hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Bangladesh Machine Tools Factory: M.parvage ( talk ) 10:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This isn't notable at all.  CastJared ( talk ) 10:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This is a state owned company that has been going for 40+ years.  Has a proper WP:BEFORE done on it?  scope_creep Talk 13:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for concern on Wikipedia:BEFORE and I considered this.  M.parvage ( talk ) 13:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I don't think proper WP:BEFORE was done.  -- আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk ) 17:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Major state-owned corporation that is as old as the country itself.  It has completed major projects such as creating electronic voting machines used in all recent elections in Bangladesh.  It has received significant coverage beyond what the article has, and it has plenty which shows continued coverage of the company's activities.  Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 17:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I added to Talk:Bangladesh Machine Tools Factory four independent, reliable, secondary sources which demonstrate that that topic meets WP:NCORP .  -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 13:51, 19 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
Primevil (band): No reliable sources besides a single mention.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music .  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Despite what seems to be a dearth of sources, the two sources currently included in the article are incredibly strong.  Allmusic describes the band as a "touchstone" for its genre, and Classic Rock describes them as a "pioneer of heavy metal".  A quick Google search also turned up this article from Decibel .  There very well may be more sources out there, but the three sources we have available should be enough to display notability, considering just how influential these sources say the group apparently was in its time.  -- Jpcase ( talk ) 20:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per the coverage in Classic Rock, Decibel magazine and AllMusic bio and album review so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:51, 21 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
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Črnuče Bridge: But still now nothing shows it is notable Chidgk1 ( talk ) 16:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions .  Chidgk1 ( talk ) 16:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I don't think this article should be deleted.  It may be in a poor state at the moment, but otherwise the Črnuče Bridge (or its predecessor) has a long history starting in Roman times and was also prominent in World War II.  [29] [30] -- TadejM my talk 17:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep
Weebl and Bob: I can only find trivia mentions here and there based on Google searches.  Spinixster (chat!) 08:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions .  Spinixster (chat!) 08:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I added sources to the page.  See for yourself.  Cuts are perhaps necessary, though. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 02:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It looks pretty well-sourced to me.  It is a bit on the long side and was written with perhaps more love than discernment, but whatever, deletion isn't cleanup.  jp × g 🗯️ 19:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 07:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - completely agree with the above, this may be a bit wordy but that's not a reason to delete.  There is the possibility to merge into List of Weebl's cartoons if other editors think this is necessary, though.  -- GnocchiFan ( talk ) 19:32, 21 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
Kelsick and Wilkin Monopoly Breakers: Yilku1 ( talk ) 00:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am also nominating the following related pages: People's Political Movement ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Progressive Liberal Party (Saint Kitts and Nevis) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Saint Kitts Democratic Party ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) United National Empowerment Party ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) United People's Party (Saint Kitts and Nevis) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) -- Yilku1 ( talk ) 00:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions .  Yilku1 ( talk ) 00:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Caribbean .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The AfD is flawed, as there are several errors in the deletion rationale: The claim made that the parties listed did not take part in more than one elections is wrong as two of the parties listed did contest more than one election ( Kelsick and Wilkin Monopoly Breakers and United People's Party ).  The claim made that the parties listed never received more than 100 votes is wrong – all but two of them received over 100 votes in an election: The People's Political Movement received 1,346 votes (11% of the national total), the Saint Kitts Democratic Party 905 votes (9% of the national total), the United People's Party 605 votes and the United National Empowerment Party 263 votes.  The claim made that the parties listed as "minor and irrelevant" is wrong as the People's Political Movement was the second-most voted for party in the 1961 elections , while the Saint Kitts Democratic Party was the second-most voted for party in the 1957 elections .  I'm not opposed to the Kelsick and Wilkin Monopoly Breakers , Progressive Liberal Party , United National Empowerment Party or United People's Party articles being deleted as they were very minor, but the People's Political Movement and Saint Kitts Democratic Party were clearly significant parties at the time of the elections in question.  Number 5 7 08:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural Keep per Number 57.  These deserve individual source searches.  SportingFlyer T · C 16:52, 29 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
