hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, JavaScript Edition : Two out of three sources (1 and 3) are primary, source 2 does not mention the book (source is from 2011, and the book is from 2022).  It maybe notable enough for ~2 sentences in the SICP article.  Artem.G ( talk ) 10:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Computing .  Artem.G ( talk ) 10:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs This book is an adaption of the original book that is the subject of the article I have linked to.  No need for a separate article — Iadmc ♫ talk 11:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : While there are book reviews (This one in an online journal) [10] , I'm not sure this would pass notability for books.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs .  Even if we had more sources about this edition specifically ( this has some usable material, for example), it just wouldn't make sense to give it a separate page.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 19:04, 17 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: merge
Knightquest : Kept at 2006 AfD, but standards were considerably lower then.  Boleyn ( talk ) 08:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy , Film , Internet ,  and United States of America .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Fails WP:NFILM .  There's a paragraph in this The Weekly Standard article: [34] , doesn't count as significant coverage.  -- Mika1h ( talk ) 14:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment If not kept (and I am no sage of SW lore), merge to Cultural impact of Star Wars#Fandom, fan films and fan edits as an ATD.  Jclemens ( talk ) 15:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Cultural impact of Star Wars#Fandom, fan films and fan edits (which I think should split out ), as it has won an award.  If more secondary sources can be found, please let me know.  Daranios ( talk ) 15:03, 24 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 ) 09:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Cultural impact of Star Wars#Fandom, fan films and fan edits .  There is very little on this.  It gets a mention in an issue of Premiere magazine, [35] in a piece talking about approaches to franchise copyright infringement.  It is also mentioned in this paper, [36] which looks at the phenomenon of fan films.  No citations of that paper mind.  Nothing here makes it notable in its own right, but the paper shows what is notable: fan films.  This is held up as an interesting example of these.  As such it really should be briefly covered on the cultural impact page, and it could also be mentioned on any other page about fan films.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 11:10, 30 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
Pomchi : Previously deleted for this same issue, discussion here , two of the four sources listed are unreliable per WikiProject Dogs , the remaining two likely should be added to this list.  Annwfwn ( talk ) 00:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions .  Annwfwn ( talk ) 00:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Although I can find an entry at A-Z animals , it only gives quick facts on the breed with no substantial content whatsoever.  But as mentioned by the nom, no reliable sources—only content found was some mentions on websites, and guides.  Toadette ( Happy holiday! ) 06:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Pomeranian dog : (or possibly with Chihuahua (dog) ) List of dog crossbreeds .  While Google claims 700,000 hits for the breed name, neither the American Kennel Club nor the Fédération Cynologique Internationale list the breed among those they recognize.  Owen× ☎ 13:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC) Changed merge target per Annwfwn .  Owen× ☎ 13:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am concerned that if we added every designer breed to their parent dog's page, we would be opening up a whole can of worms where each purebred dog breed's page would be cluttered by the myriad of crosses that can be produced from it.  Also why Pomeranian and not Chihuahua?  Might I suggest instead that it remain added to List of dog crossbreeds , as it does have some notability, just insufficient for it's own article.  This would be consistent with other dog crossbreed articles.  Annwfwn ( talk ) 13:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Good idea!   I changed my proposed merge target.  Owen× ☎ 13:20, 25 December 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 possible Merge.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Delete I would be okay with the merge if the article had more sources that actually discuss the subject of the article but right now the only source that has a hit for pomchi is the dogtime pomchi page , the rest are just bare URLs.  microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 15:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC) Actually, I suppose one source is all that is needed to put it on the list article.  A merge would be acceptable.  microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 20:15, 27 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
Big Daddy (BioShock) : But before the result shows only merchandise and costume or being cosplayed.  This source is a bit good [1] , but it looks like another typical listicle with a short commentary.  Nothing else.  I may be wrong at Google Scholar thou.  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 23:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games .  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 23:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Rapture (BioShock) per WP:ATD .  Seems like largely trivial coverage.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 08:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Zxcvbnm.  The coverage doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV , but summarizing and merging is a valid WP:ATD .  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 17:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Zxcvbnm as well – this is very trivial coverage.  Nomader ( talk ) 18:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above.  In agreement regarding reception.  HopalongCasualty ( talk ) 21:01, 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: merge
