hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Structural stage theory: This article should be deleted per WP:SIGCOV , as it appears to be trying to generalize the concept to promote the WP:FRINGE theories of Ken Wilber - car chasm ( talk ) 04:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Psychology .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Piaget's theory of cognitive development - There does seem to be some coverage in reliable sources of this concept but almost all in relation to Piaget's theory of cognitive development (eg. [18] , [19] , [20] , [21] ).  The present article appears to be trying to discuss this concept as a broader academic idea but I don't see the reliable sources to support this.  In order to do this, we'd need reliable sources which explicitly discuss Piaget's theory in relation to the others mentioned here and call this collection of ideas "structural stage theory".  In the article, there is one source from Piaget and then two sources which do not appear to use the phrase "structural stage theory" (and one of those is an unpublished masters dissertation).  Thus this article appears to violate WP:SYNTH , WP:OR , and WP:NOTESSAY .  WJ94 ( talk ) 09:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as above, this is not independently notable but is worth a redirect and possibly a very brief mention at the target article.  Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 11:21, 12 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
Wishing Well (novel): Questions?  four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy , Literature ,  and England .  Questions?  four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to New Series Adventures per WP:ATD .  Little or no sourced content to merge.  No reviews in WP:LIBRARY or ISFDB .  The review cited in the article is self-published.  Jfire ( talk ) 01:43, 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: redirect
The Kindness of Strangers (Heroes): 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.  Donald D23 talk to me 00:46, 22 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 00:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep With two episode-specific reviews from respectable sources in the Critical Reception section, and additional ratings information, it seems like the multiple sources needed to satisfy Notability requirements are met.  It'd be nice if the reviews were used to provide more than a letter/number grade with some quotes, though.  It seems like the nomination missed the non-plot section, but it's so small, I could see why.  WikiPete18 ( talk ) 20:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect The two reviews are pretty weak; per WP:NFSOURCES —which is easily applicable here too—we should avoid plot summaries without critical commentary as evidence of notability.  The AV Club reviewer calls his review a blog, and both of them seem more concerned with recording updates to the plot, rather than making critical commentary of any depth.  The amount that could be drawn from the two reviews to add to an article would be of more value in the context of the season anyway, rather than keeping a whole article for the episode.  — HTGS ( talk ) 22:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of Heroes episodes where it already has an entry.  Unneeded CFORK, Fails GNG, routine entertainment synops do not demonstrate notability.  I looks like articles are being created for every episode of the show, without regard to notability guidelines, once a few are deleted individually, a group nom should be made for cleanup.  // Timothy :: talk 06:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of Heroes episodes , where the episode is already listed per above.  CycloneYoris talk!  00:04, 29 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: redirect
Leneve Damens: JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union ,  and Africa .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of Namibia national rugby union players Lots of coverage, of both him playing in Namibia and from his earlier career in South Africa, but I don't think any of it reaches the levels of GNG.  Redirect is a suitable WP:ATD .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect obviously does not fufill GNG or SNG (pro athletes).  Suitable ATD.  P,TO 19104 ( talk ) ( contribs ) 22:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect : fails N but a suitable ATD.  microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 16:12, 20 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: redirect
Anastasios Antonopoulos: A chess player and a banker with the same name appear to exist.  Paradise Chronicle ( talk ) 19:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Olympics ,  and Greece .  Paradise Chronicle ( talk ) 19:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to event article.  My search in Greek only brought up a brief mention here .  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 20:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Sources on Newspapers.com discussing the Olympic Games he competed in could prove useful.  Someone should check that.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 00:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to 1912 Summer Olympics : Fails GNG and BIO.  Sources and BEFORE show brief mentions and database records, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk 07:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect Sources don't establish that WP:NBIO is met.  MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:41, 3 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
WHEH-LD: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 23:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and North Carolina .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 23:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.  : Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV .  Redirect as a WP:ATD .  Let'srun ( talk ) 23:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.  : Yet another ground-up run-of-the-mill all-national-content DTV America/HC2/Innovate station with usual nonexistent significant coverage not warranting anything more than list entries.  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The low power station has been consistently updated and has several references to justify its existence.  -- WashuOtaku ( talk ) 00:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Existence is not the same as notability .  The existing references are either databases, which are not regarded as significant coverage (and one ref to the FCC database is automatically generated by the infobox), or are to its listings on the websites of DTV America and HC2 Broadcasting, which as owners of the station do not count as independent coverage (and themselves might fall under "database" as well).  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. per all.  To Washu; we've been putting up these articles for deletion/redirection because Innovate/HC2 have no designs on running competitive or contributive stations to their community and do little more than distribute a number of networks otherwise available online or automated to the point of having no impact on a viewer whatsoever, and these stations also have no hope of more than OTA distribution because of that factor.  Nate • ( chatter ) 03:05, 21 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
Mark Jackson (musician): Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC Paul W ( talk ) 12:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  Paul W ( talk ) 12:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or redirect to VNV Nation.  No evidence of notability, fails NMUSICBIO.  Google does not come up with anything of note, except a Side-Line.com article about Jackson leaving the band.  I do not see enough for a standalone article.  ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 14:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to VNV Nation as {{ R from member }} per WP:ATD .  ✗ plicit 12:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: redirect
Hormomitaria: GoodHue291 ( talk ) 19:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect .  Deletion discussion is unnecessary, just redirect this junior synonym to the currently accepted genus name, Physalacria , per Index Fungorum (it's already listed at the target article as a synonym).  Esculenta ( talk ) 19:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Physalacria : Apparently just another name for the genus.  Aintabli ( talk ) 19:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree redirect to synonym, Physalacria .  Mgp28 ( talk ) 20:56, 22 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
