hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Gromth: Really badly sourced.  I don't think this metal band really meets any criterion of WP:NBAND .  They only released one album, which was supposedly "album of the month" in Scream (magazine) , and Rock Hard did feature it, but I can't find anything else.  There were no reviews and barely any news in the Norwegian mainstream press.  The article previously claimed to meet WP:NBAND#6 by claiming that Kjell Karlsen was a member, who was 80 years at the time, but the real name of the Gromth member is Kjell Åge Karlsen (though that guy is a member of another notable band, Chrome Division ).  Geschichte ( talk ) 20:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Norway .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Tjodalv .  Could not find SIGCOV sources other than an entry in a niche metal encyclopedia.  Has been deleted after a debate from Nowiki.  Nom participated in that.  One band member has a biography where the band is mentioned in a discography header.  The band lilely stopped activities in 2013 or soon after.  Nothing updated since and the website has been inactive since 2013.  gidonb ( talk ) 03:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The entire History section is unencyclopedic and unsourced (except for them losing the Melodi Grand Prix), and does not meet WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:GNG .  —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts!  23:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Not seeing any significant coverage to justify an article.  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Tjodalv as an ATD.  Couldn't find sources to justify a stand-alone article.  - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 09:28, 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: redirect
Kami Paul: I would suggest first delete and then redirect to Noori .  This BLP was created by a user who might have a COI. — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 20:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions .  — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 20:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Desertarun ( talk ) 21:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Noori : not enough individual notability to warrant an individual article.  InDimensional ( talk ) 11:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/Redirect : Scrapes through on notability but also repeats the same facts over and over Sansbarry ( talk ) 01:29, 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: redirect
The Endless Bummer EP: Shinadamina ( talk ) 23:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions .  Shinadamina ( talk ) 23:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and California .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 04:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Reeve Oliver : found no coverage either.  Band doesn't look particularly notable per their own article either (though that needs a much closer inspection than I've given), but the page is the obviously suitable redirect target for now so long as it survives.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 07:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to the suggested page, per WP:ATD-R reasons.  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 05:45, 17 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: redirect
ANT1 Prime: I suppose a redirect to ANT1 Group might be reasonable, but I appreciate any other thoughts.  Let'srun ( talk ) 17:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America .  Let'srun ( talk ) 17:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Greece .  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 17:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to ANT1 It was the international service of this channel and frankly has no standalone notability.  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 18:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to ANT1 .  ǁ ǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 ( talk ) 17:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect s are cheap, and this one seems appropriate.  The subject fails to meet WP:GNG or any other notability guideline.  Jacona ( talk ) 16:50, 6 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: redirect
The House on Haunted Hill: This TV series doesn't have an individual article for every episode, so that arguement for inclusion is invalid.  In addition, the plot is already covered in the article on the show.  Previous REDIRECT was reverted, hence bringing it here to decide once and for all if this is a notable episode that should be kept...or it is not notable and should be deleted/redirected.  Donald D23 talk to me 15:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom .  Donald D23 talk to me 15:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect - The article has no sources, and searches do not turn up any significant coverage outside of fansites/wikis.  The only stuff I can find outside of that are things like books that simply list all of the episodes without any coverage beyond that.  Honestly, I think that this should be used as a redirect to House on Haunted Hill rather than to Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased) , since its extremely likely that most searches using this title will actually be looking for that movie.  At the very least, a hatnote should be added to the Randall and Hopkirk article directing readers to the movie's article, if we do wind up using the TV show as the redirect target.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 17:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to House on Haunted Hill , which is a much more likely intended target for anyone searching or linking to the name.  Even if it's decided to keep the article, I would strongly recommend moving it to The House on Haunted Hill (Randall and Hopkirk) and making The House on Haunted Hill redirect to House on Haunted Hill.  The absence of sourcing and lack of meaningful content beyond what's covered in the article for the show make this an obvious choice for a redirect.  In the unlikely event that the article subject achieves greater notability or a surfeit of sources turn up, it's easy enough to restore the article when and if that happens. -- Martin IIIa ( talk ) 01:02, 7 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
IBC News 11 O'Clock Report: Recommend Redirect to List of programs previously broadcast by Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation .  - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 06:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media , Television ,  and Philippines .  - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 06:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of programs previously broadcast by Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation , as the article does not make clear the significance, if any, of the program and mostly provides technical details in the infobox.  DimensionalFusion ( talk ) 08:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of programs previously broadcast by Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation per nomination.  - Ian Lopez @ 05:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Support redirect per nom -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of programs previously broadcast by Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation per nom.  – Davey 2010 Talk 19:35, 30 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: redirect
