hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Courtney Mattison: Most sources are primary, with a direct connection to the subject, or exclusively local.  A search of WP:RS sources doesn't find much beyond Mattison's personal websites.  The article was created by an IP and WP:SPA .  GuardianH ( talk ) 19:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Women .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per articles in Smithsonian Magazine , Good Morning America , and other sources, and her exhibitions and permanent installations at art-topic related institutions as well as at a US embassy.  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 11:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:BEFORE shows robust coverage; Craft in America, WWF, Virginia MOCA, Center for Humans and Nature, etc. I found a lot beyond Mattison's personal websites.  Reading through the information I see that Mattison is mainly an installation artist, and is not really suitable for permanent collections.  Additionally, the art is valued by conservation and biology groups rather than the usual museum or craft audience.  Her patrons are the USG and NGOs.  WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 01:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - based on the sources found by WomanArtistUpdates and the permanent public artworks mentioned by RandyKryn , especially those in the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, and the Nova Southeastern University Oceanographic Center in Dania Beach, Florida.  Meets WP:GNG based on sources that exist and WP:NARTIST (altho these two permanent works are not in museums or national galleries, they important venues.) Netherzone ( talk ) 17:35, 3 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
Michał Gryziński: , it was found to fail WP:NPROF and WP:GNG , along with all similar topics.  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 04:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Science ,  and Poland .  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 04:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep .  A few very highly cited papers, all single-authored.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 04:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Strong Keep .  The characterization of the discussion in WikiProject Physics in the justification here mixes up the free fall atom in the context of the Atomic Structure template (where it should not be included) with the work of the man himself.  This man's work on scattering theory was influential and even is free-fall atom model is notable.  The fact that one paper disputes his free-fall model and that the model is not used in no way alters its thought provoking character.  This work is scientific and notable.  The only issue in the WikiProject discussion was the template which should have a higher bar for inclusion.  Regarding Wikipedia:Notability (academics) , he has 4 papers with over 500 to 1500 citations apiece , certain "evidenced by being the subject of significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources."  His atomic model, while seeming rubbing some people the wrong way, is clearly "interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice".  There are large numbers of individual scientists in Wikipedia below this bar.  Johnjbarton ( talk ) 14:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I remain neutral.  In its favor, Ramsauer–Townsend effect links to Gryzinski in a non-gratituous way.  A a discussion in Talk:Bohr model suggest that it could be linked there too.  However a bit of work is needed.  Another possibility is to merge the free fall model into another article. -- ReyHahn ( talk ) 17:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep .  Bohr model is still very popular especially for Rydberg atoms /molecules, and free-fall atomic model suggests to consider not only circular electron trajectories, but also radial - through dozens of peer-reviewed articles in top physics journals, focused on good agreement with various types of experimental data.  In contrast, it seems the only peer-reviewed criticism is 2 page 1973 Bates, Snyder article, not even comparing with experimental data (states: "Laboratory data are not available for comparison").  Jarek Duda ( talk ) 19:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment2: At this stage it seems like a keep.  But can somebody provide more sources to help the article? -- ReyHahn ( talk ) 15:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If the delete effort is removed I will add some refs.  Johnjbarton ( talk ) 16:23, 12 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
WAsP: No appropriate sources provided.  Fails WP:GNG .  UtherSRG (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science , Technology ,  and Computing .  UtherSRG (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Industry standard software.  Very clearly meets GNG [8] [9] [10] [11] etc etc etc — siro χ o 12:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've added these refs to article and remove notability template — siro χ o 21:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Siroxo.  Meets WP:GNG .  2001:861:3186:7680:39C4:CDBC:7327:2B21 ( talk ) 13:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  A Google Scholar search shows it is widely used and discussed.  (for example, each of these articles focuses on using WAsP for specific projects: doi : 10.1016/j.procs.2019.09.076 , doi : 10.3390/su132413718 , doi : 10.1155/2018/2716868 , doi : 10.1088/1757-899X/1163/1/012008 ) — Carter (Tcr25) ( talk ) 15:37, 13 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 children of presidents of the United States: Interstellarity ( talk ) 23:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] weak Delete – A topic like List of notable children of presidents of the United States is not empty, but would necessarily feel incomplete.  