hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Cocaine: One Man's Seduction: I'm seeing mentions and database entries but nothing substantial which would meet the notability standards JMWt ( talk ) 10:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television .  JMWt ( talk ) 10:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Entry in Hooked in Film: Substance Abuse on the Big Screen (2019); Mentions in various books [22] ; [23] , (etc.); various reviews including [24] and last but not least,  this one (in the New York Times ).  Among other things.  Notability is very clear and I'm inviting User:JMWt to withdraw this nomination. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 20:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] only the first and last of those could be considered substantial coverage in a RS, the others are simple mentions or in a blog.  The first seems on point, more than half a page in a published book.  The NY Times piece is in a section of daily reviews of TV movies, so arguably is just run-of-the-mill coverage which could be found of many TV movies.  At best that's borderline.  I'll let other editors consider whether the offered sources are enough for notabllity.  JMWt ( talk ) 23:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , plenty of hits at newspapers.com, including [25] and [26] Donald D23 talk to me 23:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per the newspaper and book coverage identified in this discussion.  The NYT piece is somewhat critical of the film so counts as an independent review and its not run of the mill as they don't review everything that is on, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:32, 29 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
Pennine League: Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia.  Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply.  Mn1548 ( talk ) 19:21, 11 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 11 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 19:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England .  Owen× ☎ 00:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This is historically important as it was one of the largest amateur leagues in the country during its heyday, and is one of the last surviving traditional winter leagues.  There are lots of sources at the British Newspaper Archive which could be used to improve the article.  J Mo 101 ( talk ) 21:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Update after 1 week : Source are available, this league seems to run somewhat independently - Open to keep .  Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:33, 18 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
Galaxy of Fear: ltb d l ( talk ) 11:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions .  ltb d l ( talk ) 11:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are some articles after all which discuss this, like [12] , [13] , [14] , [15] , and others, even if these are not the most stellar of sources.  I did not have the time to look for sources on the individual books.  If there should be a majority against keeping this, there should at least be a merge of concise plot summary to, I guess, John Whitman , in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE .  Daranios ( talk ) 14:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The article had no refs so I put the refs found by the editor above into the article.  The series has been discussed in third party media.  Its a notable series and passes GNG.  Desertarun ( talk ) 09:09, 27 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
Rajput Mughal marriage alliances: This article requires extensive cleanup, or it should be redirected to the Jethwa clan page, where it should be addressed in the history section.I think this article does not meet the criteria for notability or should not be live on the main space for now.  And this article should be redirected to the Jethwa clan page or moved to draft space as it is not ready for now to be live on the main space article.  Here are many examples of WP:RAJ sources Please see Refrences no.  [1], [3], [6], [8], [17], [26], [27],[28], [35], [36], [37] all are WP:RAJ era sources.  Transe Ænd Danse ( talk ) 19:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups , History , Royalty and nobility ,  and India .  Transe Ænd Danse ( talk ) 19:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment WP:RAJ is an essay, not policy.  That said, we should be able to balance out the concerns with more modern sources.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep 11 out of 50 sources isn't significant, so that addresses RAJ concerns.  Recent scholarly journals, which will have a more updated point of view.  Seems fine to me.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The first 25 sources are from the 1970s forward, so basically half the sourcing doesn't use British-era sources.  These are fine.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep kindly remove this article from AFD because I made mistake will prod Delete I prod Jethwa dynasty and this page was wrongly prod for deletion Wich I also revert my mistake.  Good Faith .  Transe Ænd Danse ( talk ) 20:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It has sources from the 1960s going forward.  It appears you're trying to push some sort of agenda here, please be careful.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] no dear I have explained that I made a mistake my intention was to prod Another page of Jethwa dynasty when I undo revert my mistake a bot again prod this page for deletion I didn't.  Transe Ænd Danse ( talk ) 20:18, 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
