hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Rijad Smajić: Simione001 ( talk ) 22:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 22:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 22:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 22:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I found [11] , [12] , [13] , [14] , [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] , and [19] , among many many more German and Bosnian sources.  Young clear topic of interest with ongoing career regarded in German and Bosnia and Herzegovina football.  Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of knowledge, and this article is a "yes" to Wikipedia:The one question .  Article needs improvement, not deletion .  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 15:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above which show notability.  Giant Snowman 20:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources User:Das osmnezz brings forward, which are not surprising seeing he is on the squad of a Bundesliga team.  -- Mvqr ( talk ) 10:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are numerous reliable German sources to conclude WP:GNG is there. The only future for this article that I see is extending, not deletion. Rodgers V ( talk ) 12:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , clearly passes GNG. BEFORE not met.-- Ortizesp ( talk ) 05:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources User:Das osmnezz .  Shows enough notability.  Equine-man ( talk ) 14:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep notable Lightburst ( talk ) 18:21, 23 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
Krasna Polyana: Quick Quokka [⁠ talk • contribs ] 17:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Bulgaria .  Quick Quokka [⁠ talk • contribs ] 17:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as the equivalent of a London borough.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 18:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Eastmain : All of the pagees on London boroughs are more well-sourced and in-depth than this article.  Again, this specific region doesn't seem notable.  Quick Quokka [⁠ talk • contribs ] 09:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - it's clearly notable and important to the Bulgarian Wikipedia community.  That is, they see a distinction between this and other places and they see it worth describing.  To me, that means it should be important here.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 15:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep it seems to be legally recognized with census data.  Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 18:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:NPLACE - "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low."  Krasna Polyana is legally recognized, and populated.  In fact, the official website of the municipality of Sofia lists Krasna Polyana(Красна Поляна, if you would like to ctrl-f) in its list of districts here( https://www.sofia.bg/en/web/mayor-of-sofia/regions-in-sofia ).  Krasna Polyana is also covered by Bulgarian sources.  Here's a few from the Bulgarian National Television ( https://bnt.bg/news/hram-vazkresenie-hristovo-v-kvartal-krasna-polyana-v-sofiya-316959news.html ,"Church of Resurrection of Jesus Christ in the district Krasna Polyana in Sofia", https://bntnews.bg/news/avariya-e-ostavila-chast-ot-stolichniya-kvartal-krasna-polyana-bez-tok-1222606news.html ,"Accident leaves a part of Krasna Polyana, a district of the capital, without electricity").  You mention above that London boroughs are more well-written and well-sourced and by this logic Krasna Polyana is not notable.  That logic doesn't work.  London boroughs being more well-sourced and well-written does not mean that Krasna Polyana itself is not notable, but that the English Wikipedia community has more interest and put more effort into those pages than into this district.  The page being poorly-written does not make it unnotable.  Kind regards, Jaguarnik ( talk ) 01:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Certainly not very informative but I don't see a notability issue.  -- Nk ( talk ) 06:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : the article meets WP:GEOLAND because it is a populated, legally recognised placed.  The article can be expanded using sources cited by Jaguarnik and the Bulgarian Wikipedia.  InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 09:27, 7 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
3 Musketiers: The citations are to the cast album and a website not independent of the musical's production team.  Not clear that the topic meets WP:GNG .  4meter4 ( talk ) 16:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I added a couple of references.  It was a challenge to select the most relevant references; there are too many.  The musical was staged almost continuously since 2003 in the Netherlands and Germany.  It was listed as one of the top ten favorite original Dutch musicals of all times.  Ruud Buitelaar ( talk ) 00:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Theatre ,  and Netherlands .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 17:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as passing the GNG.  Thank you, Ruud Buitelaar ! gidonb ( talk ) 02:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Looks notable after new edits by Ruud.  Abhishek0831996 ( talk ) 03:32, 14 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
Jim Powell (sportscaster): With long tenures with the Brewers and Braves, I don't think there's an obvious redirect.  Star Mississippi 23:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Baseball , Georgia (U.S. state) ,  and Wisconsin .  Star Mississippi 23:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  mlb.com has a decent bio of him [16] and Bleacher Report gave him a paragraph as Bob Uecker 's departing longtime broadcasting partner.  [17] He might also have been a Frick Award nominee, if this source can be believed.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 01:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Current article quality is lacking, but I found sources for notability.  [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] I presume more can be found.  – Muboshgu ( talk ) 17:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: To analyse sources presented.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 17:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , I've reviewed the sources presented above and they seem sufficient in affirming the subject's notability.  Furthermore, searches for "Jim Powell Brewers" and "Jim Powell Braves" on Google Books yield results.  Most notably, chapter 30 of this book is titled "Jim Powell and Chip Caray at Truist Park"; the chapter is about 10 pages long featuring extensive interviews and coverage of Powell.  Left guide ( talk ) 21:35, 15 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
