hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
List of Copa Libertadores broadcasters: In addition, the entries are not discussed as a group in secondary sources, so WP:LISTN is also not met.  Let'srun ( talk ) 18:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Football , Lists ,  and South America .  Let'srun ( talk ) 18:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Doesn't meet notability criteria for standalone lists.  OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per Ohnoitsjamie.  Lorstaking ( talk ) 05:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Copa Libertadores#Media Coverage – Same as decided for Copa Sudamericana .  Svartner ( talk ) 05:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per Ohnoitsjamie.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 12:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 22:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Copa Libertadores#Media coverage per similar decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Copa Sudamericana broadcasters .  Giant Snowman 22:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Copa Libertadores#Media coverage as a valid WP:ATD used for similar other articles too.  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 09:19, 12 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: redirect
Barbara Bailey Jongbloed: Perhaps redirect to Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies , where her WP:BLP1E is listed?  Let'srun ( talk ) 06:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , Law ,  and Connecticut .  Let'srun ( talk ) 06:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New York , Washington, D.C. ,  and Wisconsin .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirecting?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per my vote over at Jeremy B. Rosen - we have a suitable target in Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 07:10, 15 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: redirect
Denise Stapley: Her finishing sixth in Survivor: Winners at War may not be notable after all, despite using a Hidden Immunity Idol to nullify votes against her and to get Sandra Diaz-Twine eliminated.  I'm unsure whether her onscreen relationships are worth writing about her.  Furthermore, her work as a "sex therapist" or psychologist or any other may not be notable after all.  In other words, not notable as such, despite continuing media coverage (or some of that).  How about WP:PAGEDECIDE if neither WP:BLP1E nor WP:BIO1E applies?  Also, should be redirected to Survivor: Philippines or list of Survivor (American TV series) contestants .  George Ho ( talk ) 01:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Television , Psychology ,  and Iowa .  George Ho ( talk ) 01:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Almost forgot to say this: her notability outside Survivor not yet confirmed by reliable sources.  George Ho ( talk ) 01:52, 3 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!  04:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] REDIRECT to Survivor: Philippines .  Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] REDIRECT and MERGE with Survivor: Philippines .   The nominator already hit all of the major points: dubiously sufficient independent, significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources to justify an independent article under GNG, and what does exist suggests that a PAGEDECIDE analysis made in light of WP:BLP1E nor WP:BIO1E should lean towards merging this back into the parent article about the show.   Notably, this article was created with the edit summary "as per precedent with past winners of survivor", which is not the basis upon which he judge notability or the need for independent articles, needless to say.   That was more than twelve years ago, and if the current state of the sourcing is as good as it could get in all that time, I think this is a straight forward call.  S n o w Rise let's rap 00:32, 12 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: redirect
Space Top 10 Countdown: Nothing to suggest this is a notable programme that meets the inclusion criteria JMWt ( talk ) 12:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada .  JMWt ( talk ) 12:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Film .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to CTV Sci-Fi Channel#Former programming (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion .  I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources in my searches for sources.  A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article.  A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future.  Cunard ( talk ) 09:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per Cunard.  No indication of notability, but a redirect is reasonable.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 14:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as above while preserving the page history as not notable at present, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:00, 27 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: redirect
Red Bulls (esports): The organization itself was never notable during its history as it never made it to a top-tier league, nor did it ever sign notable players.  The sources given may justify a few sentences talking about this failed venture at the Red Bull article, but it does not justify this former esports organization having its own article.  Yue 🌙 19:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games , Organizations , Sports ,  and Europe .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] GNG is pretty borderline here.  At the very least we should be merged/redirecting to Red Bull or another suitable target.  Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs ) 00:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It appears Red Bull had other esport teams and hosted tournaments .  I suggest expanding the article scope outside League.  IgelRM ( talk ) 12:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Red Bull#Team ownership and sponsorships until the scope is expanded (like said above) and notability better established.  -- Mika1h ( talk ) 18:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Red Bull#Team ownership and sponsorships .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 20:22, 22 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: redirect
