hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Flamenco: Fire and Grace: Only source is associated with label.  Answers.com 'source' is inexplicable, really.  Not a notable compilation.  ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 20:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 20:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Found an AllMusic review , but nothing else that wasn't ads or brief mentions.  And with nothing else, I say redirect to Narada Productions , though it might be worth a section on that page since it's also quite bare bones.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 21:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge , with Narada Productions .  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 09:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 00:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm willing to support an explicit merge vote as well, though given how few participants are here I do worry it might not get done in a timely manner.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 12:22, 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: merge
Nassau County Soil and Water Conservation District: Fails WP:ORGCRIT as lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 01:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , United States of America ,  and Florida .  AusLondonder ( talk ) 01:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Nassau County, Florida .  WP:ORGCRIT is the wrong set of criteria for evaluating a soil and water conservation district.  Such a district is a part of local government with its own elected leaders, decision-making and finances, rather like the port authorities some cities have.  In this case, relatively little information is available online, partly because any Google hits for it are hidden by the multiple hits for Nassau County Soil and Water Conservation District in Nassau County, New York state.  The New York district probably could be its own article.  The Florida district could be merged into the article on its county.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 14:28, 29 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: merge
Jacbern: Orphaned for a decade.  Pepper Beast (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Artists , Music ,  and Mexico .  Pepper Beast (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - No significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources.  Morogris ( ✉ • ✎ ) 19:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , California ,  and Texas .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to The June Junes .  See Mizell Brothers for a comparison.  Mach61 ( talk ) 21:12, 24 December 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!  18:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to The June Junes , as above.  Seems like a credible WP:ATD "at this time", although I can't say I am too sure about the long term viability of the target article either.  Bungle ( talk • contribs ) 18:48, 31 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: merge
GE U25BE: By my analysis most of the citations are in regards to Southern Pacific 3100 specifically and not GE U25BE and even then 3100 is only touched on in passing.  The citations that do cover GE U25BE specifically do so in passing as far as I can determine.  I can not see how this passes WP:GNG .  TarnishedPath talk 07:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Transportation .  TarnishedPath talk 07:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It's another example of Rebuilt diesel locomotives besides its completely new y'know.  220.235.238.29 ( talk ) 07:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC) — 220.235.238.29 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] Redirect to GE U25B - clear redirect target as AtD.  Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 08:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to GE U25B .  I'm not against separate articles for rebuilt locos, British Railways class 31 for an example, where we ignore a decade of service by the predecessor class 30, but they'd have to show independent notability.  Otherwise a section in the parent article is a better solution, and a clearer read for our readers.  Andy Dingley ( talk ) 13:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to GE U25B .  I fail to see how a rebuild that "updated electrical systems" on two locomotives somehow merits its own article.  In general, rebuilds are not generally notable the way regular locomotive classes are.  There needs to be clear and substantial coverage independent of the original locomotive class for that, and we completely lack that here in favor of every single hit this IP found on Google, with sources they obviously did not actually access.  For instance, the seemingly significant "GE and EMD Locomotives: The Illustrated History" actually only mentions the U25BE in passing, saying nothing of significance.  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 21:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I've also nominated Southern Pacific 3100 at AfD .  TarnishedPath talk 01:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per nom.  No evidence of individual notability.  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 02:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge There were two made, and the rebuild was not very noteworthy.  Merging it into the main article is the best option.  BigSneeze444 ( talk ) 20:13, 21 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: merge
