hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Marek Švec (footballer): The only secondary source I could find is SME's sub-website My Nitra .  It mentions Marek Švec scoring a goal in one paragraph after translation: "The oldest and the youngest players scored a valuable draw. Anton Sloboda was everywhere, and we could see the 34-year-old fighter passing between the stoppers in the back, serving teammates in the middle and setting up a goal for the teenager Marek Švec in the front. The academy graduate scored his third goal, no one under the age of 18 in the top 30 European leagues has scored more in a season... Wow! The youngest debutant in the history of FC ViOn will celebrate adulthood only on New Year's Eve and has already made 22 league starts with five goals. " The coverage of Švec is written in bold, but something tells me that the rest are more of a trivial mention.  If this article gets deleted, we should consider moving "Marek Švec (wrestler)" to just "Marek Švec".  ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Slovakia .  ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep appears to have made appearances in the top division of Slovakia which surely meets WP:NFOOTY BFC Aspie ( talk ) 18:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  NFOOTY doesn't exist anymore, but that notwithstanding, I would add to those this one: [38] which contributes very well to GNG.  Geschichte ( talk ) 09:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I believe the sources mentioned in this discussion go towards the notability criteria .  I also found [39] which seems to be connected to the TASR and covers his loan to Spartak Myjava in a fairly deep manner.  C 679 18:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep —Decent career, decent coverage.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 00:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above which show notability.  Giant Snowman 10:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Per above.  Svartner ( talk ) 11:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per my above comment, and there might be more.  Geschichte ( talk ) 01:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per reliable sources Lightburst ( talk ) 01:55, 4 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
Inés Marful: UtherSRG (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : award winning writer.  Pam D 07:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The award seems suspect.  The article links no real references.  Is it a notable award?  Glman99 ( talk ) 14:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 13:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Found this review [42] .  If another one can be found it perhaps be enough for WP:NAUTHOR .  scope_creep Talk 06:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just realised the same review in the article.  I could find much else.  scope_creep Talk Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, —⁠Scotty Wong ⁠— 05:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep beyond on what we already know, also note that the work Lorca y sus dobles: interpretación psicoanalítica de la obra dramática y dibujística has 31 citations on google scholar.  For a humanities non-english work this is a huge number for google scholar.  — siro χ o 06:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Unable to see not pass WP:NAUTHOR .  Meegvun ( talk ) 08:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - On JSTOR, I found a review for the 209-page essay Lorca y sus dobles (and have added it to the article); based on a publisher bio (which in addition to biographical and career information includes, Google translated: "She is the author of the essay Lorca y sus dobles (Extraordinary Doctorate Award, which in its day was described as "the definitive work on the poet from Granada" (Manuel Alvar, Blanco y Negro )"), as well as the citation information offered above, this appears to be a notable work, and as noted above, another one of her works is reviewed in a scholarly journal.  The potential for non-English sources to exist about this academic writer and award-winning novelist and her work has me further leaning keep.  Beccaynr ( talk ) 22:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And I found a source about her after she won the 2008 Premio de Novela Casino de Mieres award for one of her novels: Marful recoge emocionada el premio del Casino de Mieres ( El Comercio , 2008).  Beccaynr ( talk ) 23:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
List of common misconceptions: So I think English Wikipedia also needs to discuss whether this article should keep or delete.  日期20220626 ( talk ) 13:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC) 日期20220626 ( talk ) 13:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 14:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep .  This is enwiki, not zhwiki.  zhwiki issues should be addressed on zhwiki, not enwiki.  Kinopiko talk 14:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural speedy keep .  No valid reason has been given for nomination.  There is no mention of any policy that the article might be contravening.  There is a list of inclusion criteria on the Talk page which seem reasonable to me, so there is no way that a claim that this is an indiscriminate list can prevail.  Any ambiguity concerning the inclusion criteria, or any issues with any of the existing entries, can be discussed on the Talk page.  -- DanielRigal ( talk ) 14:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , that's a bizzare idea to bring Chinese wiki editor's discussion as a rationale for deletion of any article in en wiki.  Artem.G ( talk ) 15:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Check the talk page, there a note up top for the Inclusion Criteria.  D r e a m Focus 15:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Unclear on why concerns of three editors of the Chinese Wikipedia is justification to delete the English Wiki's article.  Mr Fink ( talk ) 15:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The reason behind the deletion is invalid in my opinion.  I think this article is very valuable, because it debunks many misconceptions that unfortunately are very frequent.  JagodowyLis ( talk ) 17:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep because no valid deletion rationale has been provided.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 17:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep , the inclusion criteria are pretty much as clear as they could be (of course, we can discuss changing them if anyone has a proposal), and problems with the fuzziness of the definition of "common" or of anything else are dealt with, as is normal on Wikipedia, by referring to reliable sources.  W. P. Uzer ( talk ) 18:43, 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
