hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Ronda, California: No indication this was a notable settlement, 1907 map has nothing but a name on the railroad https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ht-bin/tv_browse.pl? id=b1e243f82f9d569792e98834cc4986b5 Reywas92 Talk 20:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  Reywas92 Talk 20:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Another non-notable railroad waypoint, no evidence this was ever a settlement of any kind.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 21:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I found a 1913 tourist guide telling us that these (Ronda, Zamora , Brentona ) were all railroad stops for local farmers.   The difference is that there's a Zamora Historical Research Society that appears to have written a little bit about Zamora/Black's Station.   ☺  (Our article is sourced to "Mast family" at one point, though.) Uncle G ( talk ) 01:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, Zamora has its own exit from I5 and a couple of businesses, whereas (for what it's worth) I had never heard of Ronda until today, despite having grown up in the area.   It disappeared from maps in 1915 and even then had no buildings in USGS topos.... this is a no-brainer.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 04:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 00:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into the Yolo county California article.  WP:Geoland#Settlements and administrative regions states that only legally recognized places are presumed notable.  Non-legally recognized places such as Ronda, must meet WP:GNG in order to be considered notable.  In particular Ronda fails Wikipedia:Notability#SUSTAINED , I also believe that previous discussion indicates that Ronda fails WP:NRV as well.  policy guidance given in both WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND are that such articles should be merged into the article that covers the notable administrative area that contains it.  I'm willing to do the merge, but let me know as I might not be paying attention.  James.folsom ( talk ) 01:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Yolo County, California : per above.  बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 23:43, 30 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
2023 Syria helicopter accident: (The article was proposed for deletion ( WP:PROD ) and the creator of the article contested the proposal. ) JBW ( talk ) 22:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Military , Transportation , Syria ,  and United States of America .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 05:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge (without prejudice) into List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2020–present) .  Yet another case of bizarre fragmentation!  The topic may be notable or not.  The answer DOES NOT MATTER as, regardless of the answer, this is an improper WP:SPINOFF from its parent that has just one sentence on the accident and needs all three sentences and sources.  Thank you, JBW , for nominating! gidonb ( talk ) 20:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Military occurrences are far more common than civilian ones, so the threshold for inclusion is higher.  This one in particular seems to be a relatively minor mishap without fatalities: an example of WP:RUNOFTHEMILL in military operations.  -- Deeday-UK ( talk ) 18:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Deeday-UK !  How do you feel about going from 1 to 3 sentences on the accident here plus adding missing sources through a merge?  The article would still disappear, as you suggest, while adding quality elsewhere.  gidonb ( talk ) 23:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions .  gidonb ( talk ) 21:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – not very notable in a war.  Grahaml35 ( talk ) 19:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Grahaml35 !  Did you also consider WP:ATDs ?  gidonb ( talk ) 13:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It has already been added to List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2020–present) and I believe the information on that article is sufficient.  Therefore, I do not believe a WP:ATD is necessary.  Grahaml35 ( talk ) 13:49, 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: merge
Blue, White and Red Rally: BEFORE shows very little, as does the article itself.  Seems that this organization was either short lived or did not achieve much outside generating a little media buzz when it was founded.  I don't see what makes it meet WP:GNG - perhaps it should redirect Jean-Marie Le Pen , as is done on fr wiki?  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and France .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  I am finding some French sources that appear to be about the party or its creation, ( Le Journal de Dimanche , ici , RFI , Le Monde , Atlantico , L'express ), but my ability to search more contextually is limited by my weak French, as "Bleu Blanc Rouge" is also used to name the French flag.  Someone with French knowledge might want to dig into this, because there may well be sources there.  — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] According to Jean-Marie Le Pen's frwiki article, he envisaged founding this new party but never went through with it.  Certainly the only sources in French all seem to relate to an announcement, not to any actual activities by this party.  I would suggest merging to Jean-Marie Le Pen (which will require a bit more research to add text to his article) or, failing that, deletion.  Rosbif73 ( talk ) 13:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] merging to Jean-Marie Le Pen as frwiki D.S. Lioness ( talk ) 17:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: merge