Writing in the early Americas: Poorly sourced as well.  Humsorgan ( talk ) 05:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions .  Humsorgan ( talk ) 05:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : it's a bit much to say the article is "poorly sourced" when you removed all of the better sources before nominating for AfD.  -- asilvering ( talk ) 06:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is fair criticism, but I only removed sources relating to the last third of the article because it seemed out of scope and had bits of original research.  I think there is an even stronger case to be made for that version.  I.e. it contained statements like "Literacy was and still is a symbol of humanity, and freedom."  I only nominated the article after finding the other page.  Humsorgan ( talk ) 09:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : An earlier and longer version of the article can be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Writing_in_the_early_Americas&oldid=1164964405 Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 07:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Mesoamerican writing systems .  Seems to me that the topic here is notable and seems to be taking a slightly different tack to Mesoamerican writing systems - however I don't see a conceptual difference between the two pages, so presumably a merge in one direction or the other would be preferable to unnecessary forks.  JMWt ( talk ) 08:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .   The article seems to want to be about 'Indigenous writing systems of the Americas' but since there is nothing that connects say Maya hieroglyphics with the Cherokee syllabary either historically or conceptually, it's sourceable, non-OR topic collapses to Mesoamerican writing systems of which it is a redundant fork and unlikely search term.  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 02:33, 15 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!  05:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per JMWt 's logic. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:39, 17 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: merge
Embassy of the United States, Asmara: Fails WP:ORG .  Note this article has deleted 6 months ago.  LibStar ( talk ) 22:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Africa ,  and United States of America .  LibStar ( talk ) 22:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete — not actually about the purported subject.  — Biruitorul Talk 23:53, 23 November 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!  22:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Eritrea–United States relations : not notable enough for a standalone page.  Owen× ☎ 23:19, 30 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: merge
SCMS Journal of Indian Management: Nothing on the page suggests that this journal is notable.  JMWt ( talk ) 10:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions .  JMWt ( talk ) 10:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management and India .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I originally put that notability tag.  Nowadays I'd have PRODded it or taken to AfD.  However, since 2013 the journal has been accepted for indexing by Scopus (a selective index) and several les selective indices, so this meets WP:NJournals .  -- Randykitty ( talk ) 14:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to SCMS Cochin School of Business as an WP:ATD - Seems not to meet WP:GNG , better covered on an organizational page or in a list.  Passing mention in The New Indian Express , included in a random research guide, passing mention in a press release.  Suriname0 ( talk ) 14:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to SCMS Cochin School of Business per Suriname0.  It would make sense for this to have a section in that article, and for the name of the journal to go there, but I don't see this journal as meeting the WP:GNG nor any subject-specific notability guideline at this time.  WP:NJOURNALS is an essay, and WP:N only presumes notability for GNG-passing and/or SNG-passing items that don't fall afoul of WP:NOT , so we can't keep as a standalone article on that basis.  — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:25, 27 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: merge
McGuire Programme: page was created and is large maintained by those who have had close involvement}} S! mba009 ( talk ) 23:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Netherlands .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Stuttering therapy and close immediately .  There is no evidence that this is any more notable than any other treatments, or even notable at all , so right now it is a violation of WP:BLP , WP:SOAP , and most obviously WP:FORK .  We almost always merge back forks even if arguendo they might pass WP:SIGCOV .  Bearian ( talk ) 16:21, 16 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!  23:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Stuttering therapy as a FORK or unjustified SPINOUT.  This kind of fragmentation creates a user experience from hell! gidonb ( talk ) 01:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Stuttering therapy : not significant coverage in the sources cited, not strong enough for notability.thus Password (talk) (contribs) 02:38, 23 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: merge
List of airlines of Tonga: This should be redirected to Lulutai Airlines or deleted.  It serves no encyclopedic purpose as-is.  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 16:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions .  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 16:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 16:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Here's an article from the the New Zealand Herald that confirms that Tonga does, in fact, only have a single operational airline, making the need for this list void at this point.  That said, there was Royal Tongan Airlines , Fly Niu Airlines , Peau Vavaʻu , Real Tonga , and supposedly one called Reef Air .  So if we include all Tongan airlines in this list, operational and defunct, I think we should keep the article.  Input is welcome.  