hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
2023–24 A.C. Milan season: Most likely a case of WP:TOOSOON , but currently fails WP:GNG .  Onel 5969 TT me 11:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Italy .  Shellwood ( talk ) 12:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Hi, probably is just a case of WP:TOOSOON , but is it worthy to remove now if, in just few days, new information will be available and then added and referenced?  Actual season is about to end by May 2023, when info on new season will start to be avavilable.  I would keep the page, maybe placing templates asking for new references/information to be added as soon as available.  Keep also in mind that, in the same timespan, also other teams' 2023-24 season pages will start to appear...  Riktetta ( talk ) 14:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Upcoming season of one of the top leagues in Europe is for sure notable. Quite standard to set them up at this stage of the year prior to the beginning of the season. Another bad nomination by Onel5969 , wasting everyone's time. -- SuperJew ( talk ) 08:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Another waste of time AfD, article will be needed. Govvy ( talk ) 11:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per SuperJew, and agree this is yet another flawed AFD from the same user. Giant Snowman 22:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I'm not sure what lead to this nomination for this bog-standard subpage - which is at worst a week or two early. Nominator needs to stop these disruptive FOOTY nominations. I'm asking User:onel5969 to please withdraw it, so as not to waste any more time on it. Nfitz ( talk ) 05:13, 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: keep
Razboishte Monastery: All of the sources I've found either mention it in passing or are just blogs.  Flux55 ( my talk page ) 14:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions .  Flux55 ( my talk page ) 14:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Geography .  Shaws username .  talk .  14:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose .  It's a notable monument and attraction in the area.  Several articles mention it as a protected national monument of culture or an archeological monument of culture, although I can't find an official list online.  Here's a article dedicated to the monastery's heritage and here's a passing mention in another one as one of the few cave monasteries in the Balkans.  And this is a book about the monastery's history.  — Toдor Boжinov — 15:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Assuming GF on its notability.  This is possibly an English translation of the sourced Bulgiarian Wikipedia article .  This site is all over the internet, but I am not sure if these are tourist listings, or otherwise.   Is it possible to get an English translation of the Bulgiarian article?   This site is all over YouTube in various postings.  — Maile ( talk ) 16:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep arguments from Todor Bozhinov above are convincing Arved ( talk ) 08:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Seems to easily pass WP:GNG when searching in Bulgarian?  SportingFlyer T · C 12:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Sources cited appear to satisfy GNG.  Djflem ( talk ) 12:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Unfortunately the online list of heritage listed sites in Sofia Province is a work in progress and Godech has not yet been added, but this will undoubtedly be on it and therefore meet WP:GEOFEAT .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets our guidelines for inclusion.  Lightburst ( talk ) 19:23, 22 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
Amsvartnir: The article fails WP:NOTABILITY because it does not reach the threshold of significant coverage for a separate article.  Jontesta ( talk ) 03:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions .  Jontesta ( talk ) 03:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  As with just about every other place or thing in Norse myth, the article could easily be greatly expanded with this or that mention or line of inquiry.  It also contains discussion unique to the location.  There's no need to merge it into anything else and it shouldn't be deleted.  :bloodofox: ( talk ) 09:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This may be a rather short topic, but I think there's enough coverage in secondary sources to establish stand-alone notability.  The Encyclopedia of Imaginary and Mythical Places , p. 19, has an entry and so I think we should, too.  This has about half a page of etymological analysis, and this has some more.  Both being very old, I expect that there is more up-to-date scholarly analysis out there.  Daranios ( talk ) 14:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: It would be helpful for the nominator to evaluate the sources brought up in the discussion to see if they are acceptable to them.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I find the other encyclopedia's coverage of it more convincing.  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 09:20, 29 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
Mikhail Komelkov: -Lemonaka‎ 07:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Russia .  -Lemonaka‎ 07:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Aviation .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:1E does not apply to this article, he is not notable for a single event, but for earning the title, Hero of the Soviet Union and fighting in numerous air battles.  Through a quick search on Google Books, I found he is mentioned in the following sources [25] [26] [27] .  He is also mentioned in this webpage about the P-39 Airacobra in the USSR, [28] .  There are also some sources on the Russian Wikipedia article about him .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk • contribs ) 08:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The Russian Wikipedia article mentions entries on the subject in this biographical dictionary and this history.  𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk ) 15:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  An air ace, who we usually keep, with the highest award of his country, which we usually keep.  Consensus is definitely to keep.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 15:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Person is awarded by one of the highest award of USSR.  There are many references to him in the literature, although it is not shown in the article.  It's easy to google and check.  Kursant504 ( talk ) 12:40, 1 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
Miles Murphy: all i could find was a namedrop , another namedrop , yet another namedrop , another , and so on .  ltb d l ( talk ) 13:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Australia .  ltb d l ( talk ) 13:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Several instances of significant coverage contemporary to his era of activity .  Connormah ( talk ) 14:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  A multi-time national and world champion 400 m sprinter, and appears to meet GNG with trove and newspapers.com sources.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 17:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Sport of athletics .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The subject meets WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV from multiple reliable sources.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 06:32, 23 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
