hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
I-No: WP:BEFORE shows zero WP:SIGCOV .  GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 12:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games .  Shellwood ( talk ) 13:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Guilty Gear characters .  Reception's entirely top-10 lists, there is a serious dearth of significant coverage.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nom. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 22:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nom.  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 09:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Is there really not enough on I-No?  I know (no pun intended) Guilty Gear is a niche franchise and everything, but she's one of those characters known for their sex appeal, much like Ivy from Soulcalibur and Morrigan from Darkstalkers.  Anyway, here is one source , but its from Bounding Into Comics, a site whose reliability is questionable at best .  Though I can't access the whole thing, this book seems to talk about her too.  Maybe they can be used if, by chance, someone finds enough coverage to keep the article, or revive it in the future?  MoonJet ( talk ) 03:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, BIC is a hard no.  They've got a pretty extreme POV that I feel affects their ability to provide verifiable content.  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 03:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll second that hard no and add a hell no to Bounding. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 13:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Third that per my below-mentioned “boobs aren’t notable” comment and also because BiC is a reactionary garbage site promoting non-controversies as news.  Dronebogus ( talk ) 02:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I’ve always had some skepticism about boobs making a character notable.  Drooling over a character’s MAJOR HAWTNESS is not “critical analysis”.  Dronebogus ( talk ) 10:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: merge
LaserWash: Sources provided include the company's own web site and patent applications in the US and Ausraia.  WP:BEFORE searches yields many promo sites, many with near identical copy "...has less moving parts..."(sic) but nothing independent and reliable that discusses the product.  Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 09:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology , Transportation ,  and United States of America .  Velella Velella Talk 09:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Wisconsin .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:50, 12 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!  07:10, 19 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!  04:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep : Found a couple of secondary sources, not sure about reliability: [23] , [24] .   The article as it currently exists is not very good, with primary and/or promotional sources only.   Needs work.  If the sources I provided are not reliable, then I would be fine with a delete.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 00:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge (highly selective) into Dover Corporation#Pumps and Process Solution .  The brand and the company can be mentioned in one sentence at Dover.  It is owned by subsidiary OPW.  Please also copy usable refs.  gidonb ( talk ) 11:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] User:Velella and User:WeirdNAnnoyed : can you both live with this solution?  gidonb ( talk ) 16:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That works for me.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 17:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, that would address the current issue.  Thanks.  Velella Velella Talk 22:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you both!!! User:Liz , you relisted this twice.  Can you close it?  gidonb ( talk ) 22:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: merge
Lee Chaolan: Den of Geek ranked him the #1 Tekken character in 2017, but it's not enough to hang on to the article.  Suggested merge to List of Tekken characters .  sixty nine • whaddya want?  • 18:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge There are no reliable sources that taks about him besides listicles and the den of geek per below.  GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 21:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge He has WP:SIGCOV in Den of Geek , lest people think I am just skimming over potential sources.  In fact, that article is great for a large amount of Tekken characters.  I could not, however, find other instances of significant coverage in magazines or otherwise.  People are welcome to put them here if they exist.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Tekken characters .  I checked the sources, Den of Geek is good but not much else really helps.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 11:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Tekken characters per above.  // Timothy :: talk 03:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: merge
Relentless Studios: Could be replaced by a category, redirect to Amazon Games ?  IgelRM ( talk ) 21:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games , Companies ,  and Washington .  IgelRM ( talk ) 21:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's the only division under [[Amazon Games#:~:text=33][34]-,Divisions,-[edit]|Amazon Games]] given a distinctive name.  It's also the division that released Amazon Games' first major original title and their first foray into Windows gaming, Crucible , which notably had matchmaking ended and all servers taken down only six months after release.  Askaqp ( talk ) 02:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just labeling something doesn't give notability for an article.  But maybe merging into Crucible (video game) would be better?  IgelRM ( talk ) 18:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Amazon Games .  Even if enough to meet GNG is found, this appears to be a NOPAGE situation where there's plenty of room to cover this in the main article.  Jclemens ( talk ) 03:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  22:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Two different merge targets have been proposed.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Jake Wartenberg ( talk ) 23:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge : with Amazon Games , since it is one of the divisions.  They released games before and after Crucible so it doesn’t seem right to be merged with that single game.  Prof.PMarini ( talk ) 07:22, 28 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
AS 2805: TarnishedPath talk 11:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia .  TarnishedPath talk 11:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete My PROD was removed with no improvement.  No indication this generic standard is notable – there's a lot of standards out there and would need sources and explanation beyond statement of existence.  Reywas92 Talk 13:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Standards Australia - Follow-on to AS3959 .  Even with good sourcing (which this does not have), the subject does not pass WP:GNG .  It clearly fails WP:SIGCOV and nothing else points to notability.   This is an individual standard that, as important as it may be in specific circumstances, is simply not that notable.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into ISO 8583 as much of the content in that article also applies to AS 2805.  Icd ( talk ) 10:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 22:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Two different Merge targets proposed here.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  15:53, 12 September 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!  23:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Slightly prefer the merge to ISO 8583 .  ( Redirect )  Suriname0 ( talk ) 04:04, 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
The Canonical Installation of Dennis Villarojo: I see nothing here to suggest that this cermony is in any way notable, although I suppose there might be a case for merging to Dennis Villarojo is there is actually aything of any real importance in this article.  Which I doubt.  TheLongTone ( talk ) 14:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC) TheLongTone ( talk ) 14:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Christianity ,  and Philippines .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge while not ROUTINE coverage, this is clearly a NOPAGE situation, as the topic can be covered (and perhaps should be done so more briefly) at Dennis Villarojo .  Note that since this appears verifiable content, I disagree with the nom's suggestion that there might be nothing worth merging.  Jclemens ( talk ) 18:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Dennis Villarojo .  I think this isn't enough for a standalone article and the target could still be expanded.  -- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge selectively to Dennis Villarojo , not suitable for a standalone article imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 19:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] comment Just how much is there worth merging?  TheLongTone ( talk ) 13:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: merge