Seoul Tourism Awards: The awards don't seem to have any significant coverage in third-party sources aside from trivial mentions and promotional pieces.  There are no mainspace pages that link to the article either, apart from List of awards and nominations received by NewJeans .  The article has only had a few edits made since its creation 15 years ago, mostly by bots.  Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs ) 11:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards , Travel and tourism ,  and South Korea .  Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs ) 11:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep because of notability.  I encourage you to search for articles about the award in Korean; the award has a ton of non trivial and non (at least it seems like) promotional coverage.  [23] [24] [25] [26] I can look up more upon request.  Also I'd argue the lack of activity and links is much more secondary to coverage.  211.43.120.242 ( talk ) 12:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I'm seeing quite a bit of significant coverage on Korean sources, especially on some bigger Korean news sites like YTN like here [27] [28] and Kyunghyang Shinmun (linked above).  If anything, the Wikipedia article just needs some updating.  MetropolitanIC ( 💬 | 📝 ) 02:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GNG .  Sufficient coverage exists in a number of reliable Korean-language sources.  The article absolutely needs work, but the sources do exist.  GhostOfNoMeme 09:10, 18 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
Friendship Association Norway–Albania: A search in gnews for name in English and Norwegian yielded nothing.  The last AfD pointed to a library search that yielded hits in Norwegian newspapers which may or may not be reliable sources.  If not, this fails WP:ORG .  LibStar ( talk ) 00:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Albania ,  and Norway .  Shellwood ( talk ) 05:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , whilst Eastmain 's edit can't function as a reference in the article, the link given ( https://www.nb.no/search?q=%22Vennskapssambandet%20Norge-Albania%22&mediatype=aviser ) clearly affirms notability.  The organization has 188 hits in Norwegian press during 1970s.  For a quick review, this includes articles in mainstream publications (like Aftenposten ) solely dedicated to the organization, covering it in detail.  This is without going in the contemporary coverage in Albanian-language press, which we can easily presume was plentiful.  -- Soman ( talk ) 21:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I also want to bring to the court's attention that the article creator was not notified about the AfD nomination.  -- Soman ( talk ) 21:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Could you provide WP:THREE examples of WP:SIGCOV ?  LibStar ( talk ) 05:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  I added several references to the article, @ LibStar .  There is a nonfiction book published in 2017 about the tourist/study trips organised by VNA, a PhD dissertation from 1997 discussing two novels featuring the same trips, there is a journal article debating VNA's opinions, and as others have mentioned, many other articles from mainstream Norwegian newspapers.  These friendship organisations were a big thing in the 1970s.  Lijil ( talk ) 22:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per Soman above.  Also, Aftenposten is a very popular newspaper in Norway.  FatalFit | ✉ | ✓ 22:27, 16 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!  04:44, 22 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!  06:23, 29 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
Banaras Hindu University women's rights protest: As per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EFFECT , it lacks notability.  LibStar ( talk ) 09:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination and Uttar Pradesh .  Shellwood ( talk ) 10:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , I disagree with the deletion rational.  The fact that there were further reported protests in 2018 , 2019 , 2021 , and 2023 suggests that the article just needs updating.  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep , otherwise merge as a single paragraph to Banaras_Hindu_University#Student_unions_and_protests .  On the one hand, on review of SailingInABathTub's links I get the impression that the subsequent protests at the university are discrete events with distinct motives, rather than a continuous series of protests.  That inclines me to think that a list of protests in the university article might be the best way to go.  On the other hand, this wasn't a pure flash in the pan.  The sources in the article show coverage, some of it quite deep, mostly during the protest but extending over more than a year.  Beyond what's in the article, a bit of searching shows repercussions into 2019, as well as international coverage during the protests.  And WP:EFFECT is not a sine qua non of notability; it defines a conditional (IF effect of lasting significance THEN likely notable), but has nothing to say about the inverse case.  Several of the other sections of NEVENT (breadth, depth and duration of coverage) would nudge at least gently in favor of notability.  Overall I think the guidelines by themselves leave us in the may or may not be notable territory of WP:NEVENT point 3, with nothing pushing very strongly in either direction.  On the third hand, there is also some continuing coverage of controversy over allegations and counter-allegations about the motivations for the protest into 2018.  Untangling all this could be a job, but overall it seems like there probably is sufficient material to build an adequate article here, so I think the best option is to keep and improve the article.  But the university article also seems like a good merge target that would make it possible to put different protests into context.  -- Visviva ( talk ) 05:41, 22 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