Kylan Darnell: Fails WP:GNG .  { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 21:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Her notability comes more so from her role as a TikTok creator/ social media influencer and less from here time as the 2022 Miss Ohio Teen USA .  She is the subject of this E!  News article Miss Teen USA Here's Where Alabama Rush Queen Kylan Darnell Placed and was intereviewed here by The Teen Magazine [14] but in news that came out today, she has been in Elite Daily [15] , that starts off with " Kylan Darnell became known as the “Queen of Bama Rush” after her daily OOTDs went viral on TikTok in August 2022, garnering her tens of millions of views and 500,000 new followers. " Also today, she was featured in this story by Tubefilter ( [16] ) and in USA Today ( [17] ).  -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk ) 23:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The sources I have listed above are not yet in the article but can, and should, be included. -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk ) 23:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The sourcing is horrible for a BLP article, but she has notability if the articles that Willthacheerleader18 listed were to be included.  Longhornsg ( talk ) 02:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment here are some more sources I've come across: The New York Observer mentioned here in their article The Ratings are in and Season 2 of TikTok's Alabama Rush Was A Huge Hit , featured in this Yahoo! Sports article Alabama Rush Tok Is Back — Here’s What the Girlies Are Wearing This Year , mentioned in this The US Sun article What is Alabama Rush on TikTok?  , profiled in this TickerTV News article The Queen Of Bama Rush: A Year Later , and profiled in this What's Trending article TikTok Creator Kylan Darnell Attracts Criticism For Negative Barbie Review .  -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk ) 11:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Beauty pageants , Internet ,  and Ohio . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , has significant reliable source coverage on the Tik Tiok rush angle. -- Mvqr ( talk ) 10:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Subject meets WP:GNG per the sources already provided.  User:Let'srun 12:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above comments Elttaruuu ( talk ) 02:13, 20 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
Porter Flats Apartments: The notability criterion states "Buildings...require significant in-depth courage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability".  Aydoh8 ( talk ) 02:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering , United States of America ,  and Montana .  Aydoh8 ( talk ) 02:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It's listed on the National Register of Historic Places , therefore notable.  Jfire ( talk ) 04:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Clicking on the NRHP number in the infobox, will bring up the historical study that was done for the building.  Long and rather extensive.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here, giving a 100 plus year history of the building.  [77] Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  As Oaktree b already mentioned, the nomination form for the building has both an in-depth history and a list of references at the end.  The reason buildings on the NRHP are considered notable is that the National Park Service requires that information in order to list a property, and their standards are higher than GNG.  TheCatalyst31 Reaction • Creation 16:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The National Register of Historic Places is a part of Wikipedia's projects.   This includes listings on the state-county-city levels.  Many of them are stubs.  What matters with NRHP is that we get a sourced article on them - even if it's just a sentence or two to start the article.  — Maile ( talk ) 18:48, 24 October 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
Race Cutty Sark and Thermopylae: The creator of the article advises that this is a translation from Russian Wikipedia.  The majority of sources in the subject are written in English.  The two levels of translation required may explain some strange or questionable article content.  The quality of writing in English is poor.  (Information: see the similar AfD for Tea race (competitions) .  This discussion originated at WT:WikiProject_Ships#Two_poor_quality_articles ) ThoughtIdRetired ( talk ) 19:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and History .  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 19:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep per below, seems to meet GNG.  redirect to Cutty Sark , the longer of the two articles, as an ATD.  — siro χ o Keep and rename Great Tea Race of 1872 .  (See also Great Tea Race of 1866 .)  This is a very famous race.  [8] [9] [10] [11] Just needs some cleanup.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 02:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Agree that it should be renamed per Clarityfiend.  This is a clear GNG pass though.  Disagree it is a redundant fork.  Again, per Clarityfiend, the race is well known.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 18:01, 7 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
