hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Social policies of Phyllis Schlafly: Relevant info can be merged into Phyllis_Schlafly#Viewpoints but there isn't enough to justify its own article.  मल्ल ( talk ) 14:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and Politics .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete - no independent reliable sources for the subject.  - Altenmann >talk 19:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I see a number of books listed as references, Feminism and the New Right and such.  These are all primary sources?  I wouldn't think that the political policies of one activist would merit an article separate from the article about that person, but if people have seen fit to write this much about them...  It looks like the issue is notability.  Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 20:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete She herself is clearly notable and significant, but this page does not meet Wiki requirements for the additional focus on policies.  Go4thProsper ( talk ) 12:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge This is an appropriate subarticle of Phyllis_Schlafly#Viewpoints .  While primary sources are not prohibited from this type of page, there are also independent sources for appropriate coverage.  If a standalone article is not appropriate, the main article should be expanded with some of this.  Reywas92 Talk 15:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Almost entirely sourced from Schlafly's own book.  Her Wikipedia bio Phyllis Schlafly does a much better and concise coverage of her life and political advocacy, and is appropriately sourced.  — Maile ( talk ) 23:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or merge to Phyllis Schlafly per nom and above, doesn’t really make sense to be a standalone.  RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 09:49, 23 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
Enquiry (disambiguation): I'm thinking that perhaps it needs to be merged with Inquiry (disambiguation) , which can include Enquiry in the intro.  Or...??? Laterthanyouthink ( talk ) 07:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator - per comments below.  Laterthanyouthink ( talk ) 11:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I think in such a circumstance a WP:BOLD merge is almost always acceptable especially if you're not pruning too much.  I leave this as a comment because you could feasibly withdraw and do that if you feel comfortable doing so.  — siro χ o 09:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks Siroxo .  I was going to do that, but thought I might be missing something.  I will do as you suggest, and as supported by Clarityfiend Laterthanyouthink ( talk ) 11:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Just add the one entry to Inquiry (disambiguation) .  None of the See also books and report should be transferred over, as they are simply (very) partial matches.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 09:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 09:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: merge
Indian Wireless Telegraph Rules: WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Insignificant stub with zero indication of notability.  Kerberous ( talk ) 12:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 .  These rules are delegated legislation made under the powers conferred by section 7 of that Act.  We normally redirect statutory rules to the Act under which they were made, if the rules are not themselves notable.  There is some coverage in Google Books and the Internet Archive.  James500 ( talk ) 14:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for a Merge Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to the Act as suggested seems fine, I don't see the need to have the rules spelled out otherwise.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:33, 1 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
List of Invader Zim characters: Sources are blogs, IMDB, a single fanzine and a 404 error.
 Little value in merging into Invader Zim as no evidence of any encyclopaedic value here.  Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 13:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  Velella Velella Talk 14:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions .  Velella Velella Talk 14:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Television ,  and Comics and animation .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to the main article for now, due to complete WP:OR sourcing.  However, no prejudice towards recreation if sources are incorporated into it, as it could certainly be a viable list.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 21:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as wholly unverified to reliable secondary sources.   — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge the character bios to the main page in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE per @ Zxcvbnm : .  -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 01:50, 2 April 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! 23:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/Redirect as compromise. Editors can find the right level of coverage at the main article. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 15:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Clarifying that "main article" means Invader Zim . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 16:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can those arguing for a Merge/Redirect provide a specific target article/section they are advocating? L iz Read! Talk! 06:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I had to add a character section for the merging in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE . Have all the information sent there if the outcome is merge. -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 17:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: There seems to be consensus forming for merge or redirect as an ATD, but no consensus for either yet.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, voorts ( talk / contributions ) 01:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Invader Zim#Characters - While not all of the unsourced cruft needs to be moved over, the main characters and cast should absolutely be listed on the main article for the series, and so should be merged.  The "Recurring" and especially the "Minor" characters should not be merged to the main article, though.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 23:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Invader Zim#Characters .  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 01:35, 12 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
Self-organising heuristic: Tooncool64 ( talk ) 06:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 08:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Self-organizing list .  Seems logical: A self-organizing list is a list that reorders its elements based on some self-organizing heuristic... .  We can create a section for self-organizing heuristics there.  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 08:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to self-organizing list per Deltaspace.  There's not really anything to merge , but this does seem like a logical subtopic from what I can find in academic results on Google.  HappyWith ( talk ) 21:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The right topic name is self-organizing data structure , and it encompasses more than lists, which are a sub-topic of this rather than the other way around.   For example: Splay trees […] are a so-called self-organizing data structure .   In self-organizing data structures and item x is moved closer to the entry point of the data structure whenever it is accessed.  […] — Luisa, Bozzano G. (1990).  Algorithms and Complexity .  Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science.  Vol.  1.  Elsevier.  p. 321.  ISBN 9780444880710 .  Ironically, much of this article is correct and directly sourcable to that very page of Luisa 1990 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLuisa1990 ( help ) , which goes on to talk about move-to-front and transposition just like this article does.

