hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Ivanovych: This name is extremely rare as a surname, and almost all uses of it are as a middle name patronymic.  I am not opposed to redirecting.  AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 06:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment See also the 2020 AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivanovich .  TompaDompa ( talk ) 08:17, 6 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!  06:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Expand and improve as needed.  Ivan is one of the most widely used names in Slavic languages, just as John is in English.  There would be literally hundreds or thousands of Ukrainian men with this patronymic.  It is a relevant and useful article and there is no reason to delete it.  Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 14:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Forebears.io says there are 28 people with this surname.  28.  I know Forebears isn't generally considered a reliable source, but the data is usually somewhat accurate.  I believe this name may have been misinterpreted as a surname by the article creator.  Middle name patronymics have never been found notable, for reasons such as the ones stated in the AfD discussion linked in TompaDompa's comment.  I know rules don't have much of an effect on you, but try researching beforehand.  In fact I'm pinging User:BD2412 and User:PamD on this.  AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 23:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Ivanović .  To the extent that these names are variations of each other, similarly constructed, everything about both can be said at one title.  BD2412 T 00:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Ivanović per BD2412 .   Slight variations in spelling or pronunciation do not make the different forms of the patronymic separate topics.  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 01:01, 19 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
I-35W/US 10/I-694 North Central Corridor Reconstruction Project: While construction projects can be notable, this one seems run-of-the-mill.  Article is also well out of date.  Rs chen 7754 00:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Minnesota .  Rs chen 7754 00:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge information to relevant articles.  The interchange project is not notable enough for an individual article but the information can be mentioned in the articles about the roads that meet at the interchange.  Dough 4872 00:56, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Dough 4872 Jack4576 ( talk ) 01:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as per Dough 4872 would be the best solution for this article which, curiously, hasn't been updated to reflect the project is finished.  TH1980 ( talk ) 03:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge As per Dough 4872 .  Yasal Shahid ( talk ) 05:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to the relevant sections of the individual articles on Interstate 35W (Minnesota) , maybe U.S. Route 10 in Minnesota , and Interstate 694 (though the I-694 article already appears to have reasonable coverage).   In general, completed construction projects don't attract lasting notice locally, except for the I-35W Mississippi River bridge or the completed Crosstown Commons project.   -- Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Now that I look at the I-35W article again, I see there's no mention of this construction project.   I'm not sure there needs to be one in the I-35W article.   Some of the 35W/10 concurrency was rebuilt in the 2013 project, but it was rebuilt again in the 2019-2021 timeframe as 35W was expanded by a couple lanes with a toll lane added in the middle.   That construction project isn't mentioned on Wikipedia.   The US-10 article doesn't say anything about the 35W/10/694 project, but maybe it could say just a few sentences about it.   The I-694 article's history section has a decent description of the Unweave the Weave and the 35W/10/694 project.   Whatever part of the article is merged, I don't think we need to keep the large volume of information detailing when each bridge was rebuilt, how traffic was rerouted, and so on.   Only a subset of the "Project background" section needs to be kept.   FWIW, I drive a long stretch of Interstate 35W from Bloomington to Blaine on my daily commute.   -- Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:24, 23 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: merge
WNXY-LD: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 13:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New York .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 13:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with WNYX-LD .  WNYX seems to have some sources and common ownership that could be enough to not only justify keeping it from AFD, but the perfect article to merge into.  -- Danubeball ( talk ) 23:32, 15 May 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!  16:50, 19 May 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, 26 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
Momentum Party: Article has been tagged as not WP:GNG for a while, website not updated since before the by-election.  Tried sending an email to them 3 weeks ago and no response.  Fun Is Optional ( talk page ) (please ping on reply) 07:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and New Zealand .  Fun Is Optional ( talk page ) (please ping on reply) 07:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ FunIsOptional : Do you yourself have concerns about this meeting GNG?  Judging from your rationale, it sounds like you only nominated this for deletion because someone else said it should be deleted?  — Mythdon ( talk • contribs ) 07:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The existing coverage of the party itself is pretty minor, with most being on Sharma himself, and given the likelyhood that they don't exist anymore I don't expect additional coverage.  The rest is already covered in the leader Gaurav Sharma 's article, which given the only election the party was in was just him, I don't see a need for what is essentially a duplicate article.  Fun Is Optional ( talk page ) (please ping on reply) 08:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ FunIsOptional : That checks out. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs ) 01:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Gaurav Sharma (politician) .  Only one source mentions the Momentum Party and it's a trivial mention .  Either merging or deleting/redirecting works in this case, considering 99% of the article/sources isn't about the party itself. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs ) 01:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Gaurav Sharma (politician) .  Not worth retaining this article by itsself.  NealeWellington ( talk ) 09:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Party appears to have lost momentum.  A merge with the Sharman article is appropriate.  Schwede 66 15:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge for reasons given above.  The content can be adequately covered within Sharma's article, so all we need is a redirect unless the party comes back to life and nominates other candidates.  Axver ( talk ) 09:43, 23 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: merge