Manning Community School District: PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 03:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , United States of America ,  and Iowa .  PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 03:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The navbox found in the article is full of redlinks.   That suggests a topic area needing expansion, not scaling back.   The nominator's rationale is misleading in that the article is orange-tagged for needing expansion, not for lacking sources.   Anyway, Merge to IKM–Manning Community School District .   The article on the other pre-merger component of that district is also light on third-party sources.  RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I will check Newspapers.com to see how many sources I can find about the pre-merger district.  WhisperToMe ( talk ) 11:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I found several newspaper article sources about how the creation of the district was legally disputed in court by another school district (the Iowa Supreme Court ultimately upheld the creation of this district).  Additionally there was a legal dispute in regards to two areas being moved into this districgt.  This is certainly not routine coverage by any stretch of the definition, and so this should secure notability of this topic.  WhisperToMe ( talk ) 12:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - to IKM–Manning Community School District .  Historic predecessor districts should be covered in the current district's article unless WP:FORK becomes a concern.  Even with additional content, size is not a concern here.  The other predecessor district's articles should likewise be merged, possibly dividing the history section at the target article into subsections to do so.  By all means, this title should remain as a redirect.  4.37.252.50 ( talk ) 01:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - However if WP:WEIGHT becomes too much for a particular section (for example, the weight of the information about the former Manning district, which operated from 1959 to 2011), then that former district should have its own article.  I'm still finding content about the 1959-2011 period, and I think that there may be enough for this district to have its own article.  Also there is notability by being a populated, legally recognized place (as per Wikipedia:Notability_(geographic_features)#Settlements_and_administrative_regions ).  Various former municipalities in Japan, which have since merged into larger ones, would count as being legally recognized places.  Former school districts are also legally recognized places.  WhisperToMe ( talk ) 22:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ●Merge - Based on everyone elses statements, I think a merge would be a better idea PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 04:14, 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
KESHER: Non-notable arm of a larger movement, has been defunct for 15 years, with no WP:SIGCOV that would justify a stand alone article.  In the previous AfD discussion , editors suggested the existence of WP:RS that could enhance the article.  I did a WP:BEFORE , finding none of import.  Longhornsg ( talk ) 17:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions .  Longhornsg ( talk ) 17:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge somewhat selectively and without prejudice into Union for Reform Judaism#History .  Kudos to nom for nominating (even though nominated 2 years ago – usually not a good idea, this time it was) and suggesting an ATD.  This SPINOUT is yet another example of excessive fragmentation!  Previous debate was as usual down the rabbit hole of notability.  People forget that we also govern information through AfDs :-( gidonb ( talk ) 17:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I objected to the merge-without-discussion based solely on the article's content making some claims of notability--didn't see the previous AFD at the time.  Indeed it's (still) hard to find sources due to the name itself and its fading into the past.  Found a few details: Had national conventions.  [6] Not an independent source, but sufficient for the claim and demonstrates that the group at the time did at least some major things.  Was the only formal Reform-centric outreach/project for the approximately-college-age demographic.  [7] Independent ref that specifically makes that analysis ( New Voices (magazine) is itself a notable publication), and the fact that this commentary focuses on it adds notability itself.  I'm torn, as it seems to have some but not major notability, and that is mostly as a project or sub-organization of URJ.  Given that it morphed from "part of URJ" to "fore-runner of, or remnants absorbed by, Birthright Foundation" (each of those has own article), it's an intersection-topic.  I tilt towards keeping such pages as stand-alone because it increases navigability and prevents it from gradually getting discarded altogether from the merge-target.  So I see "barely keepable" on notability grounds and "somewhat useful to have" on editorial grounds.  DMacks ( talk ) 17:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  This debate is also down the rabbit hole of notability.  gidonb ( talk ) 01:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for a Merge.  If you oppose merging, then please offer what you think should happen with this article.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:11, 20 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: merge
