hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
LNER Class Y11 : Propose merging into another suitable article, as this doesn't appear to meet notability requirements - a search doesn't yield any reliable sources.  Danners430 ( talk ) 11:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom .  Danners430 ( talk ) 11:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Sources don't need to be online (and did you check the LNER Encyclopedia link?).  I'm not at home right now, but I'm certain that there is information in several books, such as Boddy, M. G. ; Fry, E. V. ; Hennigan, W. ; Hoole, Ken; Yeadon, W. B. (November 1988).  Fry, E. V. (ed.).  Locomotives of the L.N.E.R., part 10A: Departmental Stock, Locomotive Sheds, Boiler and Tender Numbering .  Lincoln: RCTS .  ISBN 0-901115-65-7 .  .  -- Red rose64 🌹 ( talk ) 18:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If those are sources, then perfect - makes perfect sense to have them!  Unfortunately I don’t have access to them, nor did I know of their existence… and they weren’t in the article anywhere hence the AfD.  Would make sense to add them as sources and close this!  Danners430 ( talk ) 18:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge With an existing article, Motor Rail , this article is not notable enough, furthermore, it doesn't have any sources.  EncyclopediaEditorXIV ( talk ) 18:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Plenty of sources.  Obscure and small in number doesn't mean non-notable.  Andy Dingley ( talk ) 21:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Though a big supporter of mergers, concluding that this is a reasonable and notable SPINOFF.  gidonb ( talk ) 20:52, 23 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
Simpich Character Dolls : I'm not seeing enough sources that would qualify under WP:NCORP .  There's some further context at User talk:Clovermoss#Question from Simpich2 (03:02, 29 July 2023) .  Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Colorado .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sufficient publicity in the byline media: [21] , [22] , [23] .  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 15:40, 22 August 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!  21:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Some of the text looked a little promotional, but that's easily fixed.  Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 23:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep a WP:BEFORE suggests that the company, people involved with it and the dolls themselves are notable.  The last source listed above ( The Advocate ) is excellent.  This source is not bad [24] There's a lot of information in print, we can find some of it via TWL: [25] [26] .  There's other verifiable information we can use that is not as in-depth, such as [27] .  There's some travel guides with info on the company itself, would have to investigate the independence [28] [29] .  The article as it stands is WP:IMPERFECT but not promotional, overall it complies with our WP:PAG and does not warrant deletion.   — siro χ o 00:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks everyone for finding the significant coverage I was looking for.  I really wasn't able to find anything but the one source myself so I appreciate the extra eyes that were able to.  Liz , does it matter if even I agree with the ! keep voters at this point?  Ideally I'd like their before process so I can get tips on finding what I missed, but I can query that later.  Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 02:20, 23 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
3Sun : Appears it doesn't pass WP NCROP Edit.pdf ( talk ) 07:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Italy .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  The Italian article at it:3Sun has some references that could be added here.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 10:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello!  There are no valid reasons to remove this page.  The sources provided are relevant and independent, and the content and structure of the page adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines.  3Sun is also significant both nationally and internationally.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by IvanPeschiani ( talk • contribs ) 15:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Eliminated orphanization and added authoritative and independent sources IvanPeschiani ( talk ) 15:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep on the basis of improvements to the article.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 07:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Keep I made some improvements on the Enel Green Power page and added a wikilink to 3sun.  I also removed the orphan notice on the 3sun page and added more authoritative and independent sources, mainly in English and some in Italian.  Do you have any other suggestions for what I should do next?  Thanks.  IvanPeschiani ( talk ) 11:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The account Edit.pdf, which proposed the page's removal, doesn't have the authority to post notices of deletion without providing legitimate reasons.  This account isn't contributing directly to the encyclopedia, and instead is only destroying the work of others and resources that are useful to users.  This page should remain active!  Derylams ( talk ) 11:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Derylams that is not a valid AFD rationale.  Your statements also aren't in accordance with Wikipedia's fifth pillar .  Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Courcelles ( talk ) 14:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep What I’m referring to is the 3Sun page, which is authoritative, well done and full of information and sources.  3Sun is also an international company of the highest level, a joint venture of companies at the top of the international energy sector.  So I just wanted to reiterate that it’s not fair to ask for removals in this inappropriate and senseless way.  185.108.105.233 ( talk ) 09:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Article needs more ce cleanup, but it passes GNG.  See [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] .  I stopped looking after I found these, none of them are perfect, but they pass GNG.  // Timothy :: talk 04:58, 19 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
