hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
WAGMI United : Single event news.  scope_creep Talk 14:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Unsure, I was looking for a redirect, is WAGMI United the company setup just for Crawley Town?  Then I would simply just redirect to there.  Because all indication from the primary source, [7] It's just appears to be the company name setup to manage the club.  That's why I suggest a redirect .  Govvy ( talk ) 15:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Not even sure what this is.  May become more notable in time but not the case now.  MaskedSinger ( talk ) 07:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Crawley Town F.C. This company is just the ownership consortium of Crawley that also sells NFTs that grant the right to weigh in on team management (what could [has] gone wrong?); it's not independently notable as a company.  Based on the sources cited here, a new section can be written in the Crawley article about its new ownership and how terrible it is .  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 00:31, 3 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
ABC News & Talk : Perhaps redirect this to ABC News Radio ?  Let'srun ( talk ) 01:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Radio .  Let'srun ( talk ) 01:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Cumulus Media Networks — that may be a better target, given that this channel was as much (if not more) about the talk shows that were either syndicated by ABC Radio Networks or originated from ABC Radio-owned stations, than the newscasts produced by ABC News Radio.  (The talk shows, their syndicator, and those stations were sold by Disney–ABC to Citadel Broadcasting , which subsequently merged with Cumulus Media ; however, Citadel/Cumulus only acquired distribution rights to ABC News Radio, which otherwise remained with Disney–ABC.)  In any event, this is another now-defunct satellite radio channel with no independent notability.  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different Redirect targets proposed here.  Hoping for more input to determine what is best for this article.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting again to settle on a one Redirect target article.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into ABC News Radio as its history was mainly under Disney ownership and ABCNR's direction, not that of Cumulus, which had a limited license for ABC's logos and imagining, and its use of the news division until ABC partnered with Skyview for distribution.  Nate • ( chatter ) 01:17, 11 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
Charmander : Heck there's one in there about a Pokemon toy that's trying to claim it's about Charmander when the toy itself is minor in the story it's about.  That's the sort of WP:REFBOMB -ing we're dealing with.  There's just no notability, even without considering Charizard by comparison, who still fills in the role of the original trio's ensemble cast.  WP:BEFORE also didn't turn up anything of value.  The book "Japanese Influence on American Children's Television" offers a recap of Charmander to Charizard's role in the anime, but that can be worked into Charizard proper for the same results, especially the design critique of it going from cute to fearsome.  It's not enough to prop up the article alongside the Polygon source when all the bad sourcing is removed.  Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 15:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games .  Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 15:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I agree that Charmander doesn't pass GNG - besides the Polygon article, there are some scattered mentions of the Charmander episode early on in the Pokemon anime in books, but they are all very short.  I couldn't find slam-dunk evidence either in the page or in my searches.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 17:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Just the information about his card alone would probably be good enough for an article.  KatoKungLee ( talk ) 21:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you might be confusing Charmander with Charizard. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 01:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Zxcvbnm.  The coverage is mostly trivial mentions, which aren't enough to pass WP:SIGCOV .  There are good lists for this, as WP:ATD .  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 16:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge A bit surprised that Charmander doesn't have much coverage due to it being iconic, thou does not pass notability.  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 13:21, 30 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
Live band dance : - Altenmann >talk 17:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 20:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I disagree that this is an essay.  It's an unreferenced start-class broad-concept article, but given that dance studies is an entire discipline, I imagine that it has received scholarly treatment at some point (I'll leave it to others to find, at which point I'll be more likely to !vote).  This is a subtopic of Dance music , so at the very least it could be merged or redirected there (or to Concert or somewhere else relevant) rather than straight deleted, an outcome I'd oppose.  Dance-related topics are woefully underdeveloped on Wikipedia (hello systemic bias), but if sources exist then that is a surmountable problem , and in a more developed future I could see this being a valid scope for an article.  {{u| Sdkb }} talk 05:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, you may disagree, but the subject is thoroughly unreferenced and I failed to find any scholarly/journalistic treatment of the term.  Hence it is original research/essay in my perception.  And of course you cannot merge/redirect unreferenced content.  - Altenmann >talk 05:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dance-related topics are woefully underdeveloped Yep, <sigh> {{ WikiProject Dance }} is dead.  - Altenmann >talk 00:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect (or merge if anyone grabs a source) to Dance party , another broad concept article which currently includes an [also unsourced] paragraph about sound systems, DJs, and live bands that could be elaborated.  Doesn't seem like we need separate articles at this point IMO.  — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:46, 26 August 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!  16:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Yikes, this is old wikipedia.  I don't even know where to redirect.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to dance party seems ok.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:25, 29 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
Wilmer Street Ferry Pier : I couldn’t find a suitable redirect target but a merge or redirect may be possible.  Mccapra ( talk ) 10:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Hong Kong .  Mccapra ( talk ) 10:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/redirect to List of demolished piers in Hong Kong per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion .  I found passing mentions in a search for the English name here and here .  The pier's Chinese name is ( traditional Chinese : 威利麻街碼頭 ; simplified Chinese : 威利麻街码头 ).  There are a few sentences of coverage in this book .  A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article.  A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future.  Cunard ( talk ) 08:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] makes sense to me.  Mccapra ( talk ) 12:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of demolished piers in Hong Kong then redirect, as suggested by @ Cunard .   Found a few other mentions: https://archive.org/details/NPCM19600708/page/4/mode/2up - China Mail announcing (briefly) ferry services to Lamma https://archive.org/details/isbn_9782012422087/page/234/mode/2up French-language tour guide saying briefly where to catch a ferry to Lamma https://archive.org/details/NPCM19500825/page/n3/mode/2up China Mail announcing cross-harbor vehicle ferry from Western to Shamshuipo - read liberally, this article approaches significant coverage Oblivy ( talk ) 06:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: merge
