hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Graft (politics): GnocchiFan ( talk ) 12:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep - The concept of graft definitely passes GNG just from common use.  There is also a significant semantic difference between graft and the general concept of political corruption, so I don't see merge as a great option.  That said, this article does little to show that distinction.  It also looks like every time a source is added, it gets deprecated for one reason or another.  Draftify isn't an option, either, as there hasn't been anyone seriously interested in the article for years.  There is still a raft of good source material on gScholar and gBooks if we could find editors interested in the subject.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as an unsourced definition, if the article is subsequently WP:HEYed I have no problem with keeping it.  SportingFlyer T · C 15:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and improve.  Graft is discussed ad nauseum: Public Plunder - A History of Graft in America , Department of Justice Graft and Grafting: What are the Remedies?  , American Journal of Sociology Corruption in Cities: Graft and Politics in American Cities at the Turn of the Twentieth Century , National Bureau of Economic Research Unsafe at the Top: China's anti-graft drive targets billionaires and bankers , The Guardian As Graft Cases in Chile Multiply, a 'Gag Law' Angers Journalists , The New York Times etc. etc.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 08:26, 28 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
Leysingi: See also Thrall § Society .  Jay D. Easy ( t ) 17:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions .  Jay D. Easy ( t ) 17:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law , Denmark , Norway ,  and Sweden .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  Satisfies GNG.  This topic has received signficant coverage in books and periodical articles in Google Books, Google Scholar, JSTOR, the Internet Archive and elsewhere.  There are, in particular, entire periodical articles on this subject, such as: [27] .  The article can be expanded beyond a definition.  Since the topic is notable, the article is not redundant, quite apart from the fact that a freed former slave is not the same thing as a slave.  James500 ( talk ) 23:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per WP:GNG.  Per significant coverage in litterature and mentions on internet.  BabbaQ ( talk ) 08:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  At worst, merge, but certainly not outright delete.  Srnec ( talk ) 01:06, 2 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
Azeem Sajjad: The subject also doesn't meet GNG.  Anyone willing to prove me wrong must either provide Three best coverage references for assessment based on GNG, prove that he had major roles in those TV dramas for meeting NACTOR, or show that the TV dramas/film he directed meet GNG themselves.  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 13:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions .  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 13:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Notable artist, has been part of notable projects in Pakistani showbiz industry.  Failure of some projects doesn't mean that he's no more notable.  If that's the case then why do we have articles for his directions.  Muneebll ( talk ) 18:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you demonstrate that the TV dramas/film he directed meet GNG themselves?  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 18:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Television ,  and Iowa .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - plenty of coverage on Azeem Sajjad's role as film-maker in Pakistani media - "Chaudhry is being directed by Azeem Sajjad, whose name previously hit headlines for his 8689 project that starred Saba Qamar." ( Dawn ), "Azeem Sajjad's upcoming movie is based on the life of late SP Chaudhry Aslam and we have a poster to see that for ourselves." ( Dawn ), " "Director, actor, writer of his debut film '8969', Azeem Sajjad, has said the flick being released on Dec 2 across the country" ( Dawn ), "A four-hour-long cut of Chaudhry was directed by Azeem Sajjad that made even less sense (Sajjad’s last venture was the unforgivable 8969).  According to the nightmarish behind-the-scenes story, Sajjad overshot the film without coherence, exceeding the budget by a fair number of crores.  ", ( Dawn ), etc.  -- Soman ( talk ) 21:00, 21 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!  22:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : WP:DIRECTOR seems met as he directed at least 2 notable productions.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 08:55, 26 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
Bhavika Sharma: C1K98V ( 💬 ✒️ 📂 ) 04:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women ,  and Television .  C1K98V ( 💬 ✒️ 📂 ) 04:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as meets WP:NACTOR with significant roles in multiple television series and I don't see any issues with the sources.  – DreamRimmer ( talk ) 14:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep pass in WP:NACTOR ....  but need some more RS Worldiswide ( talk ) 06:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Specific assessment of the available sources would be helpful.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, NotAGenious ( talk ) 18:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The subject is clearly meets WP:NACTOR guidelines but I think more reliable source will be needed for Verification . ~~ αvírαm | (tαlk) 12:58, 22 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