InMotion : MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions .  MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Per WP:NORG as well as the lack of secondary sources to be found.  -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 08:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - A quick search on Google News showed many independent sources that were English based.  As they are based in the Netherlands, there might be other language articles that would have more resources to pull from.  Additionally as an academic led student group, there are most likely other resources in JSTOR or academic presses.  There was a promotional tag that someone placed and the student group does appear to be looking for corporate sponsors and there is the possibility that is somewhat reflected in how the article might have been originally written.  I made a couple changes to the article to try and improve.  Most of the citations would need to be completed with author, article titles, etc. I am interested in trying to work on this article and I will add it to my Watchlist after this post.  Adam MLIS ( talk ) 02:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per reasons provided by Adam MLIS Jack4576 ( talk ) 06:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The subject of the article covers a wide range of important and relevant topics.  In particular, the names of scientists, racing drivers and companies that support this team.  Perhaps some points like the vision are questionable, but for now I'm rooting for the article to remain -- Loewstisch ( talk ) 16:18, 23 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
Satish Pakrashi : Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG .  Being a "veteran leader" of a party doesn't inherently makes one notable.  Sources found both here and WP:BEFORE can not establish GNG either.  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 17:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Bangladesh ,  and West Bengal .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : A quick Google Book search shows plenty of books mentioning him.  I am not confident about this AfD.  Grab Up - Talk 08:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Grabup Did you find significant coverage or passing mentions?  GNG isn’t established by merely passing mentions.  It has to be SIGCOV or coverage to an extent.  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 09:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - "Satish Pakrashi and Niranjan Sen of Barisal ( this latter had his organization in Murshidabad ) were prominent among the leaders of the Anushilan who joined the Revolt Group . [...] He met prominent revolutionaries such as Satish Pakrashi..." [3] , "... Satish Pakrashi of Anusilan group were placed in charge of the Dacca cantonment." [4] , "... Satish Pakrashi , Niranjan Sengupta and Ramesh Biswas , top leaders of the Anushilan revolt group and of Barisal group , were arrested by the police in a house in Mechua Bazaar , Calcutta , and subsequently more arrests were made ..." [5] , etc, there are tons of books mentioning or discussing his role in the struggle for Indian independence.  Moreover, he was a member of the West Bengal Legislative Council for six years [6] , so easily passes WP:NPOL .  -- Soman ( talk ) 01:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Soman Can you add that last part to the article? Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 06:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Vanderwaalforces : Are you convinced that he meets WP:NPOL ? 2409:40E1:15:5561:F1ED:6FC2:CFDA:F32D ( talk ) 07:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I obviously do, this wasn't the case when I nominated it because it wasn't stated inially that he was a member of the legislative council, which makes him pass WP:NPOL . Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 08:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per Soman's research demonstrating that he was a member of the West Bengal Legislative Council (and thus passes WP:NPOL ). That fact should be added to the article. -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 05:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : As I previously mentioned, I was not confident about this AfD.  I agree with Soman's research.  He was a member of the West Bengal Legislative Council for six years, so he meets WP:NPOL .  Grab Up - Talk 06:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I'd keep this now based on Soman and Grabup 's clear statement of him being in the legislative council.  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 08:02, 21 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
Tosin Igho : The article is written like WP:PROMO with mentions on winning one local award, but there is no significant coverage, apart from some promotional-like material in local news media.  His career is quite limited and without wide geographic scope.  Chiserc ( talk ) 08:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Nigeria .  Chiserc ( talk ) 08:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions .  A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 19:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep/rewrite There's significant coverage about the article, while the article might not pass WP:NPOV and might be non disclosure of payment, this article should be cleaned up and rewrite, it may be move to the draft space, but shouldn't be deleted Oloriebi 11:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not notable article is messy sources is not reliable just because someone is producer it doesn't meet they should have article especially if there is no much info there.  Doesn't pass WP:GNP either.  DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 17:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - non-trivial coverage in major Nigerian newspapers (Guardian, Vanguard and more ).  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 19:32, 17 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!  23:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  The article definitely needs to be rewritten and properly formatted to comply with WP:MOS .  Having said that, the subject has directed a few notable films, with some of them having their own Wikipedia pages.  His films Seven and Nneka the Pretty Serpent have been critically reviewed.  Versace 1608 Wanna Talk ?  03:07, 20 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
