hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Zhaike Village massacre: Everything written here is also written in the above article (arguably better written too).  There is no reason to have 2 articles on the same incident and I propose deleting this and redirecting this link to the above article.  Josethewikier ( talk ) 01:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Josethewikier If your proposal is merging them, then do that?  Or simply redirect it.  It's already been tagged to do that for over a month, so I'd recommend doing that.  There's been no opposition - I'd say you should withdraw this if that's what you want to happen, or it will take a week.  Both these articles are very obviously about the same thing happening, everyone recognizes this, no one has done the merge.  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 02:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That makes sense.  I'll try my best to merge them first then.  Thanks.  Josethewikier ( talk ) 03:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Josethewikier well you can't merge them if you delete them.  Do you want to withdraw this, then?  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 05:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] oh.  yea, I guess then.  Josethewikier ( talk ) 05:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Josethewikier and PARAKANYAA : Hi I am the editor of Ju County attack .  All information on the Zhaike Village massacre page had been merged with the former article.  Thank you.  ~~ J. Dann 09:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That is absolutely great to know.  Thank you.  Josethewikier ( talk ) 10:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If the article made first is going to be deleted, "Zhaike Village massacre" I feel is still a better name for it, it's more descriptive and provides a more specific location.  I feel the title should at least be "Ju County massacre", or "Zhaike Village attack".  GoatLord234 ( talk ) 17:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Events ,  and China .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:54, 17 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: keep
Methanol economy: Chidgk1 ( talk ) 11:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Question.  Which deletion criterion is met here?  Folly Mox ( talk ) 12:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 8.   Articles with subjects that fail to meet the relevant notability guidelines or 14.   Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia Chidgk1 ( talk ) 13:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Having said that if anyone thinks it is worth their time merging into Methanol fuel , Hydrogen economy or any other article they could argue for that as an alternative to deletion Chidgk1 ( talk ) 13:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I agree that this needs a lot of work.  But a Google Scholar search for "methanol economy" is pretty productive .  It doesn't really matter whether this is a concept that is ever put into widespread practice; it's still a notable idea that has been widely discussed in peer-reviewed (and other) literature.  Lubal ( talk ) 13:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I was really surprised to see this nomination.  Even if it's true that the methanol-based economy will be driven out by electrification, how is that relevant?  It doesn't alter the fact that this a topic worthy of an article.  Athel cb ( talk ) 16:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There never was a “methanol-based economy”.  I think that any info here worthy of being in an article could just as well be part of the Methanol fuel article Chidgk1 ( talk ) 16:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge or keep.   I don't agree with the deletion rationale.   But the term is a buzzword, and the non- WP:SYNTH content would be better in Methanol fuel .  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 22:40, 23 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: keep
Marty Slimak: – Aidan721 ( talk ) 12:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and California .  – Aidan721 ( talk ) 12:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Easily notable with extensive coverage as a 30-year head sports coach in a major sport as well a a national champion and national coach of the year: [24] [25] [26] [27] etc.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 19:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Pretty clear GNG pass.  Thanks to BeanieFan11 for finding these sources.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 22:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : There is clearly WP:SIGCOV per most of the sources provided by BF, as they are in depth and independent of the source.  I'd encourage a more through BEFORE check for the nom in the future.  Let'srun ( talk ) 15:00, 15 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: keep
Dira Betachtonim: Minor piece of the Chabad movement 's philosophy that fails WP:GNG .  All the sources are Chabad-affiliated, and thus are not independent to established notability.  Per a WP:BEFORE , couldn't find RS to justify a standalone article vice the proper paragraph-length coverage in the main article.  Longhornsg ( talk ) 05:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Judaism .  Longhornsg ( talk ) 05:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – per WP:Before , this should never have been raised as an AFD.  WP:RS are easily available when searching online, (eg. in Google Scholar).  Editors can locate sources by using Hebrew keyword, english translation rather than solely searching for the transliterated term.  Since the AFD notice, I have expanded and reorganised the page to better present the idea as a significant theological doctrine and added multiple scholarly references.  In any case, editors should also be able to use discretion to determine whether certain Chabad sources do in fact meet WP:RS .  I.am.a. qwerty ( talk ) 10:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep particularly in light of the excellent work done by @ I.am.a. qwerty ; numerous, academic, non-Chabad sources are now included.  Kazamzam ( talk ) 14:54, 11 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: keep
Moniepoint Inc.: Shellwood ( talk ) 09:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Technology .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep :The article meets WP:Notability and should be kept.  wɔːr ( talk ) 05:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The article sourcing meets WP:NCORP .  Pls what's the nominators rationale again as this article is not a problem of WP:SIGCOV ?  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  17:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Moniepoint Inc is notable-- Gabriel (talk to me ) 22:55, 3 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: keep
