hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
New Whatcom: Article is about a single settlement that existed for roughly ten years after the merger of Whatcom and Sehome, and prior to its merger into Bellingham.  Supported by one source, which itself doesn't support most of the text.  PersusjCP ( talk ) 22:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions .  PersusjCP ( talk ) 22:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I second that, Looking at it now in retrospect, I think it may be better to merge with Bellingham, Washington History.  Gonzafer001 ( talk ) 23:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Gonzafer001 are any parts of this article generated by LLM ( WP:LLM )?  "stunning natural beauty" and "marked a significant moment in the region's history, shaping the development of Bellingham into the thriving city it is today" have WP:TONE issues and sound like something ChatGPT would generate.  Jfire ( talk ) 03:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Good catch.  A lot of this does sound like it was generated by an LLM.  I plugged the text in to a few of those LLM detector sites and it came back at 100%.  I don't know how reliable they are but I plugged human writing into it too, including from WP articles, and they all got <5%.  PersusjCP ( talk ) 01:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Bellingham - there's not much sourced information here to merge!  SportingFlyer T · C 01:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's fine with me too PersusjCP ( talk ) 01:26, 18 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
Irish Socialist Network: Bestagon ⬡ 17:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Ireland .  Bestagon ⬡ 17:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Workers' Party (Ireland) (from which this group seemingly split).  As an WP:ATD .  Or, failing that, delete .  I suggest this because, per nom and my own WP:BEFORE , I cannot find any material coverage to establish WP:GNG or WP:NORG .  A search, for example, in the Irish Times or the Irish Independent returns nothing.  There is one hit each (both trivial passing mentions) on RTÉ and the Irish Examiner .  A far cry from significant news coverage.  While a book search returns a handful of results , they are all largely passing mentions where the subject is discussed alongside other parties or in the context of the split ( "splinter" or "offshoot" per some sources ) from the Workers' Party.  Hence redirect as an ATD.  Not seeing sufficient coverage for standalone article.  (We don't even have sufficient coverage to confirm whether the subject is even still running/extant... Which is somewhat telling)....  Guliolopez ( talk ) 19:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Workers' Party (Ireland) per Guliolopez.  Spleodrach ( talk ) 22:00, 3 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
Binalbagan Catholic College: Fails WP:ORG .  GNews only shows a crime where a faculty member was robbed and killed unfortunately.  GBooks has no good non-directory hits.  GNews Archives shows that SEA Games athlete Arniel Ferrera attended the institution but that's it.  Alternatively , redirect to Binalbagan#Education -- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools ,  and Philippines . Lenticel ( talk ) 02:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect , but for me the correct redirect should probably go to the Diocese of Kabankalan , since the article mentions that the diocese now operates the school. (My take is that in principle, the private Catholic/parochial schools operated by a diocese or archdiocese should be redirected principally to the diocese's article to reflect the legal status of those schools.) --- Tito Pao ( talk ) 07:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:16, 12 October 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!  06:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  HueMan1 ( talk ) 00:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different Redirects proposed (and the correct one for the diocese is Roman Catholic Diocese of Kabankalan ) Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Kabankalan that operates the school.  Fails WP:NSCHOOL per nom.  SBKSPP ( talk ) 03:36, 28 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
KVPS-LD: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 04:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 04:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:37, 12 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!  00:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of television stations in California#LPTV stations : it is mentioned there, and in the absence of any significant coverage (or evidence of carrying substantially anything other than national services) an {{ R to list entry }} would appear to be a logical alternative to deletion .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:35, 20 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
List of hospitals in Surat: The grouped hospitals must be notable together for some other reason than simply existing in Surat.  A previous PROD was contested.  - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 04:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine , Lists , India ,  and Gujarat .  - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 04:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete not everything that can be listed needs to be listed on Wikipedia.  Llajwa ( talk ) 16:32, 25 January 2024 (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 05:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect : to Surat#Hospitals , after moving to Hospitals in Surat (this will be more useful than "List of ", two entries is not a list).  A two entry list, only one has an article.  Both are already mentioned in target, but I added a section for hospitals so it was easier to find (see edit summary).  The reference was not in the article before I moved it.  // Timothy :: talk 15:12, 30 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