Baseball Québec : Article only lists a single, primary source, so fails WP:GNG .  UtherSRG (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Baseball ,  and Canada .  UtherSRG (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I added some references.  Even if an article has been tagged for notability for a long time, it's important for a nominator to do WP:BEFORE .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 17:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Article has been improved, and seems easily sourceable through a quick search.  The fact the article only lists one source does not mean it fails GNG - was a before search done?  SportingFlyer T · C 21:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:HEY .  With the added sources, the article now satisfies the notability guidelines .  Sal2100 ( talk ) 15:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:HEY now passes WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 09:16, 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
Islam in South Asia : '''[[ User:CanonNi ]]''' ( talk | contribs ) 11:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Asia .  '''[[ User:CanonNi ]]''' ( talk | contribs ) 11:56, 12 April 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 April 12 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 12:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment content fork of what exactly?  Is there an alternative to deletion?  Mccapra ( talk ) 12:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The whole article is copyedit from not more than dozen articles on wikipedia.  Also there are excerpts like controversy heading at the bottom of the page.  See Islam in South Asia article edit history Users123users ( talk ) 12:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What do you mean by copyedit ?  '''[[ User:CanonNi ]]''' ( talk | contribs ) 12:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Beside the lead first paragraph and demographics everything was copied from other articles and added to the article.  See edit history Users123users ( talk ) 12:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe the article falls under WP:GOODFORK , as I don't see any article covering the same topic.  '''[[ User:CanonNi ]]''' ( talk | contribs ) 12:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  As I wrote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islam In South Asia five years ago, "South Asia is a region where there are hundreds of millions of Muslims, and where Islam has had a significant presence for hundreds of years before the modern nation-states in the area were created. The topic is significant and notable enough to justify an article." -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Clearly meets WP:GNG Wikibear47 ( talk ) 19:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP as clearly passes WP:GNG alongside several books found on this topic in Google Book Search . -- Twinkle1990 ( talk ) 15:06, 16 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
Where the Dead Go to Die : What little there is comes from tiny niche horror websites (and there doesn't seem much of that, either).  — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions .  — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , DVD Talk and Horrornews are full reviews and are considered Reliable Sources.  Therefore it passes WP:NFILM Donald D23 talk to me 13:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Neither of those look like particularly reliable sources.  Horrornews is a WP:SPS and DVD Talk ... well, its links to its about page and information about its reviewers are broken, which is not an ideal first impression.  It's also stuffed with ads and promotional links.  Only information about the reviewer I could find was in the link to his personal page, which does nothing to communicate anything about a reputation for film criticism (it's an artist page).  — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] These sources have been discussed before and ARE reliable sources.  See My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank)'s comment below.  Donald D23 talk to me 21:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Donaldd23 is right: there are two reviews and both sites are considered reliable sources, generally accepted at Afds (see this or Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_314#HORRORNEWS.NET for example, and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_47#DVDTalk_and_DVD_Verdict ).  You don't need to but you can at least add another review at PopHorror ( also considered reliable) [26] . - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 16:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per @ Donaldd23 Brachy 08 (Talk) 04:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree with the above keep votes on the reliability of HorrorNews based on the concerns I commented on the RSN thread, but have not decided a vote yet.  Thanks.  VickKiang (talk) 21:56, 24 September 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
Worldle : DirtyHarry991 ( talk ) 11:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Forbes staff piece, literally the FIRST hit in Gnews [24] .  then this in the WP [25] , this in USA Today via Yahoo News [26] Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I don't think I've ever met any topic where a WaPo article is the only RS for that topic.  This clearly doesn't break that streak, either.  Jclemens ( talk ) 21:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Got Rock Paper Shotgun coverage and PC Gamer coverage, which shows notability beyond a shadow of a doubt.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 17:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Clearly meets WP:GNG through the sources provided by multiple users here.  WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP .  Let'srun ( talk ) 01:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Although this article is short and low on information, it can easily be expanded with the sources above.  I'd be happy to do so.  Tarantula TM ( speak with me ) ( my legacy ) 15:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Oaktree and zxcvbnm.  𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱 ☎️ 📄 13:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Possibly merge with Wordle , but this is not an AFD case.  IgelRM ( talk ) 00:04, 25 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
Water infection : Thoughts?  GnocchiFan ( talk ) 00:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - water infection is a common term, especially in the UK, for a urinary tract infection and a bladder infection.  Not sure if 'contaminated drinking water' is referred to as a water infection so much as the source of a water infection but I think as a disamb page, this is okay.  Kazamzam ( talk ) 15:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : half a million GSearch hits suggest this is a common search term, and DAB pages don't need much more than that to justify their existence.  GnocchiFan , you've created a useful page; no reason for you to second-guess yourself.  Owen× ☎ 23:37, 11 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