Forest, Washington: Please remember that post offices back then did not always use the same name as the place where they were, in alot a cases that place didn't exist.The fourth reference (jtenton) is a semi unreliable source that also says it was post office, and the sources used to make that claim are basically also the story of a post office, a school district, and election district named forest.  It was also earlier a grange district.  As you might imagine such things appear in newspapers but you want find any of those news papers that ever say it was a town.  The remaining sources are of no use, and I haven't found anything further than those that actually give any substance on it.  James.folsom ( talk ) 23:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions .  James.folsom ( talk ) 23:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Forgot this part, Washington State place names [41] couldn't be bothered to mention it and it was published in the '70s.  James.folsom ( talk ) 00:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep on the basis of the explanations at the article's talk page, Talk:Forest, Washington .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 13:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Please see the Talk:Forest, Washington for my sourcing research.  Forest, though never large, has existed as a community in some form or fashion since the late 1890s.  Instead of deletion, we simply expand the article, fleshing out the details.  I volunteer to do so.  Shortiefourten ( talk ) 17:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  04:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Shortiefourten's comment on the talk page.  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 01:07, 25 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
Michael MacConnell: Natg 19 ( talk ) 07:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Australia .  Natg 19 ( talk ) 07:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, it is unsourced and that is certainly bad.  I would not know how to source it, but it certainly looks as if it could be.  I suggest we let this discussion go on for while to let other editors source it.  Bduke ( talk ) 07:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  From Ebscosearch/Proquest there seem to be multiple reviews of Maelstrom (Redlich, Julie.  Woman's Day (Australia Edition).  10/152007, Vol.  59 Issue 42, p104; and  Clayton Smales.  Townsville Bulletin.  11/03/2007; and [short] Reading room.  Australian Women's Weekly, 00050458, Oct2007, Vol.  77, Issue 10; and from Proquest [short] A mayhem of murderers - CRIME FILE: Blundell, Graeme.   Weekend Australian Canberra, A.C.T..  05 Jan 2008: 10.  [short] Tense tales of uncertain action.  The Canberra Times.  27 Oct 2007: 16.  ) and also several for Splinter (Author spies a top novel idea By: By BROOKE NEWSTEAD, Daily Telegraph, The (Sydney), JUL 14, 2008; and [short] Max Tennison.  You're booked.  MX.  07/30/2008 and [short] Thriller Brunetti, Frank.  Sun-Herald; 06 July 2008: 11).  Proquest also finds a two longish profile-cum-interviews with quite a bit of biographical detail (Killer instinct; PROFILE: McCarthy, Joanne. Herald; Newcastle, N.S.W.. 22 Sep 2007: 2) and (Crime and publishing: THE INTERVIEW. Michael MacConnell talks to Keith Austin.  Sydney Morning Herald.;  05 July 2008: 28.).  Maelstrom was also longlisted for Ned Kelly best first crime novel award by the Crime Writers' Association of Australia.  Seems just about enough for my interpretation of WP:Author.  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 09:09, 6 October 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!  06:15, 13 October 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!  06:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , as the sources found by Espresso Addict are enough to clear the bar.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 16:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Espresso Addict .  Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 07:19, 27 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
The Adam Friedland Show: No significant coverage in any of the reliable sources, only passing mentions.  Brycehughes ( talk ) 03:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  Brycehughes ( talk ) 03:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  References seem adequate for this show under its current and its previous titles.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 03:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Not only adequately noteworthy, but becoming moreso.  Just saw a major podcast discussing his interview of Chris Cuomo , which is why I was looking up this article.  — Kaz ( talk ) 15:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: I think apperances of Cuomo and Neil deGrasse Tyson, along with references to the show in relation to Matty Healy and Taylor Swift in the Independent [25] , Forbes [26] , GQ [27] , BuzzFeed [28] , and I am sure others, is enough to keep.  123popos123 ( talk ) 03:06, 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
Aigner-Schanze: Doesn't appear to meet WP:N or have a good WP:ATD .  Boleyn ( talk ) 15:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , it is a World Cup venue and as such notable.  The article, of course, need improvements.  Withdraw nomination Tone is absolutely right, I was concentrating too much on how much I was struggling for decent references rather than the level of events.  Boleyn ( talk ) 14:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
Patrick Dumont: Looks like promotion Rodgers V ( talk ) 12:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Finance , Games , Basketball , Nevada , New York ,  and Texas .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 15:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The majority shareholder of an NBA team seems like a notable figure.  The article doesn't seem blatantly promotional, and it cites several valid sources.  Zagal e jo ( talk ) 23:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as the majority shareholder of a franchise in the NBA, one of the top sports leagues in the world, this person is notable and it can be presumed GNG-appropriate sources can be found about him.   Even if no such sources are found, this would be a clear case to apply WP:IAR .  Frank Anchor 02:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Fulfills WP:GNG .  Vague reasoning for deletion by nom.  \\ Loksmythe // ( talk ) 15:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This article meets the criteria for notability and should be kept.  Go4thProsper ( talk ) 01:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Clearly meets GNG.  Not sure where the nom sees WP:PROMO .  Longhornsg ( talk ) 01:49, 28 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
Portland Men's Roller Derby: A search in news returns the coveted "1 result".  Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 19:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Sports ,  and Oregon .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:25, 3 May 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!  19:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I found barely enough RS for notability, but the sourcing is still admittedly thin.  — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 00:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure the coverage passes WP:AUD here .  Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 04:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Aren't sports teams exempt from WP:ORG (and thus exempt from AUD)?  The second sentence of WP:ORG says, The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams.  Sports teams qualify for notability by meeting WP:GNG, according to WP:NSPORT , which says, in boldface, The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline.  — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 05:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You're right about that, my mistake, thought Roller Derby was more like WWE than it is.  Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 20:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Grand'mere Eugene.  Thanks for improving the entry.  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 13:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  06:38, 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
Optimist International: I can find no secondary sourcing that does anything more than mention the club.  There are two books on the topic, but one is for sure published by the organization itself, and the other seems to be.  Update: I just saw the first AfD, where I found no actual evidence of notability, except for one minor article.  Drmies ( talk ) 20:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Kentucky ,  and Missouri .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The article may need work, but the organisation is significant, see e.g. this [2] dml ( talk ) 21:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 21:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  WP:THREE : [3] [4] [5] .  Article definitely needs a solid cleanup though!  Merko ( talk ) 01:46, 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: keep