An Tae-song: Simione001 ( talk ) 23:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 23:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 23:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 23:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Yonhap News reported that An Tae-song was reported as the fifth best soccer players in North Korea by the KCNA.  [1] (Also reported here: [2] ; Original report here: [3] ) - He was called the second best soccer player in North Korea 2018: [4] .  While I don't doubt that it will be difficult to find sources, someone being described as the second best soccer player in the country by the North Korean government suggests that there are likely more sources out there (potentially within North Korea).  :3 F4U ( they /it ) 18:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above which show notability (AGFing analysis).  Giant Snowman 09:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes GNG per above sources. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 02:53, 2 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
Baruch Chait: passing mention in the RS, the other is a blog.  Gugrak ( talk ) 09:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock.  Horse Eye's Back ( talk ) 16:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Bands and musicians , Judaism ,  and Israel .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In the absence of good sourcing a redirect to Maarava Machon Rubin might be appropriate--thought that article also needs improvement.  Drmies ( talk ) 12:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  This source is SIGCOV.  Maybe there is a second source?  gidonb ( talk ) 00:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The source of this seems to be Haaretz , based on this translation.  Regardless, it is now in the article.  Havradim leaf a message 12:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you! gidonb ( talk ) 14:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Coment .  If someone can find a second V, IS, RS, SIGCOV source that would be awesome.  If not, I suggest merging, rather than deleting or redirecting.  gidonb ( talk ) 22:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep this article about a groundbreaking Jewish musician (who co-created the first folk/Jewish fusion band in 1967) composer, school founding rosh yeshiva /educator and prolific children's book author.  The sockpuppet nominator obviously didn't bother to do any checking WP:BEFORE they nominated this.  But WP:HEY , I just spent some time adding a few 3rd party reliable sources, and I haven't even gotten to the Hebrew language sources yet, which there has to be regarding this influential Israeli rabbi.  I don't agree with Drmies regarding redirecting to Maarava Machon Rubin , nor even with merging there per gidonb.  None of the musical or author information would fit well in the school article, and the educational info would not fare well in The Rabbis' Sons .  Havradim leaf a message 11:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The " merging there per gidonb " was explicitly if no one would come up with a second valid source, after I had come up with the first.  Someone did find more sources, so obviously I support only keep.  Per WP:GNG and WP:HEY ! gidonb ( talk ) 14:20, 15 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
2024 Campeonato Paulista: Not referenced -- the single reference is undefined.  Problems with WP:FUTURE .  Mikeblas ( talk ) 00:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Brazil .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 11:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Very notable tournament.  Furthermore, references were added in the article.  BRDude 70 ( talk ) 13:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 16:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - needs improvement, not deletion.  Giant Snowman 16:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Only a month away from the competition, and there is a whole serious of these, so I don't quite get this current nomination, feels as if you didn't do an ounce of research or WP:BEFORE, Govvy ( talk ) 21:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Non-sense AfD Svartner ( talk ) 10:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep whilst people shouldn't be creating speculative articles months/years before sports events happen, that isn't the case here.  It's an article with decent levels of information and sources about a league that starts next month.  Perfectly acceptable article about a future event.  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 10:57, 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
Glasgow Bellgrove rail accident: LibStar ( talk ) 03:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Transportation ,  and Scotland .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 04:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would probably keep this one.  It did lead to some newspaper coverage not mentioned in our article, such as this [38] .  It has also earned passing mentions since, as a fatal accident, these being fortunately rare in modern times.  [39] .  I'm happy at getting rid of articles on the multitude of "oops bumped into the buffers" accidents that caused no injuries, had no repercussions for rail safety, and were forgotten a week later - not every rail accident is significant - but ones that led to discussions about how rail systems should be run and laid-out, and which caused deaths, are probably notable.  Elemimele ( talk ) 06:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Primary newspaper coverage, passing mentions, and causing deaths are all irrelevant to notability.  We're only concerned about WP:GNG and WP:NEVENTS .  This likely wouldn't have met notability requirements if not for the sources found below.  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 17:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This accident was described in detail in

Discussion outcome: keep
