hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
49ers–Raiders rivalry: The reference page only lists one outdated article from Bleacher Report declaring the two teams as rivals, most of the articles supporting animosity between the two just revolve around the fan misconduct and the two teams cancelling preseason games.  PontiacAurora ( talk ) 21:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Rivalry in professional sports is more a fan phenomenon than one that involves the players, but it's worldwide.  Consider the reputation that English football hooligans have, for example.  A rivalry between groups of fans is still a rivalry, and reports of fan misconduct are a demonstration of the rivalry's notability.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 02:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The rivalry is likely to fade somewhat with the Raiders now across a state line, but N doesn't expire just because a natural inter-city rivalry does.  Nate • ( chatter ) 03:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and United States of America .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 05:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes WP:GNG with significant coverage that speaks of the rivalry such as [1] [2] [3] .  Alvaldi ( talk ) 11:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I usually dislike rivalry articles for teams that are not in the same division.  With that said, I do believe that this is a demonstrated and recognized rivalry, and that notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per GNG and a lack of valid deletion rationale.  Rlendog ( talk ) 14:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Nevada .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Just as in the case of Rams–Vikings rivalry AfD vote, I believe that this article deserves to stay due to its obvious notability.  I agree with the arguments on that above and because of that won't reiterate those twice.  Rodgers V ( talk ) 12:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep per what looks like a misunderstanding or unawareness from the nominator of WP:NOTTEMPORARY .  ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 08:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per all above and WP:NOTTEMPORARY .  Frank Anchor 15:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Per WP:GNG and WP:NTEMP , per all above.  Ejgreen77 ( talk ) 15:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per above, it passes WP:GNG and has significant coverage.  As per WP:NOTTEMPORARY , a subject/topic etc does not need to have ongoing coverage once it has had significant coverage, which applies to this rivalry.  Fats40boy11 ( talk ) 16:35, 20 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
Bradley Shavit Artson: Password (talk) (contribs) 01:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors , Philosophy , Judaism , Germany , California ,  and Massachusetts .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning Keep Article about him in Jewish Journal [20] Starred review in Publishers' Weekly of God of Becoming and Relationship: The Dynamic Nature of Process Theology [21] A journal article about his work [22] -- Jahaza ( talk ) 07:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Some more academic articles discussing his work: [23] , [24] , [25] [26] , [27] (yes it's on academia.edu but it's a copy of a journal article).  The article does need to be completely rewritten, but I don't think WP:TNT is justified.  Apocheir ( talk ) 22:59, 19 February 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!  07:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : New sources look fine, including the article about him and the book reviews.  Easily passes notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:46, 26 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
Diamondbacks–Dodgers rivalry: The teams play each other often because they are in the same division.  And there was some short-lived beef in the 2010s but nothing to the level of a big rivalry like Yankees-Red Sox .  Natg 19 ( talk ) 02:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball , Arizona ,  and California .  Natg 19 ( talk ) 02:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Please note that this article was just nominated at AfD in November of 2023.  That discussion closed as "keep."  Ejgreen77 ( talk ) 02:33, 23 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
Celina, Minnesota: Maybe it was once a store, maybe not.  Searching turned up a passing reference to a "Ladies Aid of Bear River, Silverdale, and Celina Minnesota" in a discussion on the making of lefse , which I would submit is a very weak peg to hang belief in an actual town on.  Other than that I got juxtapositions and gazetteers.  Mangoe ( talk ) 13:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Minnesota .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Unfortunately, the

Discussion outcome: keep
Pirro Mosi: (Surveyed as part of NPP October 2023 .)  Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw? ) 23:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and Albania .  Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw? ) 23:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:56, 8 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!  23:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : SIGCOV clearly exists and the article probably passes GNG, although I have no knowledge of Albanian and can't comment on whether the sources are reliable.  — SamX [ talk · contribs ] 14:20, 21 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!  21:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] When I made a Google search to find sources, I found that Reddit post [1] .  Idk if it is a canvassing attempt or not.  Whoever comes here to ! vote should be aware that the AfD is closed based on the weight of the arguments rather than the number of ! votes.  Ktrimi991 ( talk ) 17:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : collected works are in the [2] Marubi National Museum of Photography , I think this meets WP:PHOTOGRAPHER #4(b).  // Timothy :: talk 22:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Clearly notable.  I just added links to Google Translations to each of the six references.  Most are independent, reliable references from Albanian media.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 16:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets WP:GNG with the sources currently in the article.  Jacona ( talk ) 23:51, 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