Juan de Valladolid: I would propose draftification as such; an article of any age can get draftified at AFD if consensus calls for it.  Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and Spain .  Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] FYI: I have notified both the draftifiers (

Discussion outcome: keep
The Carlton Crew: Information present is unreliable and a lot of it seems to have been added in contravention of WP:NOR .  Has been this way for 14 odd years judging by the article.  WP:ORG - Notability: The article does not meet the Notability guidelines for criminal organisations due to insufficient coverage in independent, secondary sources.  Overall almost none of the information in this article is verifiable, and that is which is verifiable is not notable enough to warrant an article.  I considered removing the unverified content, but that which would remain does not seem substantive enough.  Rakki9999111 ( talk ) 07:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Organizations ,  and Australia .  Rakki9999111 ( talk ) 07:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per WP:BEFORE .  Plenty of sources exist online that establish notability.  I will work on improving the article in the coming days.  GMH Melbourne ( talk ) 12:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above.  There seem to be plenty of sources on this group.  That they aren't in the page is unrelated to notability.  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 19:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Heaps of sources.  Happy to wait for GMH Melbourne to improve.  Doctorhawkes ( talk ) 08:40, 2 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: keep
Lawunuia language: (I do not consider the existence of an ISO 639-3 sufficient verification.)  If verified, it could redirect to Northwest Solomonic languages .  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 19:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Oceania .  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 19:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Well, it exists, its alternative name being used in the title of a 1976 paper, for example: Banoni, Piva and Papuanization .  And it's mentioned in some other sources, like [25] and [26] .  So, I'm not sure if there's enough coverage out there to justify a separate article, but I oppose deletion, and support at the very least a redirect.  toweli ( talk ) 19:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] keep We list 2 sources beside ISO.  We'd only merge if it's arguably not a distinct language.  Otherwise, the consensus is that languages get articles.  If a language doesn't have an article, we create one, so this would just be recreated.  If we discover it doesn't actually exist, we petition ISO to retire the language code, but SIL even updated the speaker population recently.  — kwami ( talk ) 20:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Bad Afd based on wrong premises.  "Fails verification" means that the source Ethnologue has a complete entry (with info about location, speakers etc.) about a non-exisiting language?  That's a bold claim.  Leaves us with WP:N , but real languages are notable.  For those in doubt in this case, see User:Toweli 's list of sources above.  – Austronesier ( talk ) 22:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , as there is sufficient verification to warrant an article.  🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 02:06, 25 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: keep
Zymergen: Case of WP:PROMO / WP:ADMASQ .  Reference are routine business news.  scope_creep Talk 09:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California .  Shellwood ( talk ) 09:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources listed on the article.  For disclosure, I created this article--claiming WP:PROMO and WP:ADMASQ is false, there is no WP:COI .  After Scope creep accused me of following them around, I am curious how they found this article.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 15:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article fails WP:NCORP .  It came up the watchlist I think, for some reason.   I'll go through the first two blocks of references.  scope_creep Talk 15:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We can debate NCORP, but PROMO and ADMASQ are completely false in this case.  Where is the watchlist you refer to, do you mean your personal watchlist?  - Indefensible ( talk ) 15:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep I don't see that this article is promotional in style or substance.  It suffers from the unfortunate funding-rounds-and-results style that a lot of poorly tended company articles do.  But it's a mix of successes and failures.  For notability, here are WP:THREE (only the Forbes and Motley Fool articles are cited at present): The Forbes article, with substantial analysis and reportage sourced from outsiders [39] Nusqe Spanton, Where Zymergen went wrong: a biomanufacturing perspective for synthetic biology, Manufacturing Chemist (2022).  [40] Motley Fool, This Is Why Zymergen's IPO Was a Huge Success, substantial journalistic analysis not attributable to the company [41] This Business Journals article would be even better if I could access it, but it's heavily paywalled; based on the visible text its analysis and criticism of the company is based on internal and external sources [42] Oblivy ( talk ) 07:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ref 3 here, is non-rs.  We will look at the references in detail later.  scope_creep Talk 11:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] May I ask why you say Motley Fool is non-rs?   It’s not listed at WP:RSPSS .  Did I miss something?  Oblivy ( talk ) 11:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It seems to have enough coverage of its fall and internal issues to meet NCORP in my opinion, a lot of which I added during the last deletion discussion.  I'm not sure how it can be considered WP:PROMO at this point, it's overwhelmingly negative because the press coverage over the past few years has more or less been "Why and how it failed".  BuySomeApples ( talk ) 18:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I see there is a book reference there in the list of source. .  Is there any book references available?  Another two would sort it out.  scope_creep Talk 17:21, 27 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: keep
