hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
International recognition of Transnistria: My rationale is as follows: the useful content of this article can be summarized with, "Only three polities recognize Transnistria's sovereignty, which are themselves largely unrecognized states: Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Artsakh."  All other content is already covered by the broader article Transnistria conflict .  Initially, I considered merging this article with the broader 'Transnistria conflict' article.  However, after reviewing both texts, I concluded that there wasn't any additional useful content to merge.  Альдий ( talk ) 17:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions .  Альдий ( talk ) 17:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I support a merge instead of a redirect.  As the International recognition of Transnistria contains some information not found in the Transnistria conflict article, such as the positions by states that do not recognise Transnistria as independent .  GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk ) 18:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect per previous vote.  BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 21:33, 23 March 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
Zero world government: This search only turned up 3 results for the term, none of which go into further depth on it than a definition.  [2] On the other hand, the other leading term "governance without government" (which already has its own article) turned up 14,500 results, [3] while the term "governance beyond the nation state" turned up 2,110.  [4] As there appears to be no substantial coverage in reliable services of the term "zero world government", I propose this be deleted and any (little) relevant information from this article merged into the article on governance without government .  Grnrchst ( talk ) 20:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions .  Grnrchst ( talk ) 20:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Governance without government : The article literally mentions "governance without governance" as an alternative description, yet does not expand much on the existing article.  Os ari us 11:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Osarius .  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NEO .  No evidence of major usage outside of Wikipedia.  130.132.173.198 ( talk ) 18:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Osarius .  There seems to be hardly anything there that isn't covered in the G without G article ++ Lar : t / c 14:24, 22 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
Nowa Łęknica: As it says on the PL Wiki article , this is an "unofficial settlement" ( nieoficjalna osada ).  This is not listed on the TERYT database (despite the TERYT database being listed as the source...)  nor is any place called Nowa Łęknica (or Nowa Ł e knica) listed on the Polish regulation of place-names .  From the over-head satellite pictures it appears this is just a grouping of houses in the village of Łeknica .  Fails WP:GEOLAND since there is no legal recognition.  You don't see, for example, a road-sign identifying this place as a named settlement, so it is not clear that the locals treat this as an existing place either - instead the sign outside the grouping of houses just says "Łeknica" .  It also has to be said that the title of this page appears to be the wrong spelling for a place that would necessarily be called Nowa Ł e knica, so even if some information were found in future, this would be the wrong page for it.  And even if it were the correct title, we still would be unlikely to have a page about it per WP:NOPAGE .  TL;DR - fails verification, GEOLAND, WP:NOPAGE .  FOARP ( talk ) 07:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland .  FOARP ( talk ) 07:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete these articles in general are incredibly annoying and I would say delete all, but this one in particular Yoblyblob ( talk ) 14:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and merge to Łeknica , which pl wiki states this is an "unofficial extension" of.  Not in TERYT.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and merge to Łeknica per Piotrus .  Another bot-generated bogus town.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:38, 23 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
Chutnification: Perhaps under style or reception.  (I hope this is the right way to go about this)  Moritoriko ( talk ) 04:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions .  Moritoriko ( talk ) 04:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Midnight's Children per nom.  Neocorelight ( Talk ) 04:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Desertarun ( talk ) 09:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Midnight's Children per nom.  The vast majority (if not all) of Google Scholar hits for the term are about the novel or use it as the primary example.  Jfire ( talk ) 13:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as above.  This is a Rushdie-ism and at most belongs in the Midnight's Children article.  Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 13:37, 24 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
Absheron Museum of History and Local Studies: Boleyn ( talk ) 15:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] if the sourcing in the interwiki links isn't sufficient, add a mention and redirect to Baku#Museums which lists the city's other museums.  Star Mississippi 16:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge a properly sourced summary to Baku#Museums .  Found nothing meeting WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  If sources develop, the history will be here, if someone finds WP:THREE, ping me.  // Timothy :: talk 22:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 03:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Per the lack of coverage in secondary sources.  There are also some formatting errors in the article; I wonder if it might be better draftified but the subject itself doesn't seem to be independently notable.  GuardianH ( talk ) 14:53, 27 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
Vijayaditya II: Sources in the article and BEFORE and mentions, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth .  A basic genealogy expanded into a non-notable article.  No objection to a redirect to Kirtivarman II // Timothy :: talk 02:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Royalty and nobility , India ,  and Karnataka .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Kirtivarman II .  No indepth coverage.  -- Redtigerxyz Talk 13:43, 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
List of ESPNews personalities: Let'srun ( talk ) 02:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Television , Sports ,  and Lists .  Let'srun ( talk ) 02:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to ESPNews .  There are no grouping sources on the subject, but the WP:NAVIGATION purposes are still there, so the ATD is better at the main.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 18:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Merge to ESPNews per WP:ATD .  A list that is useful being a category but not as a list, which is entirely unsourced.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 21:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or redirect to List of SportsCenter anchors and reporters ; unsourced and the target articles generally describe people as SportsCenter hosts rather than being specifically associated with ESPNews.  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 22:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Two different Merge target articles suggested here Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - This is the function of categories, not articles.  Carrite ( talk ) 15:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: I'd prefer to Merge or Redirect this article given the current status of the discussion but folks haven't settled on a target article.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to ESPNews Article is frozen in time from 2014 when all original programming it carried was phased out, and ESPNews and SportsCenter up to 2014 were generally completely different in tone and direction.  Nate • ( chatter ) 17:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: merge