The Corinthian Project: four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature .  Questions?  four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to New Series Adventures#Decide Your Destiny - Appears to be a completely non-notable licensed book that has no coverage in reliable sources.   The one review being used as a source is someone's personal blog, and thus not a reliable source.  Searches did not turn up any kind of coverage or reviews, outside of simple product listings.  It is already listed in the appropriate section of the list of books its belongs to, and as there is no content to merge, it should be redirected there.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 20:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per Rorshacma.  Jfire ( talk ) 02:51, 24 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: redirect
2023 CAF Champions League Finals: Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON , but currently fails WP:GNG .  Onel 5969 TT me 00:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Redirect Agree with WP:TOOSOON also fails WP:GNG .  I found sources for this but they are all about the race happening in the future.  I would also support sending to draft since according to 2022–23_CAF_Champions_League the race is happening in June.  Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] After thinking this over I should have gone with draft in the first place.  Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Africa .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify Will be happening in less than two months.  -- SuperJew ( talk ) 08:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to 2022–23 CAF Champions League .  Since there is no sourced content a merge is not possible; unsourced material should be removed not transfered to other articles.  If proper sources are added to the article for a merge, let me know.  No objection to Merging sourced content.  // Timothy :: talk 16:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to 2022–23 CAF Champions League : It's WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:GNG .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 20:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as above.  Giant Snowman 22:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect - please try this first without starting an AFD - it looks uncontroversial enough.  Nfitz ( talk ) 05:16, 26 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: redirect
Judo at the 2022 Asian Para Games: Other than brief press releases of Iran's wins in this category ( [16] , [17] ), I was unable to find independent coverage.  N.b. that this article was primarily edited by Xihuaa , a blocked sockpuppet with a long term pattern of fait accompli article creations for non-notable subevents of this tournament.  I think that restoring the redirect to 2022 Asian Para Games is the most appropriate course of action here, but my attempt to WP:BLAR was contested.  signed, Rosguill talk 14:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability , Sports , Martial arts ,  and Asia .  signed, Rosguill talk 14:18, 9 January 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!  08:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment It's true that this article's sources are just results published by the event itself, but from what I see that's true of many (if not all) of the individual sports articles from this event.   Consistency would dictate that either all of the sports should have articles or none should.   This type of coverage is typical of WP coverage of many multi-sport gatherings and I'm not sure where the line should be (or has been) drawn between which events should have such coverage and which shouldn't.   I'd say this coverage doesn't pass WP notability criteria, but I see that many attempts to redirect this type of article have been reversed.   If there's been a precedent or relevant policy, please let me know.   If forced to choose, I'd go for a redirect.  Papaursa ( talk ) 21:19, 23 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: redirect
WXAF: Only sources are directory listings, trivial mentions, and the usual FCC primary sources.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 16:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio , Companies , United States of America ,  and West Virginia .  AusLondonder ( talk ) 16:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of radio stations in West Virginia : another run-of-the-mill religious station that I'm skeptical actually has the required significant coverage .  (Even the non-GNG sources mentioned by the nominator were only recently added, by someone else, as an attempt to hopefully starve off afd , but non-GNG sources should only really be used to basically fill in any content gaps not included in the notability-supporting sources that this article still lacks.)  While the station is apparently a simulcast of WJJJ , a redirect there is not advised because that station has the same notability issues as WXAF.  This is a remnant of the looser standards of 2006 and no longer warrants anything more than an {{ R to list entry }} (if even that — I'm not entirely opposed to outright deletion if others feel that's more valid).  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of radio stations in West Virginia per Wcquiddich, and my doubts that the license was renewed by the FCC in 2004 late because 'however after consideration that the station served in the public's interest, it was renewed'; it was renewed mainly because the owner stayed out of trouble during their last license and the FCC told them not slack off on the renewal again.  I don't think either station passes GNG, even with the attempted rescue by Milonica.  Nate • ( chatter ) 18:27, 15 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: redirect
