hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Bored with Prozac and the Internet?: The only source cited is the band's website.  I couldn't find any secondary sources.  JMB1980 ( talk ) 00:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs , England ,  and United States of America .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 05:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] is everything I could find on the album (the last is a passing mention but might be worth having if this gets kept).  Personally, I don't think this is enough and the article should be redirected , but if more coverage is uncovered then that could easily change.  As for a redirect target, I think TV Mania is also lacking and should probably be merged into Duran Duran , but that's a whole other discussion and TV Mania is otherwise the most obvious and appropriate target.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 06:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Most of those sources are focused on the band rather than the album.  Consequently, a merger or redirect would make more sense.  JMB1980 ( talk ) 06:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and merge .  Currently it's  borderline on WP:NALBUM /GNG.  But, even if it turns out there's enough SIGCOV, the topic of TV Mania and this album are inextricably linked, and both articles would improve if handled as one.  — siro χ o 07:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge : There is some coverage of the album ( [84] USA Today, [85] Mxdwn, [86] Rolling Stone interview) but if TV Mania's only release is this album, it seems reasonable to cover this in context of the TV Mania article per points 2, 3 and 4 of WP:MERGEREASON .  As an aside for the TV Mania article, looking through Google Books and News shows plenty of coverage from Billboard , the above USA Today article and a few other promising sources.  Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 10:58, 25 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
Barangays of Pasay: Alternatively , make a collapsible table at Pasay#Geography with this article's info.  -- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions .  Lenticel ( talk ) 02:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Pasay#Geography as a collapsed table, as nominator's suggested ATD.  This will surround it with enough context to avoid various NOT concerns.  — siro χ o 03:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Pasay , for the same reasons as Siroxo.  (Also, I shudder the thought of this setting a precedent for Manila's 897 barangays :P --- Tito Pao ( talk ) 12:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Pasay .  Shankargb ( talk ) 02:48, 7 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
KLPD-LD: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 00:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Colorado .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 00:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Soft Keep Definitely a sub-par article, but has the 2 sources there, just scrapes by notability in my opinion.  Geardona ( talk to me? ) 18:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The sources are databases including one that is auto-generated by the infobox.  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 23:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect or merge to KZCO-LD Odd case, but this LPTV probably isn't notable.  However, it shares a channel with one that probably is.  Full info on its subchannels and mux should be contained in KLPD-LD, which is actually the host.  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 23:46, 7 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!  00:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and merge to KZCO-LD : Subject does not meet the WP:GNG on its own.  Merging and redirecting pertinent info into the parent article makes the most sense as a WP:ATD .  Let'srun ( talk ) 01:28, 15 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
Zou Presbyterian Church Synod: Fram ( talk ) 15:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Religion , Christianity ,  and Manipur .  Fram ( talk ) 15:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete : I lean delete right now because all I can find on this denomination in independent sources are passing mentions about church buildings in articles about other things.  There is an outside chance that more sourcing exists in an Indian language, but I wouldn't put money on it.  ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 15:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge : Per below arguments for AtD.  ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 19:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete per Pbritti.  I found a passing mention of the synod on a Welsh Presbyterian website's history of the church in India, but that's not quite a secondary source, or WP:SIGCOV.  Wikishovel ( talk ) 16:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/Redirect , after re-reading WP:ATD-M, User:Jahaza's argument makes sense.  Wikishovel ( talk ) 09:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/Redirect to Presbyterian Church of India .  There's not enough here to warrant a separate article.  The info about this synod can be included in the main article for now and broken off again if sufficient sources are found.  Other synods of the PCI may have enough info for separate articles (e.g. those founded in the 19th century) Jahaza ( talk ) 21:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Let's see if there is more support for a Merge or Redirect as an ATD.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge : Partial merge performed at Presbyterian_Church_of_India#Structure - no objection to slight expansion of that capsule summary provided that it is properly referenced.  ~ Hydronium ~ Hydroxide ~ (Talk) ~ 05:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Presbyterian_Church_of_India#Structure : a few mentions online but in the context of the main church.  Password (talk) (contribs) 06:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: merge