Veronica Porché Ali: Nswix ( talk ) 02:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge content across the articles for her 3 relatives - Indefensible ( talk ) 17:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  If you are seeking a Merge, please state what the Merge target is.  Closers shouldn't have to guess.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It would be to Muhammad Ali , Carl Anderson (singer) , and Laila Ali .  Right now this is a nice connecting article between those 3, but I agree that she does not seem to meet notability on her own.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 04:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've never closed an AFD to Merge to more than one article.  I think I'd leave that to some other closer.  L iz Read!  Talk!  07:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete outright on account of subject distinctly lacking sufficient independent notability , an attribute that cannot be inherited yet is necessary for a Wikipedia article.  Whatever little can be salvaged, i.e. is appropriately sourced , could be merged away, though it appears that our subject's already present in the suggested three lemmas.  - The Gnome ( talk ) 14:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Merge (officially) into Muhammad Ali but of course reference her as necessary in the articles of other close kin.  Stefen Tower s among the rest!  Gab • Gruntwerk 23:31, 24 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
Sons of the Covenant Monastery: The article is predominantly reliant upon primary sources .  It is also not clear as to whether the monastery relates to the structure, which fails the requirements of WP:NBUILDING or the religious order, which fails WP:NORG .  Dan arndt ( talk ) 09:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Religion , Iraq ,  and California .  Dan arndt ( talk ) 09:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Chaldean Catholic Eparchy of Saint Peter the Apostle of San Diego#Monasteries, convents and seminaries .   I found nothing in NewspaperArchive.com via WP:TWL , and the local newspaper for El Cajon, California doesn't have anything obvious online (though I doubt that they have older papers online).   Searching is difficult because the literal translation of the much larger organization, B'nai B'rith , is the same as the name of this monastery.  WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 19:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: merge
Big Slough (Kingsbury County, South Dakota): Boleyn ( talk ) 21:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Silver Lake (Kingsbury County, South Dakota) .  Both are notable because they feature prominently in the enormously popular Little House on the Prairie books, and a quick google search turns up numerous proposals by local governments to further develop them as tourist attractions on that basis, which I will add to the article.  Silver Lake and Big Slough are hydrologically connected (an article in the Brookings Register even refers to Big Slough as "the upper part of Silver Lake."  No cultural or geographical reason to have them in two separate articles IMO, but it shouldn't be completely deleted either.  Jbt89 ( talk ) 21:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and South Dakota .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Jbt89.  The articles in the article demonstrate notability for Silver Lake, but not necessarily enough for a stand-alone article for Big Slough yet.  SportingFlyer T · C 23:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as per Jbt89 would indeed be the best choice, since Silver Lake is notable enough.  TH1980 ( talk ) 02:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Geographically, I suspect from the poor sources that I've encountered (non-experts quoting an unidentified third party) that it's the other way around: the lake is just how far the slough happens to be filled up at the time.   I've looked for documentation on the Madison Wetland Management District and the more local Waterfowl Production Area, and I've yet to find anything concrete about the hydrology of the slough at all, or the lake for that matter.  This robotic import of geographic data is ludicrous sometimes, by the way.   The coördinates for Silver Lake (Kingsbury County, South Dakota) robotically added in Special:Diff/501168550 are in the middle of De Smet and not of the lake at all.  Uncle G ( talk ) 02:38, 14 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
Anthology Editions: Efforts to redirect this have failed.  Typically, publishers of thought are not themselves the subject of other's thoughts.  Chris Troutman ( talk ) 16:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature , Companies ,  and New York .  Chris Troutman ( talk ) 16:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Mexican Summer , no coverage besides initial press release and trivial mentions as publisher.  Anthology Recordings might be a better redirect target, but it doesn't seem independently notable either.  ~ A412 talk!  18:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Mexican Summer .  The previous redirect attempt was absurd.  The target, Anthology Recordings , had a far worse WP:NCCORP deficiency, being supported by only one primary ref.  There should be a proper merge to the parent ( Mexican Summer ) rather than a WP:BLAR -out of content.  Dl2000 ( talk ) 19:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above.  In a cursory search, did not find any other significant coverage about the publisher independent from the books.  If the article needed to exist as a list to house content related to books that would not otherwise warrant their own page, we could entertain that, but not seeing much written about each book.  czar 18:25, 25 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
Robbery Under Arms (1943 radio adaptation): Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 05:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Australia .  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 05:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Robbery Under Arms § Film, TV, or theatrical adaptations as WP:ATD .  Perhaps rename the target section to just "Adaptations".  — siro χ o 06:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as Siroxo suggests.  We shouldn't be removing information currently in a notability-requiring pigeonhole when there is another pigeonhole it can usefully fit in instead.  Thincat ( talk ) 13:56, 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
Inspector Henderson: We have just a plot summary and list of appearances, and my BEFORE is showing just some mentions in passing but nothing substantial.  Media likewise has just plot summaries with an occasional comment on casting in TV show or such (ex. [37] ).  Unless anyone can dig up anything I missed I suggest redirecting this to List of Superman supporting characters per WP:ATD .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:54, 10 November 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 Police .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge with List of DC Comics characters: H in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE .  -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 18:54, 14 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
HOTA: Rs chen 7754 18:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom .  Rs chen 7754 18:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Speed camera .  Not independently notable, but a key aspect of speed cameras in the United Kingdom.  Thryduulf ( talk ) 21:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This title should redirect to Hota (disambiguation) (that I've just created), so if kept the article should be moved to Home Office Type Approval .  Thryduulf ( talk ) 21:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Traffic enforcement camera .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Speed camera as per Thryduulf.  No evidence of notability to warrant an article but certainly some salvageable bits can be merged in to the aforementioned article.  – Davey 2010 Talk 18:59, 23 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