Jon Kull: Dartmouth College is a primary source and therefore not independent.  Dan arndt ( talk ) 06:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets WP:NACADEMIC #5, and possibly #1.  Kull holds the Rodgers Professorship at Dartmouth College, an endowed faculty chair ( [28] ).  Scopus shows a h-index of 22, and Google scholar shows about a dozen papers with more than 100 citations, with the top three all published in Nature and having counts of 440, 457, and 859.  Note that WP:NACADEMIC is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline , so in this case, significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources is not required to meet inclusion criteria.  Jfire ( talk ) 07:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors , Biology , California ,  and New Hampshire .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : His university page falls into the category of "reliable though not independent", i.e. can be used as a source but does not contribute to WP:GNG , though that is besides the point, as WP:NPROF is the more applicable notability guideline here rather than GNG.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 12:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  WP:NPROF C5, plausible C1.  Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 13:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per both PROF#C1 [29] and #C5 as above.  Bad nomination, fails to consider the appropriate notability criterion, WP:PROF, which is not based on independent sources (or, if you will, media hype).  Nominator has participated in many past deletion discussions on academics and should know better.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 18:13, 16 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
Express trains in India: Bhagwan22 ( talk ) 05:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is already a merge proposal started at Talk:Express_trains_in_India#Merge_proposal by you.  There is no need of this AfD discussion.  - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 05:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural keep as no valid deletion rationale provided.  ~ A412 talk!  12:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep India is a serious train country.  We wouldn’t delete the TGV article or the High Speed rail in China article so why delete this?  -- Eraserhead1 < talk > 18:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] all listen then agree to merge all the articles mentioned into this article with valid reason provided here Talk:Express_trains_in_India#Merge_proposal Bhagwan22 ( talk ) 09:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per Eraserhead1.  ~~ αvírαm | (tαlk) 13:51, 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
Dan Hendrycks: Wikipedia is not a place for personal curriculum vitae Zusf ( talk ) 05:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The wording may need to be changed, but being covered in The Boston Globe is note-worthy.  APK whisper in my ear 05:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The topic of whether the page met notability guidelines was raised before by another user , but we agreed that the subject meets the notability criteria for academics .  Enervation ( talk ) 06:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets WP:PROF .  Thriley ( talk ) 04:12, 18 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
Goyang Happiness FC: No evidence of notability under GNG or SNG.   A defunct local football club that existed for about 1 year.  North8000 ( talk ) 14:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , especially in light of its short duration.  I don't speak Korean, so am not best positioned to find additional sources, but did not find significant coverage during my limited search.  Also, the second source in the article is arguably a cursory mention.  Arcendeight ( talk ) 14:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing to Keep , in light of sources later in the discussion.  I would ask, though, that these sources be included in the article as appropriate, as its in a sorry state now.  Arcendeight ( talk ) 21:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, I may not fix up the article.  To-do list is long (can see it on my user page) and this is very low impact topic.  I did copy paste the links onto the article's talk page for future editors though toobigtokale ( talk ) 21:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  A team Goyang KH won the 2022 K4 League and bowed out of the 2023 K4 League , and Goyang is mentioned at both those pages, so perhaps a redirect to 2022 K4 League .  Geschichte ( talk ) 17:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 20:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ GiantSnowman , pinging as requested on account of latest mention of 9 Korean sources by @ Toobigtokale .  Arcendeight ( talk ) 21:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources below, AGFing they show SIGCOV as suggested.  Giant Snowman 21:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Notable coverage in the Korean language.  [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] toobigtokale ( talk ) 20:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Per @ toobigtokale .  Svartner ( talk ) 22:29, 23 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
