hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Ovan: This article was mostly build up with trivia articles/sources like passing mentions from games reviews.  It has zero WP:SIGCOV .  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 13:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  appears to be fancruft, more suited to a wikia site than here.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I made this back such guideline wasn't used but I'm surprised it needed an AFD.  Same goes for Atoli.  Not sure if Haseo has enough articles where he is the primary subject as months algo O tried cleaning up his reception.  Same with Kite.  Tintor2 ( talk ) 21:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above, just nothing really there for the article. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 16:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Impresive scraping of mentions in passing, but fails WP:SIGCOV .  It would be a shame to loose this - I recommend SOFTDELETE and merger of reception to the List of . hack characters .  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge A merge discussion would've been fine in this instance, but the character doesn't seem notable, and WP:SIGCOV doesn't appear to exist.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 16:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: merge
Matrix (Doctor Who): The article already cites no sources to begin with.  Thus, the article doesn't seem to meet GNG or SIGCOV.  Given some of the information may be worth retaining, the best alternative to straight deletion would be to merge it with the List of Doctor Who Items article, where the Matrix is already listed, though it lacks relevant information there.  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 19:43, 29 July 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 .  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 19:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Doctor Who items , although I am worried about the current state of that page.  There are little to no SIGCOV, and the article is unsourced.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 20:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I too am concerned with the state of the page, but it's really the best option for right now, I feel.  If that article proves problematic, the other potential solution I can see might be a merger with Gallifrey , but I'm not too sure on that front.  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 20:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Doctor Who items per QuicoleJR.  I agree the merge target is in a questionable state.  But this can only improve it, with room for further discussion later.  There isn't enough WP:SIGCOV about the Matrix and it fails the WP:GNG .  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 01:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: merge
Amantia peruana peruana: Author declines to merge to the species article.  - UtherSRG (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions .  UtherSRG (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge both subspecies to species article.  No benefit on the Lord's green Earth to splitting these off into separate articles - a paragraph of minuscule detail description certainly does not justify that.  -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 19:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is my expected outcome as WP:ATD .  - UtherSRG (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge No need for separate pages here.  Reywas92 Talk 19:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm happy to ! vote merge but note that the only thing here that isn't already on Amantia peruana is an unsourced sentence about etymology.  Mgp28 ( talk ) 22:01, 14 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
Embassy of Russia, New Delhi: Efforts to redirect this have failed.  Chris Troutman ( talk ) 04:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes failed, because you cannot redirect to a page which does not mention the subject.  At the very least you have to merge the referenced info into the target page.  - Altenmann >talk 04:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , India ,  and Russia .  Chris Troutman ( talk ) 04:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 07:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of ambassadors of Russia to India as WP:NOPAGE , Alternative target India–Russia relations .  — siro χ o 05:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Consensus on a target would be helpful Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:59, 8 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!  02:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Embassies are generally considered notable enough to warrant their own articles and many such articles exist.  Dazzling4 ( talk ) 03:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Dazzling4 : I'm not aware of any guideline where embassies are given the presumption of notability, but I could be entirely wrong – could you point me to where this is stated?  If this isn't actually a guideline, please note that the existence of other similar articles does not confer notability (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ).  Tollens ( talk ) 00:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair enough this is textbook WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - I change my suggestion to Delete Dazzling4 ( talk ) 02:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The article contains nontrivial information, reasonably sourced.  - Altenmann >talk 04:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with India–Russia relations : While not appearing to meet GNG, there's certainly usable material in the article.  List of ambassadors of Russia to India seems to me to not be the correct merge target here, as an embassy is not an ambassador.  Tollens ( talk ) 00:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with India–Russia relations as AtD, generally agree with Tollens, I think GNG is iffy here, but I do believe the merge will result in a better target and more exposure of the material.  If in the future it improves into a stand alone article, the history will be preserved.  // Timothy :: talk 15:56, 21 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