Cortador ( talk ) 20:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We could include those, but it would still have to pass NLIST, it think (unless there's some SNG clause...?) Cremastra ( talk ) 20:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Aviation ,  and Lists .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge List of defunct airlines of Tonga into this list.  All of the similar lists could be consolidated to avoid duplication, considering a while ago I prodded seven lists of this type that had zero entries, including List of airlines of Liberia .  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 03:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I support this merge .  Cortador ( talk ) 11:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Support merge.  S5A-0043 Talk 06:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Support this merge - Tonga generally has only one active airline at a time, due to royal monopolies, so there's not much need for a list of active airlines.  But the past list isn't long enough to be unwieldy, so combining the two makes sense.  IdiotSavant ( talk ) 23:12, 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: merge
Wall dormer: Perhaps we can redirect or merge with parent article.  Tooncool64 ( talk ) 22:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 22:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Dormer : where the term is already defined.  Owen× ☎ 00:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as above.  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 13:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Dormer : as material from here can be added to the proper subsection.  बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 16:24, 29 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: merge
Vietnamese teams in the Mid-Season Invitational: – Pbrks ( t • c ) 14:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Vietnam .  – Pbrks ( t • c ) 14:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I'm seeing sources from ESPN , The Rift Herald and The Esports Observer that cover the topic.  Would these sources count without failing WP:SYNTH or WP:OR?  PantheonRadiance ( talk ) 09:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] None of those actually cover the subject.  The first and third are about Vietnam getting its own independent region in League of Legends esports, meaning they get spots in the Mid-Season Invitational (MSI) and World Championship.  The second is covers the 2019 MSI taking place in Taiwan.  The performances of these teams in the MSI are better to be covered on their respective articles.  – Pbrks ( t • c ) 15:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 02:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Mid-Season Invitational .  There's no reliable sources demonstrated that suggest specifically Vietnamese teams are notable outside the wider League esports.  Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to get more opinions about possibility of a Merge.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as per suggestion above.  Cortador ( talk ) 06:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - @ Cortador and David Fuchs : What exactly from this article would be merged?  The article is filled with tables of WP:FANCRUFT .  I don't believe any of it is suitable for merging to Mid-Season Invitational .  – Pbrks ( t • c ) 07:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Completely agree that there's not enough here for an article.  I also agree that there's nothing worth merging.  In favor of whatever has the consensus to eliminate a stand alone article.  (I dont wish to split the vote and have it be a "no consensus".)  Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 27 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: merge
Baruch Adonai L'Olam (Maariv): Same prayer, but for different prayer services.  Any minor liturgical differences can be included on combined article page.  Longhornsg ( talk ) 04:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and improve significantly I’m not an expert on siddurim but I do own and use an artscroll.  The Baruch said in the evening maariv service is 18 verses meant to replace the Amidah in ancient times (as the article says).  The morning shachrit version is exactly the first 4 verses of the 18 line version.  So as per OP the article should be merged and mention the 4/18 difference.  BUT I am horrified by both articles from a wiki perspective (and these articles are the main ones which appear when you search for the prayer).  There’s no structure, seems to use a primary source only, is badly or not at all sourced etc.  Someone more versed in the history of the siddur should rewrite the merged version.  In the absence of that in the short term I can wikify a merged version (or at least put it on my list to do).  So if someone can merge it as per OP (I don’t know how to) I can review for the other issues.  Ayenaee ( talk ) 19:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note : I have altered the nominator's rationale to fix a formatting / layout error (i.e. a bad link syntax) that was causing {{subst: afd2 }} to not do anything.  I have no opinion with regard to the article itself.  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: No comments since the last relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 06:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have completed a merged rewrite of the two articles in my sandbox .  I just need to do final proofreading and link-checking.  Both current articles should be a redirected to a new article called "Baruch Adonai le’Olam" (note the "e" between the "l" and the apostrophe in "le’Olam", leaving it out gives incorrect transliteration).  If this AfD can be closed with a merge decision, I think I’ve worked out what to do to sort out the creation, redirection, renaming.  Ayenaee ( talk ) 13:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] merge works for me as nom.  Longhornsg ( talk ) 17:32, 14 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: merge