Charlie Gray: The Heymann criterion is to provide two reliable sources .   Since he is said to have died at the age of 36, there is likely to be an obituary, but it isn't one of the sources here.  Draftify as nominator.   Provide six months to find sources.  Robert McClenon ( talk ) 05:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Baseball ,  and Pennsylvania .  Robert McClenon ( talk ) 05:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I've expanded a bit.  Found SIGCOV in two book sources, including the "Rank and File" book published by one of the leading baseball historians, David Nemec .  Cbl62 ( talk ) 10:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Has enough sourcing to qualify for GNG.  Spanneraol ( talk ) 13:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per the expansion by Cbl62 .  This would make a great DYK hook in my opinion: ... that six-fingered Charlie Gray started at pitcher in Major League Baseball ?  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 14:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nominated at Template:Did you know nominations/Charlie Gray .  Cbl62 ( talk ) 18:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Cbl62.  Rlendog ( talk ) 21:49, 19 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
Evides pubiventris: Kindly redirect to that NBV2010 ( talk ) 19:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 10 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 19:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , what is the similar article?  Esolo5002 ( talk ) 20:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep UtherSRG (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Ref 1 states that a basionym is Chrysodema pubiventris , but there is no article with that name, at least.  Geschichte ( talk ) 21:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal , Organisms ,  and South Africa .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  This is a valid species name, as shown at Ref 1.  The existence of an article on a genus is not a reason to delete an article on a species.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 22:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep See Reference 1 on the article.  ADifferentMan ( talk ) 05:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep it is a directly observed species on its own, so meets WP:NBIOL .  Contributor892z ( talk ) 17:36, 17 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
Alex Muscat (politician): Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 07:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  As a member of a national parliament, Muscat is automatically notable.  I added some references.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 07:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Eastmain, I also made some changes to this article.  DreamRimmer ( talk ) 10:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Eastmain.  Mccapra ( talk ) 11:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Clearly passes WP:NPOL .  Curbon7 ( talk ) 17:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Sorry to WP:PILEON but this was a miss, the person meets our guideline for WP:NPOL .  Lightburst ( talk ) 19:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Clearly meets WP:NPOL .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW .  Subject passes criterion #! of WP:NPOL .  Sal2100 ( talk ) 20:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as member of a national parliament.  Somebody can close this debate now.  Carrite ( talk ) 10:10, 27 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
2017 Tanay bus accident: No evidence of lasting effects based on GNews Archives and GBooks search.  GNews shows a temporary ban on field trips which lasted merely six months .  A brief and cited mention is already at List_of_traffic_collisions_(2000–present)#2017 so a redirect ther can be an alternative to deletion .  I've also added the reference mentioned above as a citation in said entry.  Lenticel ( talk ) 09:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Philippines .  Lenticel ( talk ) 09:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - Per nominator TheNuggeteer ( talk ) 09:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep this well-developed article as a legitimate SPINOFF that passes EVENT.  Just 7 years have passed since this accident in which 50 people died.  Societal impact beyond the event was acknowledged by nom.  Deleting this article will further increase the disparity between the accidents that are being kept and deleted for developed nations versus developing nations.  This nomination raises a major equity concern.  gidonb ( talk ) 10:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Satisfies WP:LASTING , accident led to nationwide reforms on field trips and other off-campus activities throughout all school levels up to college in the Philippines in both private and public institutions – instituted after the ban was lifted.  Hariboneagle927 ( talk ) 14:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge or redirect to List of traffic collisions (2000–present) ; Wikipedia is not a collection of news stories.  I'll gladly change my ! vote if anyone can find at least two retrospective sources to demonstrate sustained coverage, as opposed to news articles and updates.  Whether people died or whether it happened in the Philippines are not reasons to keep an article, as I'm sure the other ! voters are well aware.  The big ugly alien ( talk ) 23:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a distraction.  The article should be kept by EVENT.  The rest is something to keep in mind.  A general concern.  gidonb ( talk ) 06:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:LASTING per Hariboneagle's and Gidonb's arguments.  SBKSPP ( talk ) 00:18, 15 June 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!  22:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep satisfies WP:EVENT .  Jake Wartenberg ( talk ) 13:48, 17 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