AHRC New York City: No independent sources found in brief WP:BEFORE search.  Daask ( talk ) 09:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability , Organizations ,  and New York .  Shellwood ( talk ) 10:32, 5 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!  07:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as meeting WP:SIGCOV .  Google scholar yields a number of scholarly sources that are paywalled.   In particular, there's a book "State Association for Retarded Children and New York State Government" which is not available online.   Archive.org also has a lot of hits but many of them are unavailable for borrowing.   I was able to find at least two multi-paragraph treatments of the article subject (plus the Autism one which is brief).  It gets a lot of mentions on archive - there's probably more significant coverage out there.  Urban community care for the developmentally disabled (1980) three paragraphs about the organization Parental voices and controversies in Autism (2011) half a paragraph about the organization (fulltext on Researchgate ) Mental retardation in America : a historical reader at least two paragraphs starting a chapter at 351, plus more on pages 358-59 which aren't available to me Oblivy ( talk ) 03:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I have to agree per se especially with this source .  Its true that non-profit corps doesn't usually get notable except with PR, etc. (some of them I mean).  However, this came from a origin, a history and even if it is one boo that is verifiable, let the article be kept for further improvements.  The matter is that WP:NEXIST .  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  10:46, 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
Karen Poulsen: Does not appear to pass WP:NACTOR .  ~ T P W 14:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  ~ T P W 14:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Denmark .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 15:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The Danish, Norwegian and Swedish wikis provide more sources.  Dansk Biografisk Leksikon is a respectable source.  Danske Film has an entry, as does Dansk Filminstitut .  A search for images shows plenty of potential sources.  A respected actress with a long career and many roles.  Aymatth2 ( talk ) 19:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Aymatth2.  Borderline case, but looks like it could be improved to a short but sufficient article.  -- Random person no 362478479 ( talk ) 00:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : the Dansk Biografisk Leksikon source given above seems a clear pass for notability, and I've added it to the article. Pam D 07:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Article has been improved after the nomination. She has the minimum coverage needed to pass for notability from varioud sources. Thilsebatti ( talk ) 10:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Forty years of roles in Danish films; reviewed internationally. Jaireeodell ( talk ) 14:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Not one of Denmark's most prominent actresses but she certainly deserves a page in Wikipedia.-- Ipigott ( talk ) 16:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep per above, @ True Pagan Warrior : suggest you withdraw.... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:53, 16 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
Lizzie Spender: PatGallacher ( talk ) 12:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women ,  and England .  Shellwood ( talk ) 13:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If not found notable, redirect to Barry_Humphries#Personal_life .  Pam D 07:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think she's notable enough for Wikipedia: actress and writer, some example sources: Five page article in House & Garden August 2015 , article in Sunday Independent (Dublin) - Sunday 25 September 2005 , Daily Mirror - Tuesday 28 February 1989 and Sunday Telegraph August 28, 2005 Piecesofuk ( talk ) 15:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It would help if these sources were fully integrated into the article.  PatGallacher ( talk ) 19:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources identified by Piecesofuk.  pburka ( talk ) 17:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Agree with Piecesofuk.  Jaireeodell ( talk ) 00:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Agree with Piecesofuk.  Why are some editors against pages on women?  An Encyclopedia should be inclusive.  This actor may not be an A-lister but has appeared in some major films and the article has plenty of references to back that up.  Brian R Hunter ( talk ) 19:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, I am not convinced that the page should have been renamed.  As a notable person, the page title should be her professional name and not her abbreviated name, Lizzie is only used in links relating to her personal life.  The BFI page [8] uses Elizabeth Spender.  Brian R Hunter ( talk ) 20:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] fyi, from WP:AFDEQ : While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD or deletion review discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, can make the discussion difficult to track, and can lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts.  pburka ( talk ) 21:58, 5 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
The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (disambiguation): The titles don't seem to be two completely different things.  I read the examples in that page, but I don't see how it should apply to this page.  I will getting a consensus on what to do with this.  Interstellarity ( talk ) 13:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions .  Interstellarity ( talk ) 13:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as the restorer.  Per WP:PTM , "A link to an article title that merely contains part of the disambiguation page title ... should not be included."  It doesn't get much clearer than that.  What next?  Should My Blue Heaven (disambiguation) be merged to Blue Heaven (disambiguation) ?  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 14:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:SMALLDETAILS .  BD2412 T 19:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per MOS:DABGROUPING - Handy DAB - I never before realized how many variations there are on The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.  — Maile ( talk ) 23:36, 15 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