Vertical City, New Town: Skynxnex ( talk ) 21:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify : TOOSOON , but it's possible that this will be notable.  The coverage provided isn't quite SIGCOV but this might be an important structure when its built.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 22:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Standard office building built on spec in a city also being built on spec; it's a PROMO.  Nate • ( chatter ) 00:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Voorts , you have a good idea.  Note though, that a draft will get deleted in 6 months if it's in draft space .  This building may not have even started then.  An alternative would be for some editor to step forward and ask that the article be moved to a subpage of their own user page where there is no expiration date.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  What about merging the content to a new section for Planned Developments in the FinTech Hub, Kolkata article?  Rupples ( talk ) 03:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting after Merge proposal mentioned.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I like the merge proposal.  With something like this, moving to draft is just 6-month delayed deletion.  Better to keep the history in mainspace, so that it can easily be reconstructed if/when it is finished and discussed in reliable indept sources.  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 02:21, 12 November 2023 (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!  22:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge : target seems reasonable to me – while not appearing notable on its own (yet), it seems due for inclusion in the article on the district when so much is still under development there.  Tollens ( talk ) 23:13, 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
Gabriele Kafka: Being the sister of someone notable does not make her notable.  She has achieved nothing in life.  FromCzech ( talk ) 04:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  FromCzech ( talk ) 04:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I've gone through the articles on de.wiki and cs.wiki, did a little other searching, probably meets WP:BASIC .  Kafka's life is so heavily covered, and she is covered in most of his biographies.  I don't think the fact she never achieved anything herself really is relevant to whether or not she's notable enough for inclusion.  Valereee ( talk ) 06:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I don't see notability either.  "Sister of a famous person who died in a concentration camp" is a bit of a stretch for notability here.  I could see this being covered in a memorial site; I'm not even sure what she would be notable for in order to have a wikipedia article.  She went to school, got married and was close to her children.  Maybe gets a mention in the Kafka article's biography section, but that's about all.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to Franz Kafka , if any information is deemed encyclopedic enough.  Otherwise redirect .  Jdcooper ( talk ) 21:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I think Valereee has put her finger on it.  Notability is not dependent on "achievements" but on sources, and GK has adequate sourcing as a result of the huge literature of Kafka.  .  Ingratis ( talk ) 08:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] change to Merge/Redirect , with reluctance - I haven't been able to find anything on her at all independently of Kafka, so although it remains correct that notability is not achievement-based but source-based, in this instance there apparently just aren't the sources.  Nevertheless she is a plausible search term, so WP:ATD .  Ingratis ( talk ) 11:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not notable outside of being someone's relative Big Money Threepwood ( talk ) 05:45, 9 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!  05:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Franz Kafka.  CuteDolphin712 ( talk ) 11:05, 12 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
Wicket W. Warrick: Outside of casting info, there really isn't anything that justifies a separation, especially since a source search yields practically nothing else in terms of Reception.  I'd say either a merge or redirect to Ewok could be good AtD.  Has one ever considered Magneton?  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 00:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy ,  and Film .  Has one ever considered Magneton?  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 00:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Ewok .   The character is certainly notable, but the sourcing just isn't quite there.   Every citation is either primary, non-RS, or not about the character but about Ewoks in general, as nom says.   With better sourcing I could change my mind.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 16:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Wicket W. Warrick .   A notable character for sure.  Was a main character in two made for TV movies (with theatrical releases outside North America) as well as two seasons of the Ewoks cartoon, and a large part of Star Wars marketing for the mid-1980s.  I would suggest a few additions and citations be added, rather than outright deletion.  May require some cleanup, but far less notable characters remain with pages in tact.  RamshackleMan ( talk ) 02:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Could you show any of these sources illustrating notability?  I'm willing to consider changing my stance, but my BEFORE showed nothing proving Wicket's independent notability from Ewoks as a species.  Just because a character is important does not mean it automatically warrants an article, there need to be sources actively proving a character is notable instead of just a WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument.  Has one ever considered Magneton?  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 02:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge or redirect per WeirdNAnnoyed.  This doesn't have WP:SIGCOV outside of the Ewoks , where it is already covered.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 04:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Ewok : Wicket W. Warrick is not independently notable from his fictional species.  ― Susmuffin Talk 06:02, 21 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