The current article has a lot of unsourced material and, in its current form, that would be my argument for deletion.  If the presidents' pages include information about children, the sources used to verify that information could most likely be referenced in the list article.  For better or worse, the concept of notability by osmosis comes to life here because United States presidents always have book-length biographies and those biographies most always discuss presidential children in enough depth for them to be considered notable in their own right.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 01:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Seems to be a considerable number of them with articles already: Category:Children of presidents of the United States .  Ajf773 ( talk ) 10:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Politics ,  and United States of America .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Looks to me that a good number of them have pages or the ability to have pages (e.g., Malia Obama could realistically have one).  Also, WP:NLIST is easily met (e.g., the books All the Presidents' Children: Triumph and Tragedy in the Lives of America's First Families and Children Of The Presidents: George Washington to Donald Trump: Includes Legitimate, Illegitimate, Alleged, and Secret Children of Our 45 Presidents ).  That seems pretty slam dunk keep to me.  Why?  I Ask ( talk ) 21:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Per Why?  I Ask , plus, this article has existed since 2007 and gets almost 300 views per day.  Of course the children of the POTUS are notable, precisely for being children of the POTUS.  Most may not be sufficiently notable to warrant dedicated articles to them individually, but that’s beside the point.  There is always information in RS about the children of the POTUS.  Deleting this article would be detrimental to WP.  — В²C ☎ 12:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Members of the First Family regularly receive coverage as a group, making this a notable topic.  Reywas92 Talk 18:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Why?  I Ask, В²C, and Reywas92.  Sal2100 ( talk ) 15:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Why?  I Ask Wiki O'Ryan ( talk ) 06:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Article does seem to pass WP:NLIST with reliable sources (as mentioned by Why? I Ask).  ULPS ( talk ) 00:28, 30 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
Zakaria Silini: I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 15 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 01:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep .  No deletion rationale provided.  — siro χ o 03:00, 15 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
Rudolph Ware: Article is being targeted because of contraversial statements the subject made, but I'm unaware of anything else that notable about them.  Eve rgr een Fir (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors ,  and California .  Eve rgr een Fir (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  Eight published reviews of two books would normally be enough for a keep from me per WP:AUTHOR , but it's weak because one of the two (the one with fewer reviews) is a multi-editor edited volume.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 00:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep per David Eppstein Johnbod ( talk ) 02:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Islam , Africa , Illinois , Michigan ,  and Pennsylvania .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep In agreement with David Eppstein and Johnbod .  This scrapes over the line.  Edwardx ( talk ) 10:40, 15 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
Paul Müller (biologist): Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators , Biology ,  and Germany .  UtherSRG (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets NPROF 6 as president of Saarland University from 1979-1983.  See the German version of the article.  Jahaza ( talk ) 18:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , meets NPROF #5 as the chair of biogeography at Saarland University.   Meets NPROF #6 as the President of Saarland University between 1979 and 1983.   Meets NPROF #6 as President for Research of German Rectors' Conference .   Meets NPROF #5 as head of biogeography at the University of Trier between 1999 and 2006.    All that was just from one paragraph on the German Wikipedia article.  RecycledPixels ( talk ) 19:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  My German isn't up for reading the de version but in addition to the above, there seem to be several notable awards, plus a species named after him, and what looks to be an obituary cited.  Looks like an aborted translation of the de article on a notable individual, that was incorrectly tagged for notability.  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 00:26, 19 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
Faaimata Hiliau: The only independent article that offers WP:SIGCOV is this one by The Sydney Morning Herald.  The two ( [30] [31] ) magazine articles by the Uniting Church are not independent and don't count towards notability.  C F A 💬 01:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Christianity ,  and Australia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:BASIC (and even WP:GNG if you count the Compass documentary in addition to The Sydney Morning Herald feature article mentioned above).  Added two articles from The South Sydney Herald about recent activity related to climate change which Hiliau has been involved in ( speaking at Pasifika community gathering and formal visit to government ministers and MPs in Canberra ), as well as an external link to the ABC TV Compass documentary about Hiliau and the future of the United Church, with a viewership of 166,000 in August 2023 per MediaWeek .  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 04:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per GNG.  There were already 2 independent sources with SMH and compass, and Cielquiparle has added 2 more.  Newystats ( talk ) 03:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment She seems to be notable but the references am not sure could have given her a keep. -- Meligirl5 ( talk ) 20:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as a hugely important non-Anglo female faith figure in New South Wales’ third biggest Christian denomination.  SproulesLane ( talk ) 22:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion that together with the references in the article shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 18:23, 2 June 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