Sound BlasterAxx: ~ T P W 15:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions .  ~ T P W 15:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nominator.  Performing a WP:BEFORE search returns no RS .  FatalFit | ✉ | ✓ 00:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment It does get some reviews in bigger technical websites [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] but there's very little here beyond run-of-the-mill coverage and no particular reason to keep the current content (which is largely copied from datasheets and press releases) as a separate article.  -- Colapeninsula ( talk ) 11:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nomination, reviews found by Colapeninsula are good, but as they say, not evidence of separable notability.  — Ganesha811 ( talk ) 14:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep , otherwise merge per nom.  IMO the third-party reviews cited in this AFD and the previous one are sufficient to pass the GNG (edit: and also WP:NCORP / WP:PRODUCTREV , given their significance, depth and apparent independence).  However, given particular problems of this article and the general problems of product articles, I would ordinarily still favor a merge.  But the problem IMO is that Sound Blaster is already rather unwieldy and is getting into WP:SIZESPLIT territory.  It seems like merging now is just going to make more work for future splitters, with no real benefit.  (I wonder, though, if perhaps some sort of reconfiguration into a List of Sound Blaster USB products or some such, spinning off that entire L3 heading from Sound Blaster , might be better way to structure our coverage.) -- Visviva ( talk ) 22:30, 6 July 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!  23:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge , agreeing with the assessment of potential sources by Colapeninsula that they are run-of-the-mill even if reliable and in-depth.  SWinxy ( talk ) 23:33, 19 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
Chùa Hà station: The article already cited mentions it once in a quote.  This article [36] mentions that it's named in a sign at a different metro station .  I don't think that's significant coverage .  Two articles [37] [38] report on trash piles at this station, among others.  Again, I don't see sigcov.  Three suspiciously similar articles [39] [40] [41] briefly report on possible plans to build parking spaces at this station, which is ROUTINE in addition to not being significant.  Toadspike [Talk] 15:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations , Transportation ,  and Vietnam .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge the position data, etc. to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro) and redirect there if sources cannot be found (they're most likely to be in Vietnamese, so do check in that language).  There is no reason to delete the information present in the article which will be useful if it is expanded in future.  Thryduulf ( talk ) 18:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge there isn't enough coverage (or content) for a separate article from Line 3 (Hanoi Metro) yet, but there might be in the future.  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 23:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: merge
Community of Nazareth: Nothing much to merge to Anglican Church in Japan JMWt ( talk ) 10:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Japan .  JMWt ( talk ) 10:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Would it be helpful if I added an external link to the Order's website, and more content?  fishhead64 ( talk ) 15:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Christianity .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 15:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] leaning keep It's hard to wade through all the false hits on the place of Jesus' birth, but I found at least some material from The Living Church .  The issue appears to be that it's stubby.  I don't know whether we have any guidelines on religious orders.  Mangoe ( talk ) 15:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Former religious orders in the Anglican Communion .  According to the source listed in the article, there were only three members left, with the majority having passed away in recent years.  According to the website of the Anglican Church in Japan via Google Translate , the Community was disbanded in April 2023.  FYI I think that the Japanese name of the order is "ナザレ修女会" and the building is "エピファニー館".  Matt's talk 16:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Former religious orders in the Anglican Communion as not enough coverage or content for a standalone article imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 18:45, 31 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