2019 FIFA Women's World Cup broadcasting rights: Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE .  As with sources per WP:RS ; the one that covers it all are WP:PRIMARY and announcments, not helping this list to assert notability.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 21:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Football ,  and Lists .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 21:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge significant markets to 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup#Broadcasting to retain consistency with other FWWC articles.  The separate list is nothing more than an indiscriminate collection of information simply for the sake of collecting that information.  — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge – Per Jkudlick .  Svartner ( talk ) 06:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 17:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/redirect as above.  Giant Snowman 17:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Another attack on a perfectly fine article about a previously broadcasted event.  The close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of FIFA Women's World Cup broadcasters noted that keep results are fine for individual years.  This isn't listcruft, which is functionally WP:IDLI .  This isn't a database, either, and it is very discriminate - I'm tired of people not understanding that premise at deletion discussions.  While poorly sourced, it is very easy to find reliable sources which cover this like [4] [5] .  SportingFlyer T · C 12:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How is this an attack?  Everything I do is an attack, right?  Do note that I have no plans to nominate the 2023 list.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 20:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I was not talking about you specifically.  Lots of broadcast information has been up at AfD recently.  SportingFlyer T · C 21:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup#Broadcasting : As it stands, this standalone article fails WP:LISTN due to a lack of secondary coverage covering the grouping.  Merge as a WP:ATD .  Let'srun ( talk ) 14:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's just not true.  See [6] .  SportingFlyer T · C 21:26, 18 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
Posey (given name): This particular article is distinct because the spellings are different and the name is probably also related to the surname.  If anything, this particular article should be merged with Posey (surname) into one article called Posey (name) as I originally intended.  See the talk page.  Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 05:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Posy (given name) , as best solution for the readers, who will probably know if something is a given name or a surname, but may not always be certain of the spelling: having the similar first names all on one page is then the easiest.  Whether the given name is related to the surname seems to be pure speculation .  Fram ( talk ) 06:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The two people listed under the Posey article are both men and both use the same spelling as the surname, which has multiple origins per the cited source.  I don’t have the sources for the bios of these men handy, but it would not be surprising if Posey was a mother’s maiden name or a surname belonging to a family friend or some other family member, as is typical for such usage in the 19th century.  Someone can probably find the documentation.  As a female name, it is referring to a flower or a nickname for Josephine or Rosemary or Rosalind, etc., per the cited sources.  Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 07:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 19:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Posy (given name) , particularly because that article starts off with Posy, or Posey or Posie - since they all apparently have the same origins, all 3 given name spelling variants can share the same article.  As I mentioned here , these articles might be able to be merged with Posey (surname) at a later date, but for now, I think a separate article for the given name is a good start.  PhotogenicScientist ( talk ) 13:21, 1 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
Ky Kiske: WP:BEFORE shows zero WP:SIGCOV , making most of the guilty gear characters vulnerable (example: Millia Rage .  GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 11:56, 27 May 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) 12:35, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Guilty Gear characters .  Creation and reception do not demonstrate significant coverage, fails WP:GNG .  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nom.  I'm a longtime fan of this series and even I acknowledge they're niche. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 04:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge IGN and Anime News Network and... that's it.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 20:32, 1 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
Berkshire Hathaway GUARD Insurance Companies: Appears to have been written by a handful of IP's.  As an AtD, could be stubbed down and/or merged into a larger Berkshire article.  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 03:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Pennsylvania .  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 03:58, 15 September 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!  04:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to National Indemnity Company .  The infobox is currently wrong, this subject is a subsidiary and not a parent of National Indemnity.  GUARD is a fairly small division within Berkshire overall.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 05:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Commment: I have removed the dubiously sourced claims and puffery, as well as the tags highlighting these problems.  It remains to be seen whether this company is worthy of an article in its own right.  I agree w/ the above editor who recommended a merge to the parent company.  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 03:01, 27 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