hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
RoboCop (2014 soundtrack): I've reverted back the main article and consider that an unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK .  On it's own it doesn't really qualify under WP:BASIC .  Govvy ( talk ) 08:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've just noticed that I was reverted , again upon outcome of this AfD, would suggest a restoration on article.  I don't understand why you call it clutter.  Govvy ( talk ) 08:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions .  Govvy ( talk ) 08:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions .  Govvy ( talk ) 09:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions .  Govvy ( talk ) 09:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to RoboCop (2014 film)#Music per nomination.  Soundtrack article doesn't even show independent notability at this point anyway.  Movie Wave is a single-author blog and I have no idea what consensus there is on Film Music Reporter but it doesn't look much better to me.  The other three are so obvious I don't even need to explain them.  If that's the best coverage this soundtrack got (note that I haven't searched for any more coverage) then it should've never been split in the first place.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 13:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect , search is pulling up absolutely nothing.  Mach61 ( talk ) 21:45, 16 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
Alma Wade: The sources/book looks lime its isn't enough yet and most the sources from google search shows talks about the game, and not the character itself (some of them, but mostly plot and passing mentions).  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 13:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 17:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to F.E.A.R. .  There is no indication of standalone notability.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 19:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge what can be saved to the parent game, but for the most part just redirect. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 09:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Kung Fu Man.  The limited coverage suggests a redirect is best.  But some amount can be preserved at the target.  Doesn't meet WP:GNG .  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 21:23, 3 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
1994 Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix circuit: Apparent WP:NEVENT fail.  Could be redirected to Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix .  ( t · c ) buidhe 22:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Events ,  and Sports .  ( t · c ) buidhe 22:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Austria , France ,  and Germany .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just because the Wikipedian lacks familiarity with the sport, it does not mean that the event is not notable.  A quick Google search shows hundreds of thousands of results for Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix and an article covering the results of events should not be responsible for stating the notability of the event, since the original article Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix does this.  Besides, the point is to list the results, so a list of scores is enough.  The notability of the event has been established in the original article describing the event.  -- ThiagoSimoes ( talk ) 23:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix as an WP:ATD .  Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 16:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix as an WP:ATD .  // Timothy :: talk 14:14, 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: merge
StarzPlay by Cinepax: Fails WP:GNG .  HistoriesUnveiler ( talk ) 11:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Television , Internet ,  and Pakistan .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Agreed with above points, there is enough wrong with it that it would be too much trouble to edit it into an acceptable state, and even then I don't think it would be notable enough.  The brief coverage the topic is given in Starz is probably enough.  Endersslay ( talk ) 15:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge salvagables into Starz#Lionsgate+ , where it seems the details about Starz's international streaming services have been placed (the service mentioned here is now called Starz On, by the way, and is hosted here ).  Nate • ( chatter ) 17:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:14, 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!  23:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and Redirect into Starz#Lionsgate+ as above as per WP:ATD .  HighKing ++ 12:55, 26 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
High Commission of Malta, New Delhi: No in-depth third party coverage.  Sources 5-9 merely confirm former high commissioners.  LibStar ( talk ) 22:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , India ,  and Malta .  LibStar ( talk ) 22:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Per nom.  Poor sources and the page fails to be a stand-alone article without significant coverage in the reliable sources independent of the organization.  RangersRus ( talk ) 14:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge & Redirect to a more normal and neutral topic of " India–Malta relations " like as it has happened to the rest of the standalone articles.  While it could also be moved to " Diplomatic missions of Malta ", it is least likely proposed.  Though a strong proposal of merging is expected higher.  110.235.217.74 ( talk ) 09:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC) — 110.235.217.74 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ 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
WYBN-LD: Translator WVBG-LD can be kept because that station has a storied history (it used to relay a PBS station).  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 05:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New York .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 05:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It may be appropriate to redirect WYBN to the WVBG article or merge, given that this station's existence is needed in that article.  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 01:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with WVBG-LD : WYBN-LD might be operated as the "parent" station, but it would appear to lack the coverage (in potential sources; not referring to broadcast coverage) the (older!) WVBG-LD attained in the past.  I can't see any separate notability for WYBN; one article for the combined operation is enough.  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 6 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
KPTB-DT: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 05:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Christianity ,  and Texas .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 05:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KRPV-DT .  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 06:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with God's Learning Channel : Even as far back as 2011, the individual notability of this station was questioned enough that a previous article was deleted via PROD.  A new article was created in 2016, but notability standards have only tightened since even then — and if it couldn't survive in 2011, there's even less reason to have a separate article now.  (Because the recreation amounts to a de facto contesting, I procedural declined a PROD that came right before this AfD.)  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:57, 22 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
Manayunk Special Services District of Philadelphia: Cannot find any examples of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 18:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Pennsylvania .  AusLondonder ( talk ) 18:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge There is a quarter century old complaint against it, [5] and a year old financial report, [6] which I think is enough to earn it a sentence in the neighborhood article though not an article of its own.  Jim.henderson ( talk ) 00:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If nobody else comments today or tomorrow, I intend to drop the flag, reflag for merge in the respective article Talk Pages and, if still answered with silence, execute the merger next week.  Jim.henderson ( talk ) 15:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as proposed by Jim.henderson as WP:ATD .  ~ Kvng ( talk ) 17:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Kvng and Jim.henderson , can you specify the Merge target article you are considering?  Thank you.  L iz Read!  Talk!  23:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The target I suggested in my deprod was Manayunk, Philadelphia ~ Kvng ( talk ) 13:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes.  Sorry for the delay; I got distracted.  Jim.henderson ( talk ) 01:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : absurd stub article.  This Philly bureaucracy should be a part of the Manayunk, Philadelphia article in an appropriate section but not a merge or redirect.  Nirva20 ( talk ) 00:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete It doesn't need an article for this.  Currently fails WP:SIGCOV .  scope_creep Talk 13:55, 6 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