Rohit Shetty filmography: Rohit Shetty's filmography is already listed in his WP:BLP , which isn't so very long that a separate spinoff article would be needed.  As always, every actor or filmmaker does not automatically get his filmography spun off to a separate article from his base BLP as a matter of course -- that can be done for people whose main biographical articles are extremely long and need to be chunked out for size control purposes, but most film professionals just get their filmographies listed in the main article rather than requiring two separate pages, and Shetty's main article isn't long enough to need a spinoff.  Bearcat ( talk ) 20:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India .  Bearcat ( talk ) 20:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Rohit Shetty .  Unneeded WP:CFORK .  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 22:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Rohit Shetty : Reasonably short filmography, there's no need for this to be split into a separate article, it's just a WP:CFORK .  Ravensfire ( talk ) 23:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Rohit Shetty .  Unneeded WP:CFORK .  // Timothy :: talk 19:07, 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: merge
Crayenborgh College: Cannot find any sources online or in other language wiki to demonstrate otherwise.  Tooncool64 ( talk ) 07:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Not seeing indication that the BEFORE included a check on Wikipedia Library, so other intrepid editors who aren't going to bed in five minutes may wish to start there.  I found a passing mention on JSTOR, so at least we know it's real.  ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 07:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Netherlands .  CptViraj ( talk ) 09:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Merge to Leonard Blussé following gidonb , see below.  One of the problems is a False friend : in Dutch, college means lecture.  Therefore, "Crayenborgh lecture" returns more hits than "Crayenborgh college".  Many renowned scholars that are invited to the Crayenborgh lecture series later publish their lecture.  See this one by Stanley Meisler.  No doubt the Crayenborgh lecture series is prestigious.  That said, it is hard to find an independent, secondary source.  Ruud Buitelaar ( talk ) 21:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Posdata: on nlwiki about Leonard Blussé it says that the Crayenborgh lecture series is terminated.  I have a hard time finding which was the last one.  It existed in 2009 for sure.  Ruud Buitelaar ( talk ) 01:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge (selectively) to Leonard Blussé as a discontinued program of limited encyclopedic interest.  The Leonard Blussé article is way too short and would benefit from one sentence with a few sources on the program.  gidonb ( talk ) 02:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fine with me.  Ruud Buitelaar ( talk ) 16:05, 24 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
Development Business: Only non- WP:IS sources.  Fails WP:GNG .  UtherSRG (talk) 10:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals , Politics , Business ,  and Economics .  UtherSRG (talk) 10:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: This has been at AfD for four weeks running now.  Somebody else please weigh in.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, – Joe ( talk ) 13:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Maile66 : you participated in the last AfD, any additional thoughts?  – Joe ( talk ) 13:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs United Nations Department of Global Communications - I said "Keep" before, but nobody else responded.  Like I mentioned before, this is a vital arm of the United Nations.   Maybe it would help if I linked the three Events pages of Development Business.  I was not aware the United Nations provided this, until this AFD arose.   Maybe our other Wikipedians were also not aware of it.  — Maile ( talk ) 15:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Making it unanimous with the respondents below.  — Maile ( talk ) 23:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to United Nations Department of Global Communications .  According to their history page , Development Business was launched by the United Nations Department of Public Information (now United Nations Department of Global Communications), so a better merge target, since I can't see anything that links this with the UN DESA.  Maile66 is right that this seems significant, but I cannot find any independent reliable sources which would establish notability; the best I can find is this interview, which is not independent.  So, failing GNG, a merge seems most appropriate.  (I'm surprised that I can't find more on this and wonder if I've missed something - very happy to change my !vote if additional sources are uncovered.)  WJ94 ( talk ) 14:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to United Nations Department of Global Communications , with no prejudice against future expansion -- I was also surprised by the lack of SIGCOV sources here.  Suriname0 ( talk ) 03:58, 29 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