Vixen (RV): The manufacturer is also non-notable.  Boleyn ( talk ) 09:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on at least Car and Driver , Outside , Autoweek ~ A412 talk!  18:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There would seem to be little WP policy here.  In theory all articles need to meet WP:GNG, which of course this doesn't because there are no secondary sources available.  But there are alot of similar articles that don't have secondary sources either.  There is a real need for Wikipedia define notability better.  James.folsom ( talk ) 22:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep When I searched on models, rather thav Vixen RV, more sources turn up.  Popular Sciene , CarScoops , AutoEvolution , and others.  I think that there is enough interest out there to support notability.  - Bilby ( talk ) 10:09, 6 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
Economic history of Azerbaijan: As it stands, it makes more sense to gradually build the "History" section of the Economy of Azerbaijan and create a standalone article if the "History" section in that article becomes large enough to warrant a standalone article.  Having two separate articles on the same topic is at this point going to worsen the quality of both articles and make it harder for editors to craft comprehensive encyclopedic on Azerbaijan's economic history.  Thenightaway ( talk ) 15:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Azerbaijan .  Shellwood ( talk ) 16:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:OKFORK - the Economy of Azerbaijan article clearly states that it covers the present Republic (ie post-1991), that's a perfectly good dividing line.   There's no doubt this subject is notable in and of itself and requires an article - the present status of the article is mostly irrelevant in terms of an AfD discussion.   Moreover, there's a difference between a notable topic containing original research (which can be removed) as against an article topic which is original research.   What we have here is the former, only the latter is grounds for deletion.   Ultimately, AfD is not cleanup.   Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 21:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:OKFORK per above.  This seems to fit well into SUMMARYSTYLE as a child article of History of Azerbaijan and Economy of Azerbaijan .  Article definitely needs improvement but my search on Amazon and JSTOR showed works on Azerbaijani economic history that I think show this could develop into a decent article.  // Timothy :: talk 07:22, 30 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
LinuxTLE: There are no independent sources Mdggdj ( talk ) 14:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 14:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - A (questionably independent) Softpedia review here [57] , some academic coverage [58] , [59] .  I'm not familiar enough with RS in Thai to search, but this appears important enough in its region and time that I would guess that Thai-language sources are likely to exist.  ~ A412 talk!  07:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Thailand .  ~ A412 talk!  07:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: As with most computing topics back then, its use was covered in detail by a third-party how-to book: บัณฑิต จามรภูติ (2003).  การติดตั้ง-ใช้งานลินุกซ์ทะเล และปลาดาวออฟฟิศ [ Setting up and using Linux TLE and Pladao Office ].  Bangkok: Se-ed.  ISBN 974-534-637-3 .  Also the subject of a master's thesis: On strategies for supporting and developing open source in Thailand : case study Linux TLE , though master's theses aren't usually regarded as WP:RS.  -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 06:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep : From sources found.  I presume more sources exist in Thai since it seemed to have some involvement from the government.  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: I considered closing this as no consensus, but one more relist in case someone proficient in Thai wants to try doing a thorough search can't hurt.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  In addition to the one mentioned above, I found more how-to books from different authors and publishers, which should satisfy the GNG's multiple independent sources requirement.  [60] [61] [62] -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 16:56, 13 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
Baku Carriage Repair Factory: Boleyn ( talk ) 19:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Azerbaijan .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 19:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I added some references.  When the subject of an article is located in a country where English isn't the primary language, a nominator should check the references included in the corresponding articles in other languages' Wikipedias.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 19:30, 26 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!  23:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep These are good examples for subject passing WP:GNG : [27] , [28] , [29] .  There are also numerous reliable secondary sources in Azerbaijani and Russian languages for fact checking.  -- Sura Shukurlu ( talk ) 11:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: A review of recently added content would be helpful.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Although a large portion of the article is unsourced and needs sources or should be removed, the subject itself doesn't have any notability concerns and meets the WP:GNG as there are multiple sources that provide significant coverage of the subject.  – DreamRimmer ( talk ) 15:57, 14 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