Structural analog (electronic): Rick Jelliffe ( talk ) 06:14, 18 June 2023 (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/2023 June 18 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 23:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Analogical models , It looks like content forked out, which is redundant.  CastJared ( talk ) 08:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Mathematics .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 01:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: While mergers can be agreed at AfD as an alternative to deletion , I think it would be preferable if the dedicated process were used in those cases where even the nominator does not argue for the content to be deleted (cf. this essay ).  Felix QW ( talk ) 09:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Merge .  The WP:COMMONNAME for the electronics concept the article describes is equivalent circuit .  PaulT2022 ( talk ) 00:01, 22 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
Expectations from the Muslim Woman: What sources do exist don't really seem to be discussing this specific lecture, but mentioning it in context for Ali Shariati 's views on women and Islam.  There is a language barrier however so I could be missing something.  If not, redirect to Shariati's biography.  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 11:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Islam .  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 11:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Ali Shariati Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:24, 13 June 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!  17:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment If the issue is notability, it seems that finding out how many scholarly works cite Expectations as a source might help.  I'm attempting this at Google Scholar, but there are probably more efficient sites out there: [26] I clicked on one of the Google Scholar results, more or less at random, and I got this 2014 study that cites it: [27] And so do these [28] This took probably three minutes.  It's likely there are a lot more out there.  If anyone has a university JSTOR access, we could have this thing sourced up in no time.  Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 01:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Darkfrog24 I mean, sure, it's cited, but the issue is I can't find any sources that talk about the actual thing besides the fact that it exists.  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 01:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Its academic nature may affect our ability to do that from this side of the paywall.  It doesn't look like the sort of thing that would end up in the New York Times book review.  Do you have JSTOR access?  Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 01:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes.  Couldn't find anything on that, ProQuest, Gale, etc.  If there is sigcov it probably isn't in English, which is the issue.  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 01:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I checked and there's one linked article to another Wiki.  The sources, whose titles appear in English, seem to be just Expectations itself.  I'm comfortable with deletion without prejudice to recreation if better sourcing appears, but I'm not confident it exists.  Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 13:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the sources presented by Darkfrog24?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  04:25, 28 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
California School of Podiatric Medicine: I put a PROD that expired, but apparently this was nominated in 2008.  HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 00:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness , Schools , Medicine ,  and California .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Samuel Merritt University EncyclopediaEditorXIV ( talk ) 14:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Samuel Merritt University .  It’s just a department of that university; no WP:SIGCOV of the department at this time to warrant a standalone article.  Prof.PMarini ( talk ) 00:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - normally, I'd lean towards a redirect (not a merge as nothing has a secondary source) to the parent institution,  but it's pretty questionable that article would meet NCORP either.  4.37.252.50 ( talk ) 01:08, 29 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
Nox (platform): It's a copy paste from the source which was present in the first version so there's nothing to revert to and no indication the text was released under an applicable license.  I'm unable to find sufficient sourcing on which to build even a stub following rev del.  Star Mississippi 19:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  Star Mississippi 19:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : There seems to be a lot of reliable sources on this subject when searched for "Nox" platform SDN on google books , scholar and I believe the platform was/is used widely.  If someone can ping a subject matter expert, it would be useful to evaluate the sources.  Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk ) 05:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Any more editors want to weigh in here?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  20:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/Redirect to Software-defined networking .   As the nom notes, the existing content is both confusing and a copyvio.   But there does seem to be enough coverage of this software to keep a redirect.   Perhaps the current one-sentence mention of it is sufficient; the Software-defined networking article has a lot of content problems of its own.  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 02:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nom comment fine with this.  I do think the text should be rev-del'ed if the article itself isn't deleted before the redirect.  Star Mississippi 02:38, 19 July 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
Lightspeed LA: Standalone notability appears insufficient, perhaps WP:TOOSOON .  IgelRM ( talk ) 11:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and California .  IgelRM ( talk ) 11:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Tencent Games as not passing WP:NCORP .  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 14:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete After five years, they've never actually created a game, so this is more notable for being yet another gaming industry money effigy pit more than for its actual value as a game studio.  Nate • ( chatter ) 20:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The studio deserves a page.  They've just announced their first game.  Wariorio10 ( talk ) 21:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Announcing a game doesn't give you a free pass to have an article about your game and studio, since Wikipedia is not for advertising spam - it needs an encyclopedic reason to exist.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 19:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] People come to Wikipedia for information.  It doesn't matter if it's a little bit of information or not, as long as the article provides accurate information, it deserves to exist.  This page can be expanded in the future over time.  Wariorio10 ( talk ) 22:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Accuracy alone is insufficient for inclusion.  Cortador ( talk ) 09:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Draftify given the announced game may come to fruition.  But this obviously attracts WP:GNG .  Put it this way, if the studio's notability hinges on the studio's announcement of Last Sentinel , an article for Last Sentinel itself would be draftified for being WP:TOOSOON .  Pre-release coverage for things yet to materialise should always be dealt with caution as the coverage is largely reliant about what the studio is saying about itself.  This is indicated by the presser-style news articles, and inclusion of interviews and YouTube channels.  The studio just hasn't reached a point yet where anything can be said about it other than what the studio is announcing and telling media itself.  ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 01:55, 19 March 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!  05:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Tencent Games.  The studio isn't notable by itself.  One announced game won't change that, and sources are more likely to report on that game than on the studio specifically.  Merge to Tencent Games as WP:ATD , unable to find anything that meets GNG/ WP:NCORP .  HighKing ++ 19:08, 28 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