George (Rainbow): Bungle has one Den of Geek source but that is it.  I could not find anything for the other two.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 17:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and United Kingdom .  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 17:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge very lightly into parent article.  Only meaningful content seems to be some mild (humorous) confusion over what Zippy is supposed to be and his subsequent appearances in other media.  Dronebogus ( talk ) 20:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge all to Rainbow (TV series) seems appropriate, there is a mix of information not in the main article.  (slight lean toward keep for the moment, with a possible alternate merge destination see below) — siro χ o 22:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge selectively.  There is slight coverage to WP:PRESERVE , but not enough to pass WP:SIGCOV for a separate article.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 22:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge all to Rainbow (TV series) .  Lots of passing coverage, not enough in depth for WP:GNG .  Climbing High: Life Under the Rainbow Exposed and Rainbow Unzipped: The Shocking Truth about Zippy, George and Bungle - In Their Own Words appear to be humorous rather than factual.  Please ping me if good sources are identified.  BennyOnTheLoose ( talk ) 10:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment They're certainly not good articles but there are a few untapped sources.  There is some coverage of the actors/puppeteers (particularly Bungle but also Zippy) [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] - and Stanley Bates has his own article so no need for duplication there.  Also the press has published a bit on the costumes/puppets [22] [23] .  But merging is probably OK unless someone wants to actually expand the articles.  -- Colapeninsula ( talk ) 14:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm still not super familiar with this show and it's place in culture, but it seems as if the things around the show (like these puppets) are indeed meeting GNG.  I'm slightly leaning toward keep but for now will just retract my bolded merge ! vote.  What do you think about something like a Characters of Rainbow article as a merge destination for all 3, that can hold the existing coverage in the existing articles, as well the new coverage you've found?  I'm open to other ideas as well.  — siro χ o 19:20, 17 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
Pine Bowl (stadium): 162 etc. ( talk ) 16:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Pennsylvania .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Saint Francis Red Flash football .  DeGol Field and selective merge.   Article is unsourced and the only things I could find in a brief Google search were primary sources and Wiki mirrors.   Not enough to pass WP:GNG .   I will reconsider if more coverage is found so please ping me if any becomes available.  Frank Anchor 18:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per Frank.  Cbl62 ( talk ) 18:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with DeGol Field rather than redirect to the football team.  The new stadium is/was called Pine Bowl Stadium when built and is "located on the site of the former Pine Bowl".  PK-WIKI ( talk ) 18:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am fine with this as a merge/redirect target as well.  Frank Anchor 19:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge .  Makes sense to me as well.  Cbl62 ( talk ) 00:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with DeGol Field per PK-WIKI.  Jweiss11 ( talk ) 03:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with DeGol Field per above, oppose redirect/merge with Saint Francis Red Flash football .  // Timothy :: talk 04:23, 13 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: merge
Ignirtoq: There is one singular mention on one line with no source in a single not particularly notable book from 1907; aside from that I can find absolutely nothing else.  CoconutOctopus talk 18:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Religion .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We can probably merge to Inuit religion § Deities based on the 1907 source [13] and the fact that it is listed in a Gale reference from 1992 [14] , and this Oxford University Press reference from 1995 [15] .  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 20:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 18:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Inuit religion § Deities per Siroxo 's refs and recommendation above.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 19:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: merge
ProStores: WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to eBay .  Bearian ( talk ) 18:33, 14 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!  22:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete the subject is not equal to eBay for merging.  I think we cannot merge every tiny startup or subsidiary to the parent company.  While it's possible, I find little logic in doing so.  -- Johnpaul2030 ( talk ) 08:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge what little content there is and redirect to eBay as per Bearian .  Mr.choppers | ✎ 21:00, 22 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
VESA Stereo: Fails the general notability policies.  - UtherSRG (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing .  UtherSRG (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Video Electronics Standards Association .  Owen× ☎ 17:26, 17 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
AppletViewer: There's been tags on this page since 2019 and 2020 and no improvements have been made.  Lewcm Talk to me!  19:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  Lewcm Talk to me!  19:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Java has been notified of this AFD via their talk page.  Lewcm Talk to me!  19:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There is a suitable redirect target: Java Development Kit .  Pavlor ( talk ) 10:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to or merge with Java applet .  Java Development Kit is too broad a subject to redirect to, but applets are the ideal destination for context.  Something like "Applets could be viewed independently of a browser with the appletviewer executable as part of the JDK ."  SWinxy ( talk ) 21:46, 4 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