hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
New Carnival Games: Not all Wii games are notable.  JMWt ( talk ) 08:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  JMWt ( talk ) 08:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Per WP:NEXIST .  It has a preview from IGN , and a review from Gameplanet and Common Sense Media .  It also got a review from Gameshark , which remains inconclusively reliable but not explicitly unreliable.  The DS version has a review from Official Nintendo Magazine UK, but I am deliberately not counting that one since it's a different version.  Even then, it squeaks past the line of notability.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 12:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's not really any content here.   Even if it *is* notable, nothing would be lost by redirecting to Cat_Daddy_Games .  ApLundell ( talk ) 16:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirects imply to typical users that the article isn't notable and will never be.  That's why I think keeping stubs around is important, even if there's a very low but not zero chance it will be improved.  Per WP:MAKESTUBS it will signal the article is there and needs expansion.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 18:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Carnival Games It has enough press, but the main game's article has enough meat where merging this in makes sense, much more than just throwing a redirect on the page to the studio that isn't helpful to anyone (and loses all the text we have here now).  Nate • ( chatter ) 01:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Carnival Games As Nate said above, adding a sentence or two to Carnival Games about the new features in this version and taking its infobox (without the non-free cover art) would be good.  If we redirect the article, it might be better to redirect to Carnival Games or Carnival Games#Sequels .  QuietCicada - Talk 01:32, 28 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
Sisterhood of Karn: Doesn't seem to meet SIGCOV.  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 00:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy ,  and Television .  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 00:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens , where this fictional group is already mentioned.  BD2412 T 02:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect not enough reliable evidence that this is separately notable from the show itself.  Does not meet WP:SIGCOV .  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 23:12, 2 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
List of former Ring of Honor personnel: But at the very list it makes little sense to have this and List of Ring of Honor personnel .  Either delete due to very poor referencing ( WP:V ) and dubious connection with WP:NLIST or merge to the main list.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Wrestling .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To be honest, I think the alumni article is very WP:LISTCRUFT .  While WWE is very big, there is a clear criteria: people under contract.  Since ROH it was an independent promotion, many of them are just random wrestlers who worked a few dates with the promotion.  -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk ) 15:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think that the page should stay, but I think that the page should be reorganized in the same way that WWE's & Impact Wrestling's List of former personnel pages are.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B23F:BA41:0:A:3073:8501 ( talk ) 15:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Any policy-based arguments on what should happen with this article?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Ring_of_Honor .  killer bee 05:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Wordsmith Talk to me 03:41, 19 December 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, Daniel ( talk ) 06:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Ring_of_Honor BeFriendlyGoodSir ( talk ) 02:38, 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: merge
List of countries by forest area (percentage): Chidgk1 ( talk ) 08:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Question why can't it just be merged then?  JM ( talk ) 09:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you wish to merge it go ahead but in my opinion you would be wasting your time with obsolete numbers as there are 2020 percentages at https://ourworldindata.org/forest-area Chidgk1 ( talk ) 09:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have no idea how to merge anyway.  I just figured that if the consensus was merge then logically it should just be merged rather than going through the AfD process again.  JM ( talk ) 09:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] When I first proposed deletion I knew there were 2020 areas in List of countries by forest area , but at that time either OWID had not published the percentages or I did not notice them, as they are not mentioned in the discussion Chidgk1 ( talk ) 09:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Second the "just complete the merge" bit.  SportingFlyer T · C 10:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:54, 26 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: merge
WMS (hydrology software): The mentions in secondary sources are rather brief.  The Salt Lake Tribune did mention WMS significantly in the article cited, however the heading at the top mentions that the information may be out of date and is for personal research only.  Additionally, it seems like this is part of a product line in addition to SMS (hydrology software) , which is also a rather short article.  However, I am not a hydrology expert, so those who know more about the topic may have further insights on its notability.  Sagflaps ( talk ) 21:21, 20 February 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 February 20 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 21:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment , Software ,  and Utah .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to SMS (hydrology software) per OP's argument.  All the three Aquaveo products appear to be borderline on WP:NSOFTWARE (not a formal guideline, though).  — kashmīrī TALK 00:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to SMS (hydrology software) as it makes sense and is more reader-friendly to discuss them together.  Star Mississippi 14:22, 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
The Cigarette Duet: In my opinion, the article shows no signs of passing WP:GNG .  All sources I could find (in the article and during a WP:BEFORE search) only give the song passing mentions; I can't find any significant coverage of the song.  Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 16:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and New Zealand .  Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 16:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] are all brief mentions, yes, but they do all emphasize how big a hit the song was on YouTube (over 74 million views per that last page) which I think has to be worth something.  Most coverage calls it her starmaking moment, so if she's notable then it seems consensus agrees it's because of this song.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 16:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If anything, that seems like a reason to merge for me.  There is no significant coverage of this song, so it might be better to include these notes in the artist's article?  Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 16:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I think a merge to the artist is fine, some notability for the song, not enough for an article though.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:31, 20 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!  19:25, 27 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: merge
Fungible information: Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 23:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 23:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : sounds like a great idea!   You don't need an AfD consensus for a merge.  Just go ahead and do it after you withdraw this nomination, if you want.  If anyone opposes this, the discussion can continue on the article's Talk page.  Owen× ☎ 01:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:14, 20 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!  21:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge , with Information theory , per nom.  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:29, 1 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: merge