Guan Xueting: Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases.  Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Skating ,  and China .  Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Much more results if one searches for the name with hanzi, rather than with pinyin.  I've added a couple of sources.  / Julle ( talk ) 00:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per Julle, but aside from the sources about her abduction that Julle added to the article (which I am worried that some may consider them as run-out-of-mill or 1E), I have further added three sources from Sohu and China Daily which detailed her figure skating and post-retirement coaching career.  Fulfils GNG.  — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 15:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The subject has received enough coverage to meet WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 03:40, 7 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
204 (Tyneside Scottish) Battery Royal Artillery: The article has not been edited in 3 years and only contains two independent sources.  PercyPigUK ( talk ) 12:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom .  PercyPigUK ( talk ) 12:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The article is capable of expansion: the articles relating to the other batteries of this regiment are substantial and this battery has quite a history as well.  I will expand it a bit.  Dormskirk ( talk ) 12:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have expanded the article and added a lot more sources: hopefully the proposal can now be withdrawn.  Dormskirk ( talk ) 17:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Dormskirk.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Rickfive you are our expert here, your thoughts would be welcome.  Buckshot06 (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep after Dormskirk's work expanding the article.  Buckshot06 (talk) 06:05, 29 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
Pokémon Sage: The game is incomplete and has only released a demo, and is a fanmade project.  While it's possible it may become notable in the future due to the fact that it seems to be an ongoing project, it doesn't seem like that it will reach completion for quite some time.  There just isn't any SIGCOV or in depth reviews to help in this regard.  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 13:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 13:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep The Complex article seems good, and while International Business Times is considered unreliable, it cites this , significant coverage from a source that is at least considered by WP:VG to be situational.  Combining that with Kotaku, I see a case for erring on the side of keeping the article.  The completion status of a game has never been related to how notable it was, as Metroid Dread had an article for numerous years prior to the actual game being a thing.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - even if you can't find more sources, there's already three present in the article.  A game being finished, incomplete, or cancelled, has no bearing on whether or not a game (or any product) is notable.  Sergecross73 msg me 15:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My concern with that was that the sources had seemingly dried up and had been dried up for a while.  There wasn't much beyond the few in the article.  There are quite literally only a handful of sources, which is not satisfying SIGCOV for me, especially when it comes to an unofficial game that hasn't received significant updates in close to ten years.  It really just doesn't seem generally notable.  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 16:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The WP:GNG (SIGCOV) requires multiple sources, and 3 is multiple.  Sergecross73 msg me 16:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Exactly - even 2 significant sources could potentially qualify if they are big enough, like 2 books on the subject, but the bar's somewhat higher for games since they tend to get shorter online articles, 3 still passes that bar.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 17:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Given the arguments presented, I suppose I'll have to agree on this.  Can't really argue against guidelines.  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 01:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per the reliable sources coverage discussed above and in the article, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 21:33, 26 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
Hussein Al-Bishi: Upper Deck Guy ( talk ) 02:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Football .  Upper Deck Guy ( talk ) 02:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Saudi Arabia .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 04:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 16:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per IAR/COMMONSENSE.  Over 50 caps for national team, appeared at 3 major tournaments.  Will there be coverage of him in Arabic sources?  Absolutely.  Giant Snowman 16:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per above.  Seriously...  I found [45] , [46] , [47] , [48] , and [49] , among many more Arabic sources... definitely has many offline sources having been significant Saudi player in pre internet age...  Article needs improve not deletion...  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 18:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , lazy nomination with no BEFORE done. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 04:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Al Riyadiyah has some coverage of Al-Bishi that looks significant: This interview includes a paragraph on his career exploits, and This confirms that he scored a goal in Al Hilal SFC 's 1989 King Cup final victory (definitely not significant coverage, but an important achievement for sure).  I'm going to look further, but unless someone has checked Arabic-language sources, we won't know if SIGCOV exists.  Jogurney ( talk ) 22:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep - I checked online Arabic language coverage and it's pretty insignificant.  A few sources mention Al-Bishi's career achievements, but most of the coverage consists of interviews with the subject on recent developments at his former club or regarding the league or national team.  That said, he played in the 1980s and 1990s, and I can't access any coverage from that era online.  I understand that Al Jazirah (newspaper) has an online archive going back to the 1980s, but I'm not skilled enough in Arabic to use it effectively.  Overall, knowing Al-Bishi's importance to Al Hilal and the national team, and our lack of access to sources published contemporaneously with his career, I think this is a reasonable time to WP:IAR .  Jogurney ( talk ) 17:24, 21 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