A Bastard's Tale: However, that is the extent of reliable or situational sources I could find covering the game in any significant detail, with even passing coverage being rare.  Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 18:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 18:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I also only found the same two sources, and there aren't any suitable redirect or merger targets. -- Alexandra IDV 18:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing to a very weak Keep thanks to the source found by ZXCVBNM-- Alexandra IDV 12:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep another review at Gaming Age here and other reviews linked at Metacritic here , imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 20:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I considered Gaming Age, but all discussions on their potential reliability suggest that content published after 2002 may not be reliable.  As far as other Metacritic sources go, none of those are listed as reliable sources for use on Wikipedia.  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 23:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Atlantic306 : ( edit conflict ) Looking at WP:VG/RS classification and the past discussions linked there, Gaming Age isn't usable aside from possibly old material from before it split off from IGN in the early 00s.  The other reviews listed on Metacritic (aside from the two Cukie mentioned) are either classed as unreliable (God is a Geek, Worth Playing, GameGrin) or haven't been classed at all (PlayStation Country, GameSpew).  If this is going to have a chance, I think we would have to discuss PlayStation Country and GameSpew at WT:VG/RS , although the lack of an "about" page or similar on PlayStation Country, and GameSpew's self-description as a passion-project blog site, makes me doubtful that they could be considered reliable sources. -- Alexandra IDV 23:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A review from Softpedia should get it across the finish line in terms of notability.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 08:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep We very narrowly got there in the end with WP:THREE .  Don't forget to make sure to add them in the article or used the sources found template!  ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 08:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Alexandra IDV : What do you think now that there's a third RS review?  I feel it may just barely squeak by, but since you ! voted delete, I'd like your input before I withdraw.  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 00:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Cukie Gherkin : I think this article subject only just meets GNG with the absolute bare minimum of coverage, but yeah, struck my "delete". -- Alexandra IDV 12:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] All right then, withdrawn .  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 17:25, 25 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
Thomas Matthew Crooks: Only notable for one crime, nothing else.  Can be covered enough in Attempted assassination of Donald Trump .  No need for an article, and honestly needs to not have an article to respect our policies on recently deceased persons given the fact that most of what exists about him is speculation.  -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User / say hi! ) 01:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User / say hi! ) 01:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep and close --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep .  RodRabelo7 ( talk ) 01:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Tried to withdraw but I was not fast enough .  I thought TW would show prior AfD but it did not do so.  Please feel free to delete this page under G6 if possible.  Apologies for the trouble.  -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User / say hi! ) 01:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep & close article has already been AfD'd like 3 times, all of which have been closed.  Sir MemeGod . _.  ( talk - contribs - created articles ) 01:44, 15 July 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
Hunter Fraser: Despite this coverage, I don't think it's about him per se, but rather about an event, and he has not been convicted yet, so we can't add it to the article per the WP:BLP guideline.  He is very early in his career, and this seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON .  Also, this article was created in bad faith anyway .  Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BADFAITH .  Simzeit ( talk ) 20:27, 18 August 2023 (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/2023 August 18 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 20:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : He is missing before the trial.  That is a fact that can be added.  he has also written 52 articles according to google scholar profile .  1keyhole ( talk ) 21:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and California .  Shellwood ( talk ) 22:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - According to Scopus his h-index is 38.  [21] Netherzone ( talk ) 00:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : it is frankly absurd to call a full professor, who finished his PhD nearly 20 years ago, and who is PI of their own lab at Stanford, "very early in his career".  -- asilvering ( talk ) 01:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Passes WP:Prof#C1 . Xxanthippe ( talk ) 10:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] Keep . per WP:Prof#C1 with a high h index and 28 papers with 100+ citations he clearly had an impact on his field. -- hroest 18:48, 25 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