Cheri Caffaro: The first link on the reference which is the official website is a dead link.  Secondly other link still doesn’t show any independent of the subject.  Did my google search still can’t find any sign of notability of the subject neither any news independent of the subject.  Meligirl5 ( talk ) 19:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers .  Meligirl5 ( talk ) 19:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Fairly meets WP:NACTOR .  My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 22:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] She still doesn’t meet WP:NACTOR .  I understand you might have seen her as an actress who has appeared in multiple notable movies just because the movies are on Wikipedia also.  But after checking some of the movies she appeared which are on Wikipedia I come to found out that some of the movies doesn’t meet WP:NFP neither WP:NFSOURCES .  Note should be taken that IMDb is not considered a reliable source for proving notability.  To presume notability, reliable sources should have significant coverage which of the movies fails including the actress not passing the general notability guideline .  I’m pretty sure those movies would have been rejected if it was submitted through the WP:AFCREVIEW so therefore they will have to go through the WP:AFD . -- Meligirl5 ( talk ) 12:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Lots of newspaper coverage back in the 1970s when she was active.  Meets the GNG at the very least.  1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 GoldenAgeFan1 ( talk ) 01:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : the sources GoldenAgeFan1 found leaves little doubt to me.  Skynxnex ( talk ) 13:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per GoldenAgeFan1's sources, which demonstrate notability.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 15:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : GoldenAgeFan1's sources provide valuable insights into the notability of the topic.  Waqar 💬 17:20, 5 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
Matthew Glass: Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 13:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Authors , United Kingdom ,  and Australia .  UtherSRG (talk) 13:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  I have found, and have added, several book reviews, all RSs, so there could be an argument now to keep per WP:HEY .  From searches in Google, Newsbank and WikiLibrary databases I couldn't find enough RSs to meet WP:AUTHOR (I don't consider the reviews I've added sufficient to meet the AUTHOR criteria) but I think there may be sufficient to meet WP:GNG .  Cabrils ( talk ) 00:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:22, 10 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!  17:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Cabrils; these are mostly book reviews but in particular the ref from The Economist is good in my opinion.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 17:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes WP:NAUTHOR .  First three references for reviews.  Kudos to @ Cabrils : for updating the article per WP:HEYMANN standard.  scope_creep Talk 08:04, 18 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
Ljungby Arena: It's an area for a third level ice hockey team.  At best should be a merge with IF Troja-Ljungby JMWt ( talk ) 09:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Sweden .  JMWt ( talk ) 09:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - IF Troja Ljungby was recently a member of the second level HockeyAllsvenskan , which receives significant coverage in the Swedish media.  -- Hockeyben (talk - contribs) 22:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The arena appears to meet GNG based on the sources in its Swedish language [29] article on Wikipedia.  Flibirigit ( talk ) 11:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - this covers WP:GNG based on sources.  BabbaQ ( talk ) 22:06, 26 October 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
2023 Gold Coast Titans season: Zero independent, reliable secondary sources.  Onel 5969 TT me 10:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and Australia .  Shellwood ( talk ) 11:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : adheres to WP:NSEASONS and there's more than enough presumed and significant coverage available for editors to expand upon the article in time using simple searches, aka WP:NEXISTS .  Storm machine ( talk ) 06:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:NSEASONS .  Every week there are articles discussing their season.  Doctorhawkes ( talk ) 09:54, 14 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
Malmö school stabbing: No significant coverage, only contemporary news coverage of the event and contemporary news coverage of the sentencing.  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 06:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Events ,  and Sweden .  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 06:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Sufficient and lasting world wide coverage.  This was the "Second deadliest attack on a school in Swedish history".  Hardly a run of the mill crime/news story.  Inexpiable ( talk ) 20:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Inexpiable.  There's been some continued coverage after sentencing too.  [6] [7] [8] AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 16:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as notable.  Alextejthompson ( Ping me or leave a message on my talk page ) 20:27, 19 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
The ClueFinders: The Incredible Toy Store Adventure!: Article does not have enough sources to support notability.  I checked Google and the Newspaper archives and was unable to find any notable sources.  Has been tagged with needing more sources since 2017.  Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC) Keep , thank you Timur9008 for the sources no clue how I missed them!  Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep MobyGames lists 4 reviews.  Unless they can be proven to be unreliable, the nomination seems incorrect.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 05:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Found these sources [15] , [16] , [17] Timur9008 ( talk ) 08:01, December 22, 2023 (UTC) Timur9008 , o wow that's great, I used the same site and must have missed them or something.  I'll add them now and withdraw the AfD.  I'll go back and recheck again for the other two I submitted.  Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:40, 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