Christopher W. Shaw: There is no coverage about the subject other than being a PhD holder and author of three books.  The books have reviews but no articles nor mentions on enwiki.  I undeleted the page while it was in draftspace.  I would have moved it back to draft for possible expansion, but not doing it per WP:DRAFTOBJECT .  Jay 💬 10:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions .  Jay 💬 10:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment How is “The books have reviews but no articles nor mentions on enwiki” a valid reason for deletion?  I think the extensive reviews could justify an article for at least one of his books.  Lack of mention demonstrates a gap in coverage on Wikipedia, not non-notability.  Thriley ( talk ) 13:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration .  Thriley ( talk ) 14:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The books have reviews but no articles nor mentions on enwiki.  This is a bizarre statement to try and claim non-notability by.  Why would something have to be mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia or already have an article here in order to qualify for notability?  Regardless, the reason why the reviews matter is because that's why the subject meets WP:NAUTHOR #3.  And the article can be easily expanded with those reviews to discuss his career in making those books and why.  Silver seren C 17:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , possibly even speedy keep for the straightforward WP:AUTHOR pass and the lack of an accurate deletion rationale.  The article, as nominated, had more than sufficient reviews already cited to indicate that WP:AUTHOR was satisfied.  The no coverage about the subject claim is either irrelevant or erroneous, take your pick: the coverage that matters for an author is coverage of their writing, not about their favorite ice-cream flavor.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 21:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The book reviews support that WP:NAUTHOR #3 is met.  MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep reason for nomination is unclear, and he appears to meet N:AUTHOR to my reading.  Star Mississippi 21:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep notable author.  the article needs organization.  Lightburst ( talk ) 13:42, 17 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
NYPD Cricket League: Non-notable tournament which ran twice, over 15 years ago.  No WP:LASTING .  Coverage is WP:ROUTINE .  AA ( talk ) 20:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Cricket ,  and New York .  AA ( talk ) 20:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Sources 3,4 and 6 are perfectly acceptable, with coverage at home and in Australia.  Notability is not temporary, but the article does need updating.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Police .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This one looks to pass WP:GNG with sourcing in the article and more being found in a simple search.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , this article seems to pass WP:GNG and has adequate sourcing.  -- WellThisIs TheReaper Grim 01:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Some sources are weak, but the article passes WP:GNG .  Waqar 💬 17:19, 13 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
WakeyLeaks: Andre 🚐 03:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The scandal itself is clearly notable with cited significant coverage from The New York Times , The Washington Post , The Athletic , ESPN , etc. over multiple years and comparisons to other notable college football scandals.  The scandal is called "Wakeyleaks" in each and every article and has become the common name for the controversy.  PK-WIKI ( talk ) 08:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to 2016 Wake Forest Demon Deacons football team#Leaks of plays where it's covered in more detail and actually explained.  There's definitely reliable sources, but the article is a single sentence long and doesn't appear significant enough (long term) and seems better suited to be a part of the season article.  If the event were more significant in terms of long term impact, I'd propose redirecting to Wake Forest Demon Deacons football .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP .  Additionally, the Wakeyleaks scandal (not the 2016 season) still has articles being written about it in 2023 that show the long-term significance vis-à-vis other events such as the Michigan Wolverines football sign-stealing scandal .  PK-WIKI ( talk ) 17:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep article certainly needs some fleshing out, but the scandal is notable and worthy of its own page.  L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 00:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Subject easily meets the WP:GNG and is WP:SUSTAINED per the sources provided by PK-WIKI.  The article does need some work but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP .  If the decision is against keeping, I'd recommend a redirect to Wake Forest Demon Deacons football as a WP:ATD .  User:Let'srun 14:28, 25 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
El Camino Real (Reed): Clarityfiend ( talk ) 03:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason: Armenian Dances ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) The Hounds of Spring ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Keep Armenian Dances : This is one of the most performed compositions in the literature and is considered part of the core repertoire.  Would prefer keeping the other two as well, but there is limited information available online, it seems.  Here are some sources: Begian, Harry (October 1985).  "Alfred Reed's "Armenian Dances" (Part I): A Rehearsal Analysis."  The Instrumentalist Salzman, Timothy, ed.  (2003).  "Alfred Reed."  A Composer's Insight: Thoughts, Analysis, and Commentary on Contemporary Masterpieces for Wind Bands .  Vol.  1.  Meredith Music.  pp. 119–130 Gaines, David Alan (Fall 1988).  "A Core Repertoire Of Concert Music For High School Band."  Journal of Band Research Montellano, Raquel G. (2004).  On a Hymnsong of Philip Bliss and Armenian Dances, Part I: A Conductor's Study Guide of Two Popular Works.  (MM thesis).  The University of Texas at El Paso Thanks!  Why?  I Ask ( talk ) 03:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Armenian Dances per

Discussion outcome: keep