructure, but AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP .  Qwaiiplayer ( talk ) 16:00, 11 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
List of French loanwords in Persian: As interesting as I find this, Wikipedia is not a dictionary .  Pepper Beast (talk) 12:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists .  Pepper Beast (talk) 12:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iran and France .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the topic of French loan words in Farsi is the subject of scholarship e.g 1 , 2 , 3 and 4 .  Mccapra ( talk ) 20:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm aware that it is, but we're not here due to notability concerns.  If we were discussing an article about the French influence on Farsi, I'd vote to keep.  The operative issue that this just a word list (a basically unref'd word list) and WP:NOTDICTIONARY .  Pepper Beast (talk) 05:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:Deletion is not cleanup , unless it is so bad it requires WP:TNTing .  Curbon7 ( talk ) 19:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, WP:TNT .  If someone wants to do some improvement over at Persian vocabulary , that's fine.  If someone wants to write an actual article on the influence of French on Persian vocabulary, that's also great.  This is not that article; this is not an article.  It's literally a list of words.  There is nothing to salvage.  Pepper Beast (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : In general, same reasons as Mccapra.  This article's intro could be improved, like List of loanwords in Assyrian Neo-Aramaic .  Also, comment, but we've nominated a ton of these type of "Loan words" articles for deletion today.  it seems that we are having a discussion about a large swathe of articles across multiple deletion discussion, and we should instead focus on maybe a broader discussion of these?  User:Sawerchessread ( talk ) 18:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to Influence of the French language on Farsi and tag as unsourced and needing cleanup.  BD2412 T 03:36, 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
Kreativum: Unsourced.  Fails WP:GEOFEAT and WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 11:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture , Museums and libraries ,  and Sweden .  UtherSRG (talk) 11:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , there's quite a lot of secondary coverage in newspapers with a quick Google News search.  [18] , [19] , [20] , [21] [22] , [23] , [24] , [25] , [26] , [27] -- AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 12:41, 13 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
Abel Peter Diah: Indeed there is only an article on Taraba State House of Assembly because the same editor created it.    Created by a now indefintely-blocked paid editor.  Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Nigeria .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep — The page subject is a former Assembly Speaker, who used to hold (and arguably retains) substantial influence in Taraba state politics; members of subnational legislatures often have pages, especially if they have held a leadership position in the chamber.  It is a poorly-written page but that does not warrant the subject non-notable.  Watercheetah99 ( talk ) 21:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Nigerian state legislators do pass WP:NPOL , as Nigeria is a federal country akin to the United States or India.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 00:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Curbon7.  Mccapra ( talk ) 07:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep @ Black Kite : this might interest you: WP:NSUBPOL .  Per WP:NPOL , overwhelming community consensus that members of subnational parliaments in federal systems are presumed notable.   Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 09:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Disappointing AfD, subject clearly passes WP:NSUBPOL as a former speaker of a state house of assembly ( notability does not expire ).  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 12:04, 24 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
Muojärvi: UtherSRG (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Finland .  UtherSRG (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  Significant coverage of watershed, etc.  Meets GNG [32] [33] [34] — siro χ o 11:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  Considerable coverage in sources:Meets GNG very clear. -- Patricia (Talk) 12:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:GEOLAND is quite a low bar and this easily meets it. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 14:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Also worth noting that other Wikipedias have this article: Swedish, Finish, French, German and Egyptian Arabic. Existence on other Wikipedias is not binding here but it is telling. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 13:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep clearly passes WP:GEONATURAL.  SportingFlyer T · C 17:48, 11 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
Xiao Hua Gong: Per WP:NPOL : "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability".  — WildComet talk 00:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  — WildComet talk 00:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - not just known for being a failed political candidate, has notability and referencing support which predates the recent election.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 00:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  His legal troubles (largest ever forfeiture of proceeds of a crime in New Zealand!) meant he met WP:GNG independently before his fringe political campaign.  The campaign did get him more attention and thus an article, but it is not the reason he meets GNG/BIO. ---- Patar knight - chat / contributions 00:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 01:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  Notable businessman, election candidate and pyramid scheme operator who has sources that are reliable documenting him Chicken4War ( talk ) 01:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  WP:SNOW — siro χ o 02:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  He was arguably the most colourful candidate (from a showmanship point of view) in the 2023 Toronto mayoral election.  TheTrolleyPole ( talk ) 14:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre , Politics ,  and China .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep ; notability not just from running in the by-election.  We all know where this discussion is going; recommend WP:SNOW for the next editor who comes along.  I seult Δx parlez moi 20:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - before failure.  Operative word in nomination is "just".  Nfitz ( talk ) 02:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for the memes alone.  -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - meets WP:GNG for the mess he caused in New Zealand, the mess he caused in Michigan, and the mess he caused in Toronto.  There are enough folks out here in Michigan cursing his name to generate sufficient press coverage, never mind everywhere else.  DontCallMeLateForDinner ( talk ) 01:57, 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