Yun and Yang: Zero commentary to the both characters.  It relies mostly on listicles and passing mentions at the reception section.  Some of the source were trivial like this [9] .  This source alone [10] is not enough.  GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 22:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions .  GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 22:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 22:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I disagree with nom, and do not find the reception references already in the article insufficient to meet GNG.  Jclemens ( talk ) 01:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Street Fighter characters .  I approached this assuming they were notable, especially given they were unveiled in the 1990s when gaming magazines were a thing, and set out to prove it, but I could not find much significant coverage.  While I found this mention in CVG, it has no independent commentary, and solely describes their backstory and moves.  One could potentially argue this is SIGCOV, since it discusses them in context of the real life martial art they use.  The rest are small mentions within lists; there's not much to go by in terms of proving they are independently notable.  It's interesting they inspired the protagonists of Divekick ... that can be mentioned in a list.  I would heavily debate the fact that they have "zero commentary", but their SIGCOV is insufficient to pass the GNG criteria.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 08:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's also this in GameFan.  But again, literally just description, without opinion.  Secondary source "contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources", not just a restatement of them.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 10:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Street Fighter characters .  Most of the sources are listicles or trivial news updates.  No real SIGCOV.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 15:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Zxcvbnm.  This unfortunately doesn't have enough coverage in reliable sources to support a stand-alone article.  Something could be selectively merged per WP:PRESERVE .  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 13:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Street Fighter characters per above.  // Timothy :: talk 07:20, 28 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
Moran, British Columbia: – dlthewave ☎ 04:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Canada .  – dlthewave ☎ 04:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to BC Rail#CN era (2004– ) .  Thryduulf ( talk ) 08:42, 20 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
Economy of Lucknow: Lucknow#Economy on the other hand is well sourced.  LibStar ( talk ) 06:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notified the article creator User:25 Cents FC as they are still active.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 06:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions .  Kpg jhp jm 07:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into the main article at Lucknow#Economy with any useful information not covered there .  Kpg jhp jm 07:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions .  Actualcpscm ( talk ) 09:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Lucknow#Economy : the main concern here would be readability and ease of navigation at the merge target.  Although Lucknow is a relatively long article, it's well-structured and the Economy section is quite small; I see no reason to oppose a merge.  I'd recommend Template:R with possibilities , though.  It's plausible that someone will come along and write a significantly better article about the economy of Lucknow.  Actualcpscm ( talk ) 09:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as described.  If more in-depth sources come along later, we can redo the fork.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Lucknow#Economy to preserve article history for potential expansion again in the future.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 15:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: merge
Whitehall Township Bureau of Police: A cursory Google search doesn't turn up any particularly notable incidents that attracted wider media attention.  WP:ORGDEPTH BrigadierG ( talk ) 22:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Pennsylvania .  Cooper ( talk ) 22:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Every town has a police department but they don't usually need standalone articles.  Like, do they not all have basically the same rank structure?  Reywas92 Talk 15:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Police ranks of the United States .  Yevrowl ( talk ) 15:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Four external links added, thanks.  Yevrowl ( talk ) 16:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Every town in the country has routine crime news, these don't actually add anything to the article.  There would need to be significant independent coverage about the department itself.  But again, small towns generally don't need separate pages for their police departments, fire departments, councils, etc., and these sources don't justify one.  Reywas92 Talk 20:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or Merge - There's a whole category of local police departments Category:Municipal police departments of Pennsylvania .  Given that it's a police department, there's coverage of the actions of its employees in case law.  Alternatively, merge into Whitehall Township, Pennsylvania .  GobsPint ( talk ) 18:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The existence of other articles isn't a reason to keep an article ( WP:WHATABOUTX ), only Wikipedia policies and guidance are.  If you think there is significant coverage, I would invite you to reference it, rather than simply stating that there WP:MUSTBESOURCES .  Note that the burden here is not just reliable sources proving that the subject exists or that it has done something, but significant secondary coverage indicating its notability in particular.  BrigadierG ( talk ) 00:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to the township article at Whitehall Township .  Every town of 10k to 20k has its own police force, which generates some local news ( see If it bleeds, it leads ), but as everyone knows, there are thousands of local government police forces in the United States.  This similar to, say, a county sheriff's office , which covers a larger territory and population, but was merged and redirected after a vote to keep .  Bearian ( talk ) 13:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What content would you actually want to merge?  I don't think this should be a redirect or a merge, there's no actual content in the article to merge aside from a sentence about the date that the police org was founded which I'm not sure really matters.  BrigadierG ( talk ) 10:44, 3 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