Lincoln fry: Wikipedia is not an advertising platform, and there is no indication of why this hoax is important.  Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE .  Doesn't qualify for Unusual eBay listings since it was sold on Yahoo.  See the similar and removed Among Us chicken nugget .  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 12:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Food and drink ,  and Advertising .  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 12:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to GoldenPalace.com , I guess.  Doesn't seem like there's that much we can say about it, and I've added a line to that article which mentions it.  — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Would a merge to/mention in Super Bowl commercials be appropriate?  Jclemens ( talk ) 13:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to GoldenPalace.com per Rhododendrites.  Brief promotional campaign without any lasting reception.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 20:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect seems fine, interesting tidbit, nothing notable by itself.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:44, 24 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: redirect
Starchildren: I tried redirecting to Billy Corgan as a compromise, but this was rudely reverted.  Revirvlkodlaku ( talk ) 14:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Illinois .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I'm not sure why you think that the Chicago Tribune and Pitchfork aren't reliable sources, and I'm also not sure why you think that my reversion of your blanking an article instead of sending it here was rude.  hbent ( talk ) 10:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You accused me of performing an end run around deletion.  Is that not rude?  Rather than assume good faith , you accused me of being sneaky, which is blatantly false.  Read the articles you seem to think give this project notability; they barely mention Starchildren.  How does that warrant keeping an article about a project that never did anything besides playing a few shows?  Revirvlkodlaku ( talk ) 13:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Billy Corgan - I agree with the nom that the sources being cited in the article do not count as coverage for the topic, as they barely mention it.  They have no actual discussion or coverage on it, they simply have a single sentence stating that it was a side project of Billy Corgan.  Searching for additional sources only turn up the same kind of coverage - single sentence mentions of the band being a very brief side project of Corgan's that released one original song.  It is already listed in the infobox on Corgan's article, though a sentence or two can probably stand to be added to the body of the article mentioning it.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 14:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Billy Corgan - It's true that Starchildren were mentioned in a couple of reliable publications, but as nothing but a little-known and unorganized side project.  They only had two songs and three shows, and at least one of those shows was a gimmick in which some members of Smashing Pumpkins amazed the crowd by opening for themselves under a different name.  This is of fancruft interest to the Smashing Pumpkins community, but there is no concrete or even encyclopedic information that can support an article here.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 17:41, 14 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: redirect
Rewa–Bhopal Vande Bharat Express: All sources that give a date have said that the train was to be inaugurated on 24th April.  Half a year has passed since then and no news on the train.  There are no other articles about upcoming Vande Bharat Express services.  I believe that may be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL .  The previous AfD was closed improperly, hence I am creating a new one.  I think that the article should be deleted or redirected.  Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 18:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation , India ,  and Madhya Pradesh .  Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 18:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect or Delete : Yes I also agree that the page should be deleted permanently and can be recreated if service is introduced or redirected  to Rani Kamalapati (Habibganj)–Rewa Vande Bharat Express 2409:40D0:10C8:3AEE:8000:0:0:0 ( talk ) 07:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect : to Rani Kamalapati (Habibganj)–Rewa Vande Bharat Express .  It is the best way.  In case if the government starts a train on the same route, redirect can be removed.  111.92.78.209 ( talk ) 02:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect : Agree with the nomination.  But two Vande Bharat trains can be operated in the route.  So there are chances that this will be introduced in near future.  So I suggest to redirect this to Rani Kamalapati (Habibganj)–Rewa Vande Bharat Express .  Thilsebatti ( talk ) 03:14, 12 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: redirect
Gorkha Higher Secondary School: ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk ) 19:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 20:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Unreferenced and fails WP:NSCHOOL .  LibStar ( talk ) 03:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Tulsipur, Dang#Education where the school is already mentioned.  Sources not found to establish notability.  Rupples ( talk ) 06:49, 16 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: redirect