Pishakhor: No notable source.  Hongsy ( talk ) 14:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions .  Hongsy ( talk ) 14:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Reference #2 is the official Census of Iran .  If a town or district is listed on their spreadsheet for this region (#09 in this case), then it's officially recognized per WP:GEOLAND and therefore notable.  @ Hongsy , is Pishakhor listed?  Checking references is part of WP:BEFORE .  Thanks, -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 17:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep - This is an abadi , which should not be understood as necessarily being the same as a "village" even if it is sometimes translated that way.  In reality many abadi on the Iranian census are simply named locations (factories/farms/pumps/bridges etc.) that the census was taken near.  For this reason, abadi are explicitly excluded from GEOLAND.  In this case, there does appear to be a place called روستای پیش آخور (which Google Translate tells me means Pisakhur village) at the location given in the article so at least this can be verified in a very basic way.  The population is also large enough that this place should eventually be given official status as a village (supposedly given to anywhere with a population over ~100).  For these reasons I am inclined to keep bt the information supporting this article is very scanty.  FOARP ( talk ) 10:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 17:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per FOARP 's insights.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 02:03, 12 November 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
Thomas Mills Wood: Unable to find any coverage independent of the subject in any reliable sources.  I'm not sure role in the The Fugitive and U.S. Marshals are considered significant.  J04n ( talk page ) 19:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers .  J04n ( talk page ) 19:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Even tough no citations provided, I think that he may meet WP:NACTOR due to his roles in The Fugitive and its spinoff, the 1998 film U.S. Marshals.  Naomijeans ( talk ) 02:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - He may weak pass WP:NACTOR but no references given to verify.  Can editor of article provide few notable references.  DSN18 ( talk ) 17:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - It is unfortunate that the Chicago Tribune article is not available electronically.  -- Bejnar ( talk ) 14:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think it's here ? -- Visviva ( talk ) 00:41, 14 July 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!  23:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Thanks to Bejnar, the rogerebert.com citation is enough to verify.  It's been a long time since I watched these but I think the role was prominent enough to meet WP:NACTOR .  There seem also to be more citations under "Tom Wood", for example [14] [15] — siro χ o 00:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes WP:NACTOR ; he’s had significant roles in The Fugitive & U.S. Marshals and Ulee’s Gold.  The Film Creator ( talk ) 15:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  First, as passing at least WP:NACTOR (going by the Tribune article The Fugitive is probably less of a central role than U.S. Marshals & Ulee's Gold , but all appear to meet NACTOR's requirement of significant roles ).  Second, because unless the Tribune article is a complete one-off he appears very likely to pass WP:NBIO as well; his hopelessly un-Googleable name isn't helping.  Finally, because it would be extraordinary (and a sign that our own criteria were seriously out of whack) if six other Wikipedias had organically acquired articles on this fellow and he still didn't measure up.  -- Visviva ( talk ) 01:16, 14 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
October 1997 North American storm complex: WP:BEFORE search shows vague results that may not be this storm as with no sources there’s nothing to base which storm this even is.  Should be deleted per WP:TNT and restarted.  Nominated on behalf of User:74.101.92.237 at Talk:October 1997 North American storm complex#Reason for deletion .  The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 23:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep — Article now has 3 sources, including one from 2018 and 2022, so it passes WP:NEXIST .  Original reasons for deletion no longer an issue.  The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 23:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science , Environment ,  and United States of America .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep notable coverage in CNN , CBS News , Chicago Tribune , The Washington Post , and lots of local news stories online.  Those sources should indicate passing of notability guidelines.  Tails Wx 12:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've also expanded the article which should meet notability guidelines .  Tails Wx 23:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] After further researching, I found 1997 Western Plains winter storms , which should be merged to this article or even redirected to this article should it not be deleted.  Tails Wx 12:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw - article has been improved and notability has been established.  Also, a merge/AFD should be started for the article tails found above.  74.101.92.237 ( talk ) 14:03, 1 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
1958 Torneio Rio-São Paulo: No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG.    A stats-only article for the 1958 edition of Torneio Rio–São Paulo .   Suggest merging the little text info Torneio Rio–São Paulo .  North8000 ( talk ) 22:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Football ,  and Brazil .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 22:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – No indication of notability?  The Rio-São Paulo Tournament was the most important competition in Brazilian football until the implementation of the Brazilian Championship.  The article follows the same pattern adopted in other similar (examples: 1 , 2 , 3 ), and there is a substantial amount of sources on the competition, such as in the digital collection of the national library of Brazil as example .  Svartner ( talk ) 10:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 12:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Svartner - article needs improving, not deletion.  Giant Snowman 12:58, 22 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