Inza Cramer: WP:BEFORE finds nothing of note, just tertiary sources and basic plot summaries.  Fails WP:GNG / WP:NFICT .  IceBergYYC ( talk ) 14:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment as nominator Seeing some suggestions for merge into Doctor Fate .  The article has a decent bit of content I'm sure could be worth saving, I'd support a merge.  Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This character does not have enough SIGCOV for notability.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 19:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments - This character has been around since the 40s.  And the character was Dr Fate herself.  There's been coverage over the years, but of course, if it doesn't exist in google, it didn't happen, I guess.  (For example, I seem to recall that there was coverage of Simonson's version of the character at some point.)  If no consensus to Keep , then merge/redirect to Doctor Fate or to Kent Nelson , for now.  - jc37 19:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Agree with the above.   There's likely to be dead tree coverage somewhere to demonstrate notability.  Failing keep, a merge to Doctor Fate#Inza Cramer Nelson appears to be the best merge target.  Jclemens ( talk ) 19:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , while I do agree that it's likely there may be something out there, until sources turn up, I'd say a merge would be the way to go.  Given the subject was an incarnation of the Doctor Fate character and it would make sense to go there.  If these dead tree sources turn up, I'll be happy to change my vote, but until then, merge seems to be the best bet.  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 19:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect .  The article right now has zero suggestions of WP:GNG , this is just a plot summary with no analysis/etc.  My BEFORE yielded nothing (a single passing mention in an academic article just listing her alongside some "lesser known female characters").  Arguments above are WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES .  Sigh.  If they are found, ping me and I'll reconsider.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete/Redirect per Piotrus.  WP:BEFORE did not reveal enough WP:SIGCOV to support an article.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 03:35, 30 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
Shah Mohammad Fazle Hossain: A redirect to the assassination article is indicated.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 01:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Bangladesh .  Shellwood ( talk ) 09:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect Clearly satisfies WP:ONEEVENT .  The person who loves reading ( talk ) 03:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect BLP1E.  // Timothy :: talk 11:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Please specify redirect target so I can see that there is agreement on the target.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The redirect target is Assassination of Ziaur Rahman .  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 19:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per WP:1E .  Mztourist ( talk ) 07:41, 1 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
WUVM-LD: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 09:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Georgia (U.S. state) .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 09:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.  : The ex-Una Vez Más stations may be a marginal step up from the completely non-notable HC2/Innovate stations that have never been anything else (complete with securing cable and even satellite coverage), but with little-to-no significant coverage that means little by the more GNG-based 2024 inclusion standards (and the station's earliest days were as a definitely non-notable ValueVision/ShopNBC repeater).  (This article has been around since 2004, which was a time of far lower inclusion standards sitewide; keep in mind, this topic area was lax about inclusion standards almost right up to this 2021 RfC .)  This happens to be another a nominal survivor of the 2023 bulk nomination of many HC2/Innovate station articles; that it was nominated there and then does not suggest the existence of the required sourcing.  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 15:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:41, 31 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: redirect
29 Armoured Engineer Squadron: Similiar units almost certainly would not have an article.  Only one reference is listed and it is not independent of the topic of the article. .  PercyPigUK ( talk ) 23:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom .  PercyPigUK ( talk ) 23:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I was going to vote to redirect this to the parent unit, but I'm really not sure what that unit actually is.  It most recently seems to have been part of 35 Engineer Regiment but our article doesn't record that as currently being the case.  Anyone know what the most suitable redirect is?  Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk ) 21:35, 26 April 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, 30 April 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!  23:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Royal Engineers might be the most suitable option.  PercyPigUK ( talk ) 13:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist, two suggested redirect target articles, are either appropriate?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Royal Engineers per nominator.  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 17:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Royal Engineers : The first redirect target 35 Engineer Regiment (EOD&S) (United Kingdom) is same unit under British Army of the Royal Engineer.  We usually redirect to nearly search terms and Royal Engineer is the coming here.  Good to go.  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  10:39, 18 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: redirect
Courtship (animals): Vitaium ( talk ) 14:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal , Science , Behavioural science , Biology ,  and Organisms .  Vitaium ( talk ) 14:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - random examples plucked from the articles coyly listed under "further information" at the head of the first paragraph ( Mating , Mating system , Courtship display ) and elsewhere.  Author apparently intended to "incorporate the content from 'Dating'" [16] , which they thankfully do not seem to have gotten around to.  I very much doubt we need a combined duplication of Dating , Courtship , and Mating system .  -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 14:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to courtship display as a valid search term. Agree that there is no need for this article, which has many issues, and the topic is much better covered by the proposed target. -- Patar knight - chat / contributions 00:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect To courtship display per Patar knight.  Just based on the title it's hard to see how this is not a duplicate topic.  -- Licks-rocks ( talk ) 11:45, 29 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: redirect
Dudley, Polk County, Iowa: But that doesn't matter as very clearly even from the source cited this is not a distinct subject.   One can read all about "Uncle Jerry" in Carlisle, Iowa#History .  Uncle G ( talk ) 05:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions .  CptViraj ( talk ) 06:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Carlisle,_Iowa#Liberty_and_Dudley , which currently covers this topic far better than this single-line stub.  While the ghost town of Dudley is notable , and discussion of it is extensive in history books , there's no need for a separate article when it's already covered in a cited article elsewhere.  Firsfron of Ronchester 08:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect >> Carlisle,_Iowa#Liberty_and_Dudley Per Firsfron Djflem ( talk ) 18:18, 25 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: redirect
Julie Finlay: If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters .  Spinixster (chat!) 10:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy ,  and Television .  Spinixster (chat!) 10:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per nom.  Searches mostly reveal the actress, not the character she portrays.  Other results just show generic recaps of episodes.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 17:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per above -- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per above.  There isn't WP:SIGCOV of the character.  You could argue there are trivial mentions in the context of the actress, and maybe that's a good redirect location.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 20:52, 4 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: redirect
Brithney Gutiérrez: I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Guatemala .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of Guatemala women's international footballers - I can find match reports and social media coverage but nothing for GNG.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as above.  Giant Snowman 14:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect (as non-notable) to the aforementioned list (as the only redirect option).  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 08:00, 23 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