Scavenger's daughter: If I'm wrong, please let me know.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstar3k ( talk • contribs ) 09:13, 8 June 2023 (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/2023 June 8 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 09:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header.   Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.  — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 09:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Book reviews, a soundcloud page and what appears to be a stage play, but no hits for this "thing", torture device?  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok so there is this [62] from 1894, this from 1905 [63] and this mention of the device [64] .  Not sure they amount to substantial coverage, and if we'd even consider 100 yr old journals as RS.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to Skevington's gyves : several hits on Google Books for that title, currently given in article as an alternative name.  Most of those on p1 are Victorian, [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] but some more recent hits with WP:SIGCOV on p2 onwards: [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] ).  It's definitely real, or at least discussed as such by reliable sources: either way, it passes WP:GNG , but doesn't seem to be most commonly known under the present title.  Seems to be quite widely discussed in relation to Protestant martyrdoms under Henry VIII and Mary Tudor, particularly in relation to Foxe's mention of it.  UndercoverClassicist ( talk ) 15:26, 15 June 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!  19:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, —⁠Scotty Wong ⁠— 05:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Support keep and move to Skevington's gyves per UndercoverClassicist , after reviewing some of their sources and perusing Google books as well.  — siro χ o 07:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
Fyodor Chernozubov: Also does not appear to meet WP:GNG.  Kingsmasher678 ( talk ) 02:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , History , Military ,  and Russia .  Curbon7 ( talk ) 05:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Ck references on his article in ru.wp .  Curbon7 ( talk ) 05:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  General who appears to have plenty of sourcing on Russian Wikipedia.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:08, 14 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!  03:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on the awards he received, unless some wants to argue that the ru.wiki sources are not adequate.  Mccapra ( talk ) 06:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If someone can fix the articles and give citations to them, then they should stay.  But I don't speak the language, and the current article dosen't cite any sources,  and I couldn't find any.  Kingsmasher678 ( talk ) 19:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] From WP:NEXIST : "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article."  Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  09:23, 24 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
Newport Retail Park: Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it.  Boleyn ( talk ) 15:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep has attracted significant attention due to its purchase by a local council, including coverage in national broadcaster BBC News.  Garuda3 ( talk ) 11:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:01, 18 February 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!  04:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , for the same reasons as Garuda3.  The retail park has attracted wider attention because of its recent pruchase by a neighbouring local authority.  Sionk ( talk ) 22:03, 2 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
Camp El Tesoro: A google brings up nothing but a couple of blogs and a press release, and a search of the newspapers.com archive only brings up advertisements in local newspapers, nothing that would contribute to GNG.  Devonian Wombat ( talk ) 06:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions .  Devonian Wombat ( talk ) 06:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Desertarun ( talk ) 09:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Seems notable in particular for their program for bereaved children.  See e.g. [22] [23] , [24] , [25] , ProQuest 390323292 , ProQuest 235247096 .  One of the camp counselors received the President's Volunteer Service Award : [26] .  Jfire ( talk ) 13:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I've added sources.   This is a very well-known children's camp in Texas.  — Maile ( talk ) 23:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
Alma Junction, Colorado: At best this could be covered by a single sentence in Alma, Colorado .  – dlthewave ☎ 17:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Colorado .  – dlthewave ☎ 17:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A single sentence doesn't cut it, as this one is in the history books.   If only editors had consulted them instead of stupid fact-free entertainment news articles about South Park .  Uncle G ( talk ) 01:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per rewrite performed by Uncle G ( WP:HEY ) and WP:GEOLAND .  RecycledPixels ( talk ) 18:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per excellent upgrade that establishes notability.  Jeffrey Beall (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Keep : coverage which establishes notability has been added to the article.  InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 15:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Good job. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:HEY .  Bearian ( talk ) 00:31, 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