Milczany, West Pomeranian Voivodeship : As it says on the PL Wiki article , this is an "unofficial settlement" ( nieoficjalna osada ).  This is not listed on the TERYT database (despite the TERYT database being listed as the source...)  nor is a Milczany in Bobolice listed on the Polish regulation of place-names .  From the over-head satellite pictures you can see that this is just an empty field in the village of Ubiedrze .  Fails WP:GEOLAND since there is no legal recognition, nor evidence of an actual population.  FOARP ( talk ) 17:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland .  FOARP ( talk ) 17:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Pl wiki article says it is in old TERYT database, but not new.  Franly, I would see this as an error corrected.  Also, pl wiki lists this as "unofficial village extension" for Ubiedrze .  I say redirect and merge there.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and merge to Ubiedrze per Piotrus . Another bogus bot creation. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:40, 23 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
List of tallest buildings in Kozhikode : Fails NLIST, BEFORE found nothing discussing this as a group and no sources show this area is notable for tall buildings.  None of the tallest buildings have articles, only one has a source.  Upcoming projects again no links to articles, so this serves no purpose under CLN.  // Timothy :: talk 06:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture , Lists ,  and Kerala .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment this appears to be a subset of List of tallest buildings in Kerala , which seems to have many of the same issues.  I don't see the need for two list articles when the Kerala one is manageable.  Jclemens ( talk ) 08:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The need for separate pages for Kochi, Trivandrum, and Thrissur arises due to the fact that Calicut is emerging as a prominent city with the upcoming tallest buildings in Kerala and South India.  Currently, Calicut is leading the race in terms of the tallest buildings in Kerala, making it essential to have a dedicated page for the city to highlight its significant developments in this regard.  Bidhunkrishna ( talk ) 09:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of tallest buildings in Kerala .  Orientls ( talk ) 05:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Smerge to List of tallest buildings in Kerala .  BD2412 T 16:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : No objection to a redirect, but I'm not sure what would be merged.  The only soruced (see below) entry in the completed list is Burj AlHind and that is already listed at List of tallest buildings in Kerala .  The others are under construction and the list criteria is the building needs to be finished (this could be changed).  But I have no objection to an AtD.  I don't think the real estate sales refs such as Prestige Ocean Pearl | Buy 3 & 4 BHK Luxury Flats in Calicut | Apartments for Sale in Kozhikode or [36] should not be merged in any event.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBlue ( talk • contribs ) 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 Kingdom, Pristina : Sources are primary sources, deprecated sources and Twitter.  Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG .  AusLondonder ( talk ) 07:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Organizations , Kosovo ,  and United Kingdom .  AusLondonder ( talk ) 07:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Kosovo-United Kingdom relations , which I'm surprised doesn't contain this useful information.  Thryduulf ( talk ) 13:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:13, 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
Blog scraping : Blog scraping, compared to other forms of scraping, doesn't seem to merit its own article.  SPA 5 CE! talk about it 13:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Websites .  SPA 5 CE! talk about it 13:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or merge with web scraping .   Agreed that this is not a sufficiently distinct subject from that one to justify its own article.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 13:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or merge with web scraping .  As there are no reference sources, I am inclined to say delete.  However, we could make some effort to get these sources through some research of our own.  Nicola247 ( talk ) 13:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't understand what you mean by "we could make some effort to get these sources through some research of our own" JMWt ( talk ) 14:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JMWt you don't need to understand it, that's a sock account created to vote keep here (after several socks were blocked), and this is a decoy post made first to not make it so obvious, that's not an unique opinion, it should be striked or deleted.  Tehonk ( talk ) 18:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Prob merge - it is definitely a thing, but it isn't entirely clear what else there is to say outside of the topic of web scraping so it just reads like aan unnecessary fork at present.  JMWt ( talk ) 14:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with web scraping .  Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 07:47, 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
Major investigation team (Metropolitan Police) : Single provided reference is also dead.  Overall, I do not think this topic is notable enough to warrant an article.  Elshad ( talk ) 14:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Homicide and Serious Crime Command .  -- Canley ( talk ) 03:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and England .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Thoughts on possible Merge?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  16:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect or merge to Metropolitan Police for now; they appear to still be in operation based on news results so I do not think Homicide and Serious Crime Command is the correct target.  Possibly there is enough material out there to put together a standalone article in the future again.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 19:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge to Homicide and Serious Crime Command .  There is no value in deleting information.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 15:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist, two different Merge targets argued for.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:34, 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: merge