Johnny Turbo: After Polygon Man was a surprise in terms of reception I figured I may be wrong and look through sources for Johnny Turbo.  However: A Internet Archive search turned up nothing outside of a few small statements in two issues of Retro Gamer that are more in passing.  A google books search also turned up nothing.  The one source that mentions him properly is discussing the GameSpy article already cited.  Google News, same boat .  The one article that seems to be discussing them, Nintendo Life, instead links to a youtube video we can't cite as a source.  Google Scholar to boot .  Similar outcomes when trying to do web crawls through Kotaku, Polygon, Siliconera, Destructoid, GamesRadar, etc.  There's no discussion about this character.  The whole point of this extensive WP:BEFORE is to show that despite belief that due to its notoriety as a bad campaign, it's not notable as a subject on its own.  Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 02:24, 22 July 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 ) 02:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to TurboDuo#Marketing .  A minor character who was only used in a single ill-fated ad campaign and had a video game compilation or two named after him (but not actually about him).  GNG is not passed in this instance.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 03:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Fails WP:GNG .  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 12:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to TurboDuo#Marketing .  I came to the same conclusion as those above after a review of the page.  Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 17:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to TurboDuo's marketing section, per other commenters.  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 22:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge because we HAVE to preserve this ludicrous information.  Dronebogus ( talk ) 12:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: merge
Yorkshire & Humber Merit League: Fails WP:GNG as no significant coverage exists.  J Mo 101 ( talk ) 20:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions .  J Mo 101 ( talk ) 20:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The team and league pages linked to and from this article are also poorly sourced so contain no useful citations that could be added here.  There is nothing much on web searches, some info might be found by exploring archived versions of the Rugby Conference League website, but this would not provide independent or significant coverage needed to pass GNG.  EdwardUK ( talk ) 21:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge relevant information with Rugby League Conference then redirect .  Mn1548 ( talk ) 15:24, 1 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
Immediately (law): bundled afd: Immediately adjacent Immediately upon arrival lettherebedarklight 晚安 06:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions .  lettherebedarklight 晚安 06:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Merge to Glossary of law .  More relevant to Wiktionary than here; blatant WP:NOTDICTIONARY violation.  JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 07:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : this entry documents a contested legal term of art , it does not provide a definition of the term.  Definitions are what Wiktionary is for; this article has a fundamentally different basis.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 11:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge the relevant content to Reasonable time and Glossary of law without prejudice or keep Immediately (law) .  This legal concept satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin.  There is a very large amount of coverage in books: [23] [24] [25] .  This concept is very often the same thing as reasonable time, and is typically the same thing in English law.  The content of this article is about case law on statutory interpretation (and the similar interpretation of other legal instruments such as contracts) and is not a lexicographer's dictionary definition.  In any event, an article on this legal concept is capable of being expanded far beyond a definition.  The article is entirely referenced to encyclopedias and law reports from start to finish.  Certain content in the section of the article headed "Compounds" might be merged to the glossary on grounds, in particular, that it appears that it may be glossary material, and include multiple glossary entries for separate terms.  James500 ( talk ) 22:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] an article on this legal concept is capable of being expanded far beyond a definition and it hasn't been done since 2009.  just delete the junk.  start over, if so inclined.  lettherebedarklight 晚安 00:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep per the reasons provided by James500 Jack4576 ( talk ) 11:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 05:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Reasonable time by WP:NOTDICT Chaotic Enby ( talk ) 07:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Glossary of law per above.  NOTDICT applies.  If there is a consensus for a different merge / redirect target, I have no objection; in this case I think a merge into the glossary with related terms wikilinked makes the most sense.  // Timothy :: talk 05:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  00:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: merge
Ultimate Custom Night: I simply do not think this game is notable enough on its own, and is likely better off merged into the series' article.  Negative MP1 01:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Utah .  Negative MP1 01:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Five Nights at Freddy's#Ultimate Custom Night (2018) .  Admittedly this is on the cusp of notability, with reviews in Kotaku (pre-AI), and Rock Paper Shotgun .  But the PC Gamer one isn't significant coverage, and if they don't care enough to cover it, Wikipedia doesn't cover it either.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 05:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as above.  The Kotaku and Rock Paper Shotgun articles are valid commentary even if the latter is not clear on its views.  The PC Gamer article is a press release type article.  If one more reliable source of significant coverage can be found, happy to make this a keep .  ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 20:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Five Nights at Freddy's#Ultimate Custom Night (2018) .  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 09:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge PC Gamer is just an announcement, the other two sources are pretty good.  Five Nights at Freddy's#Ultimate Custom Night (2018) seems like a pretty good target.  Questions?  four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:25, 2 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
Elihu Adams: Probably best to just redirect to Adams political family#Members .  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 06:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Massachusetts .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nom.  The cited sources don't amount to substantial coverage.  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 17:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nom.   Fails the GNG, and per WP:NOTMEMORIAL ; this is an unremarkable person.  Ravenswing 19:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge he fails WP:GNG , just being related to famous people doesn't confer notability.  Mztourist ( talk ) 03:21, 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
Aflacts: This page mostly consists of details of the campaign in press release fashion, and it does not seem to have received sustained coverage.  The one or two usable citations could certainly find their way into the main Aflac article.  Deprodded in 2009 with citation improvements that are insufficient to carry the article today.  🦆 Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 06:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business , Advertising ,  and United States of America .  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 06:29, 19 October 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!  06:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge relevant facts into the Aflac article, rest isn't notable.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:38, 26 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