TuxOnIce: Primarily there seem to be POV issues with the text and insufficient sourcing.  In terms of notability, it doesn't seem that the level of coverage of in RS exists.  Even if they do, the page needs WP:TNT to fix the issues JMWt ( talk ) 14:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions .  JMWt ( talk ) 14:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:44, 10 November 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!  08:35, 17 November 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!  07:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Hibernation (computing)#Linux as an alternative .  The subject is mentioned there.  ✗ plicit 03:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: redirect
Ruth Evershed: It could redirect to Spooks but it may unbalance that article, or to the actress.  Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it.  Boleyn ( talk ) 16:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Digital Spy Retrospective , Whatculture , INews , Telegraph .  These aren't the greatest, but I cannot access the Scholar article and book reference that look promising.  It'd be reasonable to start a Characters of Spooks list as a summary style parent of all the other Spooks Character articles, so that any that might be found non-notable, including this one, have a reasonable merge target.  Jclemens ( talk ) 23:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jclemens I can't access the book aritcle either, but it seems it is a mention on a single sources.  The academic article is accessible through Library Genesis and all we have there are four mentions in passing (two in quotes from interviewees or such), nothing remotely relevant to WP:SIGCOV .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:01, 18 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!  04:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to the list of characters or the show if there is no list. .  We have only few mentions in passing and some low quality fanzine-level coverage.  WP:GNG is not met.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per Piotrus.  I don't see enough for WP:SIGCOV , which means that WP:GNG is not met.  The keep ! vote offers a merge as a compromise, and it would be fine to WP:PRESERVE whatever mentions can be verified.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 16:43, 29 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
Bilawal Stadium: I don't see it passing WP:ORG either.  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 09:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions .  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 09:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Cricket .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 14:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per Nom.  Could not find any sources providing any actual coverage let alone significant coverage on the subject.  Fails WP:GNG .  This is little more than a dictionary entry.  All of the sources currently on the article are passing mention with the actual subject not being Bilawal Stadium .  The fact that something exists does not mean it is notable .  -- Otr500 ( talk ) 11:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Benazirabad as this venue is a prominent landmark in the city and is mentioned in the target page.   Fails GNG and ORG and lacks standalone notability.  Frank Anchor 13:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : As per my checking, I found no in-depth coverage from a single reliable secondary source.  However, WP:GNG requires multiple independent reliable sources, so the article fails to meet WP:GNG .  Grab Up - Talk 08:17, 24 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
Irving Braxiatel: The article already cites no sources to begin with.  While the article has potential to be kept if sources turn up now or in the future, I don't believe anything exists right now.  As it stands, article doesn't meet SIGCOV.  A redirect to the Doctor Who supporting characters list seems good for now, though I'm wary of redirecting it there given the current state of that article.  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 19:36, 20 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 Literature .  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 19:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete There are no sources for notability.  I have no opinion on whether a redirect would be appropriate.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 17:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/redirect to List of Doctor Who supporting characters is the best target I can think of; he’s one of the best-known spinoff characters so I don’t think hard delete is appropriate Dronebogus ( talk ) 12:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete/redirect to List of Doctor Who supporting characters .  Only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs of this character in reliable sources.  Does not pass WP:SIGCOV .  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 20:42, 24 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
Timeline of the Anglophone Crisis (2024): Seawolf35 T -- C 19:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Seems pretty obvious, could have even been a possible candidate for WP:Speedy . Concur with Seawolf35. Tooncool64 ( talk ) 19:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Africa ,  and Cameroon . Seawolf35 T -- C 19:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify/delete – despite unsourced, the article have useful prose and can be incubated.  Otherwise, it may appear that the events should appear first on the main article until it is too much enough to merit an article.  Toadette ( Happy holiday! ) 06:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment -- From a purely policy perspective, delete is the only option. However, this is a case of an article created a few weeks too early. The odds of that conflict magically resolving itself in the next eleven days is rather slim. CRYSTAL or not, there will be 2024 developments pretty quickly with appropriate sourcing. Is it honestly worth the time and attention to slog through an AfD when it's pretty certain that the article will be back mere days after the process closes? Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 15:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep -- There are similar annual articles for preceding years since 2017, covering conflict between anglo- and franco-phone communities in Cameroon.   I am not prepared to say whether they should or should not exist, as being too detailed for WP, but this is no more than a week premature now, so that it might be kept.   If this is to be deleted, we should be deleting (or merging) all the timelines of this series, not just 2024.  Peterkingiron ( talk ) 11:11, 24 December 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!  21:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Anglophone Crisis : yes, the target is on the large side, but there's no point to spinning off an empty article.  And if portions do end up getting spun off, it should be done based on major developments, not by calendar year.  The seven existing annual timeline pages are unwieldy and unencyclopedic.  Owen× ☎ 22:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: redirect
List of Playoff Bowl broadcasters: Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent NFL fans.  Fails WP:LISTN .  Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE .  As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, those sourced are from forums, not helping this list to assert notability.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 17:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , American football , Lists ,  and United States of America .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 17:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : WP:LISTN as no sources discuss the broadcasters as a group.  Let'srun ( talk ) 20:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Playoff Bowl#Broadcasters , where the same information resides; the older table style is a tell-tale that this article was abandoned years ago once it was merged there and it's barely been edited or glanced since.  Nate • ( chatter ) 23:51, 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