Ann Jago: Dazzling4 ( talk ) 16:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Unfortunately I agree there are a lack of sources - almost all are brief mentions of attending the same school as other England cricketers, the best I could find was this: https://bergmanosterbergunion.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/BOU-Magazine-2018-pp65-83.pdf (page 81), mostly trivial information and not enough for GNG - EdwardUK ( talk ) 16:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Cricket ,  and England .  Shellwood ( talk ) 17:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I've used the source shown above, and also found https://thisnzlife.co.nz/moa-bones-limestone-caves-and-velvet-worms-explore-the-prehistoric-treasures-on-and-below-a-familys-waitomo-farm/ which is a profile of her and her family, and expanded the article from that.  Pam D 09:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Interesting: the wording "Ann Jago visited New Zealand after her tour as a member of the English Women’s Cricket team" (from the NZLife source) suggests that she played in NZ for England, but that isn't shown in the article.  Pam D 09:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ PamD : - That is an interesting one - England didn't tour New Zealand after the South Africa tour until 1969 , and nowhere includes Jago as part of that tour (pretty sure she had finished playing by then).  The visit to New Zealand before that was in 1957 , again can't find any evidence of her being on that tour.  CricketArchive doesn't have her playing any matches in New Zealand, hence why it isn't included in her article.  Perhaps she simply visited New Zealand for fun after the South Africa tour?  The wording of that sentence could imply that.  Mpk662 ( talk ) 11:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : International cricketer, and looks like she passes GNG given the excellent work of PamD above.  Played more than just two matches as well, and have updated her infobox to reflect that.  Mpk662 ( talk ) 11:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Looks to be enough GNG coverage in the article now, after update, for a GNG pass.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 19:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  International Women's Test cricketer, now expanded, but a keep eitherway.  StickyWicket aka AA ( talk ) 23:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Now a clear keep.  There may be more stuff on Kent sources - there’s been a big push on awarding women’s county caps recently and as an international she may be covered in that stuff.  I’ll check annuals at some point Blue Square Thing ( talk ) 09:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Done more than enough for me to satisfy WP:GNG .  MaskedSinger ( talk ) 11:31, 20 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
World on the Move: Nothing to show that this radio programme (no longer running) was particularly notable JMWt ( talk ) 09:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United Kingdom .  JMWt ( talk ) 09:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Added some citations.  Flurrious ( talk ) 22:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Flurrious Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 18:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:GNG with sources added to the article by Flurrious.  They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV.  SBKSPP ( talk ) 01:20, 4 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 Bruce White Sr.: To that end, this should likely be re-directed to the film that covers the case he investigated as a part of the FBI.  Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl!  ( talk ) 04:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect : on the good faith assumption that Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! searched for sources and none were found Jack4576 ( talk ) 05:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep besides the TSHA entry on the article at the moment and the book which discusses his career, I quickly found this article from the Statesman and this entire biography .  Did you really look for sources? -- User:Namiba 15:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Of course there aren't much internet sources on him, his work in the Osage murder case was a hundred years ago.  There's a copious amount of sources for him in print and paper, and even if there weren't- the fact that he was instrumental in one of the most brutal murder cases in American history makes him notable enough.  HadesTTW (he/him • talk ) 17:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The Handbook of Texas has an entry on the subject here .  There's also this biography.  𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk ) 15:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep seems to pass WP:GNG with sources provided in discussion and the article. -- Paul McDonald ( talk ) 20:56, 24 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