Discussion outcome: merge
Amazon Live: Deauthorized .  ( talk ) 12:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  Deauthorized .  ( talk ) 12:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Amazon Inc.  : per nom.  '''[[ User:CanonNi ]]''' ( talk • contribs ) 14:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising , Websites ,  and Washington .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep' it's better to merge to Amazon Prime.  -- FightBrightTigh ( talk ) 10:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Blocked for spamming.  MER-C 09:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ FightBrightTigh : Keeping and merging are mutually exclusive outcomes.  Which one are you suggesting is best?  jlwoodwa ( talk ) 19:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge FightBrightTigh ( talk ) 10:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  It's not possible to Merge this article with Amazon Inc. as this page is a Redirect.  This should show up for you as a different colored font.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Only 2 sources 1 is primary, so not worth it's own page.  It's better for this page to be merged into Amazon Inc.  EternalNub ( talk ) 17:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Amazon Inc. per nom, doesn't pass WP:GNG .  Suonii180 ( talk ) 22:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Amazon Inc. per nom, references unable to establish independent notability.  HighKing ++ 12:33, 28 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
Economy of Gilgit-Baltistan: No objection to a consensus merge.  // Timothy :: talk 06:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Gilgit-Baltistan#Economy and resources per nom.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 18:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, North America 1000 06:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I support Indefensible's idea. -- Nimorinka ( talk ) 12:47, 12 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
Lapras: The older AfD was withdrawn inappropriately, since it was a WP:SUPERVOTE by nominator despite half the votes calling for a redirect.  After checking the sources, I am heavily under the belief that Lapras is non-notable fancruft.  Any major coverage is related to Lapras becoming a regional mascot, a publicity stunt that also applies to numerous other Pokemon.  WP:NOTPROMO .  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 10:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy ,  and Video games .  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 10:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of generation I Pokémon#Lapras (and perhaps merge some of the info about its status as a mascot into the section).  Not that I want this article removed, but it's clear that outside of character's position as symbol for Japanese prefectures, there isn't much commentary of Lapras itself outside of short summary listicles.  I've checked myself and could find much.  And as mentioned by the nominator, the previous AFD was pulled as super keep, despite half of the respondents calling for the article to be redirected.  And since then, the regulations and qualification standards for what can pass for a video game character article has significantly changed per the founding of the Video game character task force, meaning the keep votes from the 2021 AFD don't hold the same weight as they once did.  Captain Galaxy 12:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per nom.  Personally I think the promo contributes to notability in this case, but even then there just isn't enough to bolster a whole article.  Ping me if sources are found but otherwise I don't think there's enough here.  Has one ever considered Magneton?  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 18:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect with no predjudice to recreate if notable later I feel as time has gone on more sources have been found to give notability to some subjects on here, and often AfD is a deterrent towards that.  At this time, after a thorough WP:BEFORE , there's not enough material here for notability. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 23:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep or merge .  Some sources mention him in the heading.  At mimimum, merge - no referenced detail should be lost.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 23:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep or merge , as there is some coverage, and concurring with Piotrus that nothing is gained in loosing referenced, encyclopedic information in a pure redirect.  Daranios ( talk ) 11:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect or merge there isn't enough for WP:SIGCOV .  A limited merge at the target is fine.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 20:33, 22 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
June 2015 Monguno bombing: Not a subject of WP:SUSTAINED coverage or secondary analysis.  Fails WP:EVENTCRIT .  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 17:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Seems to have reasonable coverage and to be an important event.  I'm a firm believer that an event in the present day requires different sourcing standards than one that happened 40 years ago, in the same vein if this event took place in the USA or western Europe there would be significantly more coverage, as it is you have two high quality sources covering it and that feels appropriate as a keep given the geography.  BHC ( talk ) 09:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Events , Terrorism ,  and Nigeria .  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 17:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or merge to Boko Haram or something.  1 sentence in the "campaign of violence" section about how a bomb went off at an abandoned camp of theirs.  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 04:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - as is always an issue with crime article AfDs, I must stress, notability ≠ death toll.  Yes, several people died, but there is no other information available on this, and by all accounts I can't even tell if this was on purpose or not.  It was never covered or mentioned after as far as I can tell.  Add to the section Boko Haram#Campaign of violence - there is nothing else to say besides this one paragraph so we are losing absolutely no information.  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 01:56, 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!  07:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Significant event which meets WP:GNG .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:17, 8 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!  07:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge : Two sentence article.  I think the best target is Timeline of the Boko Haram insurgency but Boko Haram#Campaign of violence would also work.  // Timothy :: talk 02:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Boko_Haram#Campaign_of_violence : And also, list at Timeline of the Boko Haram insurgency#2015 Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 07:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Editors are divided between those arguing to Keep the article and those pushing for a Merge.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Boko Haram#Campaign of violence .  Drowssap SMM ( talk ) ( contributions ) 02:22, 23 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
Swell Investing: Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 01:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge what can be salvaged into Pacific Life to expand the coverage there.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 17:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for a Merge.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Pacific Life seems the most practical option for this short-lived company.  — Maile ( talk ) 02:24, 17 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
Skeen Rocks: Geographical features that appear on maps are not necessarily notable and WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt ( talk ) 07:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Antarctica .  JMWt ( talk ) 07:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - No indication of notability, appears to be an extremely minor feature.  – dlthewave ☎ 12:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete A geographic feature that wasn't even named until 1963 is probably not significant, and with no sourcing, WP:NOTEVERYTHING indeed.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 13:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Merged it into Avian Island, worth a mention. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Avian Island .  The information on coordinates and name origin can be held there, in line with WP:GEONATURAL .  Aymatth2 ( talk ) 16:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Avian Island .  This is easy for the closing admin: Dr. Blofeld has already added the info to the Avian Island article.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 01:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Avian Island per Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) , which says "If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river."  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 20:56, 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
2016 Corpus Christi Fury season: Only three games were played before the team ultimately folded with no explanation.  At most, I found sources with a few sentences mentioning the team's disorganization like this or this .  Not much on Newspapers.com , either.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Texas .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to to Corpus Christi Fury : The article doesn't pass WP:NSEASONS or WP:GNG , as mentioned by the nom.  Instead of outright deleting I'd like to propose it be merged to Corpus Christi Fury .  Several other articles in Category:2016 American Indoor Football season were merged to the team articles in 2017 (though not through AfD).  If not merge then I'd suggest a redirect to Corpus Christi Fury#Season-by-season .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 00:28, 14 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