Bill Knight Trophy : Joeykai ( talk ) 00:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards , Massachusetts ,  and New Hampshire .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Colonial Clash .  Left guide ( talk ) 02:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A rather obvious Merge to Colonial Clash .  Jahaza ( talk ) 02:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Colonial_Clash .  killer bee 05:29, 12 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
Agorism : Almost all of the cited sources in the article are directly associated with the subject, largely citing the person that coined the term.  And except for the Routledge Companion , none of the sources strike me as particularly good-quality either.  Having tried to research this in the sources I have available to me, I haven't been able to find any evidence that this meets the general notability guidelines .  In both the Routledge Handbook of Anarchy and Anarchist Thought and the Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy , it only gets a single passing mention as a term coined by Konkin.  This is a far cry from significant coverage .  As such, I don't think this topic is notable in and of itself.  This article could probably be merged with/redirected to Samuel Edward Konkin III without much issue.  Grnrchst ( talk ) 15:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Economics .  Grnrchst ( talk ) 15:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Libertarianism .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Samuel Edward Konkin III as suggested, merging in some of the content as applicable.  That bio article could really stand to be improved, and it seems to me that the topic is better dealt with there than separately even if it is an independently notable topic.  -- asilvering ( talk ) 02:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Samuel Edward Konkin III .  After removing the unreliable blog posts and Konkin's own sources, there plainly isn't enough material to support a dedicated article .  Konkin's neologism can easily be covered in the appropriate section of his biography article as part of understanding his philosophy and split out summary style as needed.  czar 12:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per rationale by Czar.  Kazamzam ( talk ) 17:37, 22 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
Association of Confessional Lutheran Churches : Fails WP:NORG - no WP:SIGCOV found anywhere.  schetm ( talk ) 17:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Christianity .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : A search suggests a similarly named group that was founded around the same time by members of a different American Lutheran.  Fairly certain another editor suggested this be taken to AfD a year-ish ago.  ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 20:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Evangelical Lutheran Synod , the previous organization.  Can add as a section, or realistically, a sentence or two in the History section, which also mentions breakaway congregations.  Longhornsg ( talk ) 19:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to Evangelical Lutheran Synod .  Not enough content and coverage for a standalone article, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 19:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Evangelical Lutheran Synod .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 09:39, 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: merge
Dreary Isthmus : Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I couldn't find anything but databases and other, unrelated dreary isthmi.  casualdejekyll 23:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Isthmi?  Isthmuses?  Isthmodes?  XD - UtherSRG (talk) 12:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] delete GNIS most certainly does not confer notability (based on loads of precedent), and for that matter claims about the nature of the location need to be validated against other sources.  Mangoe ( talk ) 23:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merged into Brown Peninsula . ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect >>> Brown Peninsula .  Djflem ( talk ) 10:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/Redirect into Brown Peninsula#Dreary Isthmus .  Dr. Blofeld has already done the merge, so change the article to a redirect.  This is the approach recommended in WP:GEONATURAL for named natural features where little more than the name and location are available.  The redirect can be turned back into a full article if the isthmus becomes more notable for some reason.  Aymatth2 ( talk ) 14:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Unfortunately there have have been a few editors trying to delete the Antarctica stubs rather than having the common sense to merge the articles themselves.  ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes.  Wikipedia is meant to be a gazetteer, among other functions.  To make the gazetteer complete, minor features that do not warrant a stand-alone article should be listed in a parent article, giving the available information.  It is incorrect to purge the information from Wikipedia.  Aymatth2 ( talk ) 17:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, WP is not intended to be a gazetteer.  Frankly I think the statement that it has "some elements of a gazetteer" ought to be struck as contradicting WP:GNG requirements.  Mangoe ( talk ) 19:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The first of the Wikipedia:Five pillars says "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias , almanacs , and gazetteers ."  Both WP:GNG and WP:NGEO say that topics which do not meet the criteria for a stand-alone article may be covered in another article.  In this case, Dreary Isthmus is not notable, but can be covered in Brown Peninsula#Dreary Isthmus .  Aymatth2 ( talk ) 16:00, 15 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