Leyja: This article reads like an information brochure.   It focuses on what the Saudi government says about Leyja and not what this parties say about it.   The references read like press releases.  Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary 1 www.neom.com Announcement of establishment of Leyja No Yes Yes No 2 www.spa.gov.sa, Saudi Press Agency Press release that is same as reference a No Yes Yes No 3 www.designboom.com Press release with promotional description No Yes Yes No Robert McClenon ( talk ) 07:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Saudi Arabia .  Robert McClenon ( talk ) 07:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : This is a tough one, Google News turns up several dozens of results for this, seems like lots of different people are talking about it.  If push comes to shove, I might need some assistance with ascertaining the quality of the sources.  Left guide ( talk ) 08:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Noem Neom .  I nearly brought this to AfD for the same reasons as the nominator.  However there are a few reliable sources outside of the middle east that have picked this development up, such as The Evening Standard and The News International .  It's borderline.  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 14:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I think that User:SailingInABathTub means to Merge with Neom .  Robert McClenon ( talk ) 17:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yup!  Thanks for pointing that out.  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 11:47, 23 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!  07:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, North America 1000 10:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  North America 1000 10:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions .  Robert McClenon ( talk ) 23:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Sandstein 07:55, 12 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: merge
Kaghaz: Better off as redirect to paper ?  William Graham talk 04:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions .  William Graham talk 04:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 11:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with History of paper .  Amir Ghandi ( talk ) 11:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , as there doesn't seem to be an actual topic beyond the word itself ( WP:NOTDICT ).   A merge to History of paper doesn't seem to be appropriate, since this article just contains a couple random little contextless factoids that wouldn't fit into the pretty well-developed history article.   Even a redirect is no good per WP:FORRED .  35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 16:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge or Redirect and to determine what the target article should be.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to History of paper , some of it can be valuable to that article.  We can use the summary that traces the word, the bit about the spread into Armenia and Georgia, and perhaps some from the final paragraph.  — siro χ o 07:58, 16 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
Jershon: This is an in universe location with little attention inside LDS circles, and none in independent reliable sources - especially no indepth coverage we could use to build an article Big Money Threepwood ( talk ) 05:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion , Christianity ,  and Latter Day Saints .  Big Money Threepwood ( talk ) 05:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Latter Day Saints .  '''[[ User:CanonNi ]]''' ( talk | contribs ) 05:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Book of Mormon places .  Doesn't seem like there's enough to make a notable stand-alone page from.  Horse Eye's Back ( talk ) 18:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 06:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of Book of Mormon places .  Available secondary coverage of Jershon is better suited to summarization in Anti-Nephi-Lehies , for which Jershon is the setting.  Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits ) 20:27, 28 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: merge
Uryū Ishida: Looks well-sourced, but on closer inspection, most of the sources are primary and not RS.  In order to merit a standalone article, there must be SIGCOV of the character himself, not simply the show he comes from.  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 04:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan .  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 04:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to character list for now.  I've recently rescued (unredirected) Yoruichi's article because I found sources sufficient to write the section on Yoruichi_Shihōin#Analysis .  Sadly, I don't see such attention given to Uryu in sources.  Current reception is based on WP:SIGCOV -failing mentions in passing and some trivial rankings/merchandise.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep as not only do the sourced help the article pass notability but the article is also quite well written. The casting section includes information on Ryo Yoshizawa 's challenges and thoughts on playing the role and the reception section does have several websites (not just anime ones). When this was PRODed yesterday I started a discussion to improve the article and it has been only a day since, which I don't think is enough time to immediately improve it. Also, I disagree that it is a fanpage, as it has casting information and reception rather than just trivia,  which fan pages usually do. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 09:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm of the opinion that Ishida is likely notable, but I'm not caught up in the series, and not going to spoil the arcs I haven't seen yet to prove it. Not the end of the world if it's redirected/merged, but again--I suspect the sources are there for notability.  No objection to cleanup, of course.  Jclemens ( talk ) 07:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with List of Bleach characters if sources can't be found.  There's some interesting and well-sourced information but no WP:SIGCOV .  CohenTheBohemian ( talk ) 16:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Merge/Redirect to the Bleach Character List.  I think it's possible for sources to exist out there, and some likely do, but right now the article's sourcing state is rather weak.  I wouldn't be opposed to it sticking around, but unless some extra stuff comes up, I think I'll have to lean this way.  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 22:52, 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: merge
Power structure: GnocchiFan ( talk ) 22:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The article needs work and a lot more sources, but the subject seems more than merely notable.  The term itself is used in common parlance and rarely elaborated upon, making it a natural subject for an encyclopaedia.  The paucity of information here is disappointing, as is the lack of such obvious concepts as familial and managerial power structures that we deal with every day of our lives.  I am surprised the nomination got past D4, though, as gScholar has scads of info that would greatly improve the article.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Power (social and political) .   As it stands it is too dense with jargon, too unstructured, and too poorly sourced.   Needs to be rewritten from scratch.  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 01:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting as there are opinions here to Keep, Redirect, Merge and Delete.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and Redirect to Power (social and political) The article does not have enough sources and is unstructured.  I suggest a full rewrite of the article in order for it to be kept.  Flutter Dash 344 ( talk ) 23:33, 27 August 2023  (UTC) Merge to Power (social and political) : per above.  // Timothy :: talk 13:49, 3 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: merge
Jo Danville: I suggest a merge and redirect to List of CSI: NY characters .  Spinixster (chat!) 02:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy ,  and Television .  Spinixster (chat!) 02:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of CSI: NY characters .  Plot summary, nothing to suggest GNG is met.  WP:FANCRUFT .  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per Piotrus.  WP:PLOT alone isn't enough for an article.  Does not pass WP:GNG without reception in reliable sources.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 01:36, 20 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