Abby (Doctor Who): A BEFORE turns up no sources that indicate separate notability, and the current sourcing state is remarkably weak.  She's listed at the Companions article, so a redirect there could work per ATD, but I just don't see her having enough to justify a full article.  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 23:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy .  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 23:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Blank and redirect to List of Doctor Who supporting characters § with the Fifth Doctor .  This article fails to establish why the subject is notable.  — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 05:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why blank. .?  It is not going to hurt anyone seeing this information...  DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 00:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete due to failing WP:GNG .  It's a really unlikely search term, but I suppose you could still push for a redirect.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 03:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List_of_Doctor_Who_supporting_characters .  Mooonswimmer 15:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect per above.  I would advocate to keep, but this way someone can recreate this article when there are sources DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 00:48, 21 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: merge
Shield Knight: The AFD from 7 years ago was kept because of the few sources within the article, most of which are passing mentions or sources that cannot contribute to notability.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 18:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Fictional elements ,  and Video games .  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 18:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to parent game Shovel Knight , or weak keep for the Reception section's sourcing alone (better-quality refs may be needed).  -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw? ) 18:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Shovel Knight - minor character with only trivial mentions.  I had proposed a merge last year, but it was contested and closed as no consensus.  I still feel the same way about its notability.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 18:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge reviewers have occasionally tipped hats to her clever toying with tropes but I don’t honestly see why we need a whole article on this character even if there are more sources because there’s not a whole lot here to say.  Dronebogus ( talk ) 06:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nom.  OceanHok ( talk ) 13:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Shovel Knight .  The content can be added to a new section Characters or be a part/sub-section of Plot .  -- Mann Mann ( talk ) 03:17, 24 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
Altaïr Ibn-LaʼAhad: I tried to do BEFORE at google, but unfortunately I have found nothing valuable at all.  🥒 Greenish Pickle!  🥒 ( 🔔 ) 22:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games .  🥒 Greenish Pickle!  🥒 ( 🔔 ) 22:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Assassin's Creed characters .  The significant coverage doesn't appear to exist.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 00:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the Science fiction and fantasy .  🥒 Greenish Pickle!  🥒 ( 🔔 ) 23:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   Notability tag was just added a week ago.   The Polygon source gives solid development background.   The various listicles in Reception ("Top 50 XBox characters," etc.) are...  not terribly strong...  but they're something to show that he wasn't a nobody.   More generally, while Altair certainly isn't as famous as Ezio, he's still one of the main characters of a gigantic franchise that has had a lot of content made about it.   I'd want to see the opinion of some Assassin's Creeds experts here, because Altair not being notable would be very surprising.  SnowFire ( talk ) 05:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Great job for discovering the polygon source, but that's the only sigcov, while others don't really help notability.  🥒 Greenish Pickle!  🥒 ( 🔔 ) 05:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Polygon source is also an interview.  Significant, but not secondary, which are what is needed.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 05:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as per zxcvbnm's statement.  MKsLifeInANutshell ( talk ) 17:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak merge I'll be honest I've been iffy about several of the Assassin Creed character articles, and this exemplifies a lot of those problems. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 19:38, 22 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
Azerbaijan Anti-Corruption Academy: There is no coverage of this organization from sources that are independent of the Azerbaijan government.  If there is any content worth keeping, it can be merged with Corruption in Azerbaijan .  Thenightaway ( talk ) 19:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Law , Organizations ,  and Azerbaijan .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect , to Corruption in Azerbaijan per WP:ATD-R .  I also did not find any coverage that was independent of the government of Azerbaijan.  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 00:09, 5 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
Titan Magazines: Appears largely written by conflict of interest author.  IgelRM ( talk ) 17:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions .  IgelRM ( talk ) 17:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I think a merge/redirect to the parent company would make more sense than deletion here.  ★Trekker ( talk ) 12:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, merge into Titan Publishing Group ?  IgelRM ( talk ) 15:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Given that the article is unlikely to be retained - merge/redirect is the equivalent of delete - I have already merged the information in this article into the main Titus Publishing article to ensure that the salient content from this article is not lost to Wikipedia.  Therefore there is now no need to retain this as a separate article.  Rillington ( talk ) 09:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect with Titan Publishing Group in order to retain information and as a better alternative to deletion.  Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 18:29, 16 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