Birwahi: Newhaven lad ( talk ) 17:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Madhya Pradesh .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 18:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The nominator's reason is invalid.  All populated places are notable.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 18:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree population size isn't a valid reason but there doesn't appear to be census data for it.  Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 18:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I found this showing the population, but got a bit lost as to what this actually is.  SportingFlyer T · C 02:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That site looks like it's published by the Panna district authorities, but I could find no explicit statement of that.  Phil Bridger ( talk ) 15:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - refs added (which were not difficult to find); a badly judged nomination.  Ingratis ( talk ) 13:33, 2 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: keep
Command information newspaper: While various reliable sources mention it in passing (while discussing something said in some particular issue of one of these), I can't find any significant coverage of the concept in itself.  Wikipedia is not a repository of all the internal minutiae of  how the US military (or any other military in the world) works.  PROD contested by User:Kvng SomethingForDeletion ( talk ) 21:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , Military ,  and United States of America .  SomethingForDeletion ( talk ) 21:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete absence of sources and lack of coverage makes it unready for mainspace.  Based Kashmiri TALK 10:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment is a soft redirect to Wiktionary an option here?   This is just a definition, and there is no evidence that will change.  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 22:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Currently, there is no Wiktionary entry for "command information newspaper" .  Of course, you (or anybody else) could always create one.  However, that Wiktionary entry might then be subject to Wiktionary's own review processes to determine whether its inclusion is appropriate.  I think it is a bit problematic creating a soft redirect to a Wiktionary entry which doesn't currently exist, and I don't know whether under Wiktionary's own inclusion criteria it would accepted.  (My undereducated guess is they probably would decide to keep, but I don't think we should presume that here.)  SomethingForDeletion ( talk ) 09:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY .  Article has been expanded and several sources have been added.  Most compelling coverage in independent secondary sources include this 2005 opinion piece in Newsday , "Truth is first casualty of war reporting", which describes the command information newspaper Observer during the Vietnam War, and this 1990 article in The Leaf-Chronicle , "101st Media Personnel To Produce Information Newspaper For Troops", which looks at command information newspapers produced by the 101st Airborne Division during three wars (World War II, Vietnam War, Operation Desert Shield ).  @ Kvng : Ping.  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 11:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per improvements and sources added by Cielquiparle .  Thank you!  ~ Kvng ( talk ) 14:45, 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: keep
Mark Zuckerberg book club: Doesn't need its own article, and could just be a two-line mention in his biography.  Zim Zala Bim talk 16:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Internet .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I don't think a lack of lasting impact is particularly relevant in determining the notability of this, especially when it's WP:OR and not analysis from reliable sources.  The extensive coverage in reliable independent sources that are already cited in the article is far more than enough to support notability under WP:GNG , and there is plenty more that's easily found through a Google search.  I don't really see any good reason this article should be deleted.  Actualcpscm ( talk ) 16:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GNG notable topic.  If it was merely a random thing why did so many sources cover it?  When famous people make book clubs they get a lot of people reading and talking about those books and it influences culture.  See also Oprah Book Club .   -- Green C 16:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  May not be as notable as the Oprah Book Club , but still is WP:GNG notable.  ParadaJulio ( talk ) 16:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I actually agree with nom's reasoning, but it does appear to pass the WP:GNG easily, and is eligible for an article.  SportingFlyer T · C 20:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or Redirect to Mark Zuckerberg D u s t i *Let's talk! * 23:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above passes WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 04:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Clearly passes WP:SIGCOV .  A. Randomdude0000 ( talk ) 22:03, 27 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: keep
Jirair Ratevosian: He's gotten plenty of news coverage, but it mostly seems to be routine campaign coverage from local news outlets.  The only national outlet is Politico and they only give him brief mentions.  Outside of that, I don't see the argument that he meets WP:GNG .  I'd support a redirect to 2024 California's 30th congressional district election .  BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 06:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Health and fitness , Medicine ,  and California .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , I think it's pretty clear he meets WP:NBIO and WP:GNG .  There's several reliable sources with in-depth coverage, not being a national outlet (Which the New York Times also is) doesn't by itself matter for notability unless they are so small/local that it means that the outlets are unreliable and/or inherently not independent of the subject.  AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 10:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep sources seems to satisfy GNG.  Djflem ( talk ) 13:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep due to enough sources that satisfy the GNG requirement.  Victorzyang ( talk ) 18:44, 24 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: keep