Idropranolol : Only search results in google scholar are non-significant coverage in a retracted review [22] and listed on a table [23] .  The only other sites I can find are database entries with no description.  I do not have access to the offline sources, but I am doubtful they are both significant coverage.  Darcy isvery cute ( talk ) 07:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions .  Darcy isvery cute ( talk ) 07:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Propranolol : sufficient amount of primary sources to justify a brief mention in the target.  Owen× ☎ 16:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Propranolol .  My very best wishes ( talk ) 01:58, 20 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
Wriothesley's Chronicle : I personally would prefer a merge to Charles Wriothesley , but given that the apparent lack of independent notability makes this an appropriate venue, I felt it would be more effective to take it here than directly propose a merge.  Plus, this way anyone who actually wants it deleted can have a voice.  RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 07:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and England .  RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 07:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Charles Wriothesley .  In addition to the lack of independent NBOOK notability, the Chronicle is part of the reason that Mr Wriothesley is notable, and it needs a stronger mention there.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 15:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge .  Srnec ( talk ) 21:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge , as above, seems sensible.  Bondegezou ( talk ) 13:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge , per Last1in.  Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 11:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - as argued above this seems like a sensible way forward for both articles.  Dunarc ( talk ) 21:02, 2 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
Locations of Half-Life : No source cited or in my BEFORE covers this topic in a non-game guide form.  There is a reception but it is based on passing mention of a location or few in game reviews.  Last AfD suggested some merge, and maybe something here can be rescued by merging, but the topic of this article is effectively a lengthy plot summary with a blown up reception section.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 12:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , Video games ,  and Lists .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 12:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Half-Life (series)#Setting and any of the "main article" links present in the current article (ie Black Mesa Research Facility ) for any info that isn't WP:GAMECRUFT (it's mostly wikia cruft though.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Half-Life (series)#Setting - the only other individual locale that is probably notable is City 17 while the others either already have articles or aren't notable.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 17:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Selective Merge to Half-Life (series)#Setting - The few listed locations that actually are notable, such as Black Mesa Research Facility , already have a separate article, and the rest are just in-universe descriptions of minor locations.  The reception section is largely made up of cherry-picked quotes from general reviews of the games, rather than genuine significant coverage on the fictional locations themselves.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 21:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I suspect most of the details of the individual locations are reflected in the respective game articles (eg I know Aparture's influence and style are mentioned within the Portal articles).  Only one that I would think needs to be moved in wholesale is the section on Xen, since that's a well-known part of Half-Life for all the wrong reason.  If anything.  -- M asem ( t ) 00:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per all.  Not every game universe needs its own article, and this sits comfortably in te series page.  No prejudice against recreation if there are more sources about the universe itself.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 03:57, 31 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
The Best of Morecambe & Wise : Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 21:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 21:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Article does not meet WP:GNG , so merge article contents to the end of the "History" section of The Morecambe & Wise Show (1968 TV series) article.  Then Delete .  Lotsw73 ( talk ) 00:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: merge
Fox News Talk : Fox News Radio is a possible redirect target.  Let'srun ( talk ) 01:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions .  Let'srun ( talk ) 01:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and/or redirect to Fox News Radio : it's hard to imagine any independent notability for the channel from the rest of Fox News's audio operations, and any additional content that can be sourced should go to the Fox News Radio article.  (As it is, certain searches make it difficult to distinguish between the channel and material relating to Fox News-produced radio talk shows in general, of which the channel was simply the way those programs were carried on SiriusXM and their predecessors.)  The channel is already mentioned there (which is probably all the channel itself needs), and there is a section on Fox News Radio's talk shows that can absorb any sourceable content about the shows themselves. ) WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and/or redirect to Fox News Radio per

Discussion outcome: merge
Jack Dempsey cichlids in Australia : From what I can see, the topic of Rocio octofasciata occurring in a pool in Australia is not notable enough nor the main article big enough to justify having separate articles.  Surtsicna ( talk ) 17:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal , Science , Environment ,  and Australia .  Surtsicna ( talk ) 17:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete on the basis the article is largely sourced to the NSW Government source, so doesn't appear to be a generally notable topic.  Other information is a general repeat of the main article, as the nominator points out.  Sionk ( talk ) 18:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Jack Dempsey (fish) : the NSW invasion is just about notable enough for a section in the target page.  Owen× ☎ 20:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Jack Dempsey (fish) per Owen× .  Cabrils ( talk ) 01:07, 26 January 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!  22:41, 14 January 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!  23:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge (partial) as suggested above.  A fair amount of useful and reliable material that would make a good addition to the species article.  -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 12:39, 28 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
Watermelon salad : WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV .  BaduFerreira ( talk ) 23:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions .  BaduFerreira ( talk ) 23:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Watermelon#Culinary or Fruit salad .  Just because there are diverse recipes that happen to use a certain main ingredient doesn't mean it needs a stand-alone article.  Reywas92 Talk 13:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is another one to selectively merge and redirect as suggested.  I would especially keep the New York Times recipe as a good source to keep .  Bearian ( talk ) 16:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment – agree.  MaskedSinger ( talk ) 20:30, 1 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