Ben "Beanie" Harper: It's a character in a long ago cancelled TV soap.  None of the claims have sources so can be removed per WP:V and anything remaining could be added to Love of Life .  A redirect seems total overkill.  JMWt ( talk ) 12:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America .  JMWt ( talk ) 12:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions .  Turtletennisfogwheat ( talk ) 12:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect : I agree with JMWt .  No independent references can be found to verify the content of the article.  Hkkingg ( talk ) 17:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to the soap opera.  This utterly fails notability.  Neocorelight ( Talk ) 22:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete without independent references.  Redirects are cheap, as WP:ATD .  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 04:10, 19 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
1903 Western Illinois Purple and Gold football team: If the creator or someone else wishes to draftify this, be my guest.  Let'srun ( talk ) 22:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Illinois .  Let'srun ( talk ) 22:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's suitable for a decade list of seasons, but not as a stand-alone.  SportingFlyer T · C 22:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify .  Sigh... will eventually get to creating a merger target.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 23:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Western Illinois Purple and Gold football, 1902–1909#1903 .  Western Illinois is a Division I program, and its history warrants inclusion in Wikipedia.  1903 was the first season, and the coverage is sparse.  Accordingly, and per WP:NSEASONS , it makes sense to group the first decade of seasons into a single article.  I began the target article tonight, and I'll continue working on it and invite anyone else interested to assist in the effort.  Cbl62 ( talk ) 04:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you, Cbl62.  Redirect .  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 17:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per Cbl62.  Jweiss11 ( talk ) 15:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Open to a redirect .  Great work Cbl62.  Let'srun ( talk ) 16:25, 13 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
Soda Tax (Parks and Recreation): 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, so bringing it here for discussion.  Donald D23 talk to me 18:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America .  Donald D23 talk to me 18:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails GNG.  // Timothy :: talk 15:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Episode lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources.  MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:58, 6 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
Kesar: Chris Troutman ( talk ) 12:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  3 years broadcast on Star Plus.  A WP essay reminds us that "Television series, game shows, and talk shows broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are usually kept. An exception is if a program was short-lived and/or aired in a market where reliable source coverage is scant."  Or at the very least redirect to List of programmes broadcast by StarPlus , where it is obviously mentioned. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 13:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Citing OUTCOMES is circular reasoning .  If we don't have sufficient sources we cannot have a sufficient article.  Chris Troutman ( talk ) 18:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for this comment but I don"t think citing that essay implies circular reasoning.  It is just standard practice based on common sense (a series broadcast for 4 years on a major network received exposure, hence probable notability).  As for sources, if deemed insufficient for a standalone article, I can only repeat that I suggest redirect exactly for that reason.  I'll leave it at that.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 19:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect.  I reverted the redirect few days ago citing the above mentioned essay as Essays and information pages are not policy or guidelines that must be followed, but they are likely worthy of consideration.  ( WP:MEANING )  But I was not able to find enough reliable independent sources required for a good article and Redirect to List of programmes broadcast by StarPlus looks like a better option .  Sid95Q ( talk ) 19:59, 22 October 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!  22:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Subject fails GNG and WP:NTV / WP:RPRGM , nothing from WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  The suggested redirect already needs cleanup per WP:NOTTVGUIDE and adding another non-notable entry will just result in more needed cleanup.  Lists have guidelines such as WP:NOTTVGUIDE , and adding this will violate this guideline.  // Timothy :: talk 00:20, 5 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
Rad Spencer: Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 20:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Bionic Commando .  The sourcing to prove WP:GNG is simply not there, and the article relies on trivial mentions.  No prejudice towards recreation if any significant coverage is found.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 23:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  Not sure how much of Spencer's article can be merged to Bionic Commando without it clogging the article.  I think what the Bionic Commando has right now is fine for Rad's coverage.  As for the article itself, its sources seem pulled from completely random sources more than forming any cohesive form of reception.  That being said, I'm not opposed to the article being restored should sources come up in the future, but right now, those sources don't seem to exist.  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 13:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Bionic Commando - Yet another fictional character article where trivial mentions in general game reviews and appearances in "Top Ten" style churnalism articles are being disguised as genuine significant coverage from reliable sources.  The actual sources do not demonstrate any kind of notability for the character outside of the general notability of the series he is from, so redirecting to that article is the best option here.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 19:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Bionic Commando .  Relies on listicles and passing mentions.  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 22:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and lightly merge.  There is some coverage, but it's closer to WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs and not detailed enough for WP:SIGCOV .  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 03:05, 7 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
Frontlines (Roblox): Thus, failing WP:N .  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 14:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of Roblox games The sources are largely just news articles saying "hey this exists", but WP:SIGCOV requires the sources to be able to fully encompass the game, which is difficult without previews/reviews.  There's already a page for these sorts of Roblox-created games, most of which don't merit an article.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 16:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of Roblox games ; As the page creator I'll self admit that I was unable to stretch the sources used as much as I expected.  I still believe this can be a standalone subject, but I'll let time decide that on if the game gets more coverage during the Roblox Innovation Awards.  Negative MP1 16:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per Zxcvbnm. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs ) 13:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect or Delete per nom.  This article has no signs of notablity at all.  Fails WP:GNG.  Summerslam2022 ( talk ) 18:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh come on.  I understand and agree with there being a merger/redirect since the subject is covered elsewhere, but there's still notability to the subject, with several articles that discussed it majorly in some form.  The article shouldn't be completely deleted.  Negative MP1 19:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why would you oppose the proposed redirect target?  Sergecross73 msg me 14:12, 5 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: redirect
PKP class SM01: WP:GNG does not appear to be met, particularly given the infobox claim that only three models were produced.  Perhaps this kind of stuff can survive on some list, but given lack of sources, hard to merge anything.  Pl wiki (currently at AfD there) has a reliable reference but is used just for the weight parameter, not even present in our article.  My BEFORE yielded nothing of use.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation , Germany ,  and Poland .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment related to de:DRG Kleinlokomotive Class II , maybe a merge with a redirect?  -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 06:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Ouro Merge would require sources.  Redirect would require mentioning this in the other article (with a reference, per WP:V ).  If this can be done, sure.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 06:56, 12 October 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!  01:56, 19 October 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!  04:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with DRG Kleinlokomotive Class II : Polish wiki only has one book source, and is basically a paragraph-length article.  Merging to the main German locomotive article should be fine.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] possibly merge to DRG Kleinlokomotive Class I (note difference) but at this point prefer TNT delete .  The big problem: I don't know if I can trust any of the information in the article (the Polish WP article isn't an improvement).  The class II article seems to be the wrong target as the pictured locomotive isn't like those in that article, whereas it is plausibly similar to that depicted in the Class I article.  At this point I think starting over with decent sourcing is the best option.  Mangoe ( talk ) 15:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: redirect
Richard Causey: Tar nis hed Path talk 12:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Businesspeople , Crime , Organizations , Business , Companies , United States of America ,  and Texas .  Tar nis hed Path talk 12:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Could maybe redirect to Enron scandal, maybe a section like § Trials .  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 13:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] They are not mentioned there.  Tar nis hed Path talk 13:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Actually, they are mentioned twice in that section, once in the first paragraph (last name only) and again in the fourth.  I do take the point that it's hard to spot on a casual read though, I think it's the only reason I was hesitant about it in the first place.  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 16:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Apologies, I was doing a ctrl-f on their full name.  Just did a ctrl-f on their last name only.  In that case I have no issue with a redirect to either Enron scandal#Timeline of downfall (first mention) or Enron scandal#Trials (second and third mention).  Tar nis hed Path talk 03:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Enron scandal#Timeline of downfall .  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 19:19, 17 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