hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Beyond the Grave (Gungrave): It has zero WP:SIGCOV .  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 08:20, 29 July 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 ) 10:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Gungrave .  The article largely uses sources about the game itself that mention him in passing, which is not a viable basis for a character article.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 10:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Gungrave .  Impressively well written article for a protagonist of an obscure game, but his importance only amounts to being mentioned in the Gungrave article.  NanaOn-Sha ( talk ) 07:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC) sock puppet NinjaRobotPirate ( talk ) 03:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge .  Sadly, this otherwise well written article is not meeting WP:SIGCOV .  Ping me if you think I am wrong.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 00:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Gungrave per Zxcvbnm.  Largely an extension of the main topic, without enough WP:SIGCOV that is independent of the game itself.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 01:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Gungrave ; agree with the above users that this article does not have enough sigcov to meet WP:GNG or WP:NCHARACTER .  Link20XX ( talk ) 16:02, 31 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
Prankstar: As always, films that have never been released are normally not notable enough for Wikipedia articles at all -- and while it's possible that there could be occasional exceptions for unreleased films that have generated an unusual volume and depth of reliable source coverage and analysis, that's not in evidence here at all: three of the four footnotes are primary sources (Tom Green's own self-published website and the self-published website of the studio that tried to make it) which aren't support for notability at all, and the only one that comes from a media outlet is a Q&A interview in which its existence gets briefly namechecked but which isn't about the film in any non-trivial sense, which isn't enough "coverage" to get the film over WP:GNG all by itself.  This just doesn't have enough notability-building coverage in proper reliable sources to earn an exemption from having to have been completed and released.  Bearcat ( talk ) 18:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America .  Bearcat ( talk ) 18:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge "Little is known about the film".  It can be a one-liner in the main Tom Greene article then, using the AV Club source.  I don't see anything about this unreleased film.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  If you are proposing a Merge, please specify the target article.  Thank you.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  20:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Oaktree did specify a target article for a merge: Tom Green .  I certainly have no objection to that.  Bearcat ( talk ) 15:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Tom Green - The film is already briefly mentioned in the main Tom Green article, using the above mentioned AV Club source.  All that really needs to be added there at this point is a sentence stating that it was never released, which would not really require a merge to do.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:32, 2 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
No. 659 Squadron AAC: PercyPigUK ( talk ) 14:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom .  PercyPigUK ( talk ) 14:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge No. 659 Squadron RAF into AAC article.  Gavbadger ( talk ) 15:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with No. 659 Squadron, this seems to be one lineage.  Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk ) 21:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into No. 659 Squadron RAF .  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge No. 659 Squadron RAF into this article.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:27, 29 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
Moscow loan: I can imagine this being merged somewhere as a line, but an article seems unsupportable.  BD2412 T 20:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Finance .  BD2412 T 20:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Merge to Polish United Workers' Party , where the topic is already discussed.  Per nom, there is not enough here to justify its on article.  Yilloslime ( talk ) 22:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 22:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Soft delete or Merge to Polish United Workers' Party#Dissolution of the PZPR in the event that someone wants to do a full treatment of this topic.   This article has been here since 2007 and it looks like it's been a stub the whole time.  Some Wikieditors have taken an interest in de-orphaning etc. but no one has done the legwork of getting enough sources to establish notability.  Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 01:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Polish Wikipedia has a longer article.  No BEFORE was done by the nom; mine show this topic is discussed in some Polish sources, try the following Google Books query: "Moskiewska pożyczka" 1990.  There are even English-language hits - see query "Moscow loan" 1990.  This book in English for example mentions it as a "well known example" of something.  It seems to be a notable topic.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 10:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How much BEFORE is necessary to know that a million dollar loan is not by itself notable?  The Polish Wikipedia article is longer because it contains an entirely unsourced section.  BD2412 T 22:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 10:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting just in case anyone wanted to offer any more specific references to establish notability.  If not, this looks like a probable Merge.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  20:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.   The coverage in Polish United Workers' Party is sufficient; and I'm not convinced this is a suitable phrase to redirect.   I can't speak for Polish coverage, but this article is the best English coverage ... and the loan itself is tangential.  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 01:19, 13 July 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
2024 Bryansk drone strikes: Randomly one of the many [71] Ukrainian strikes against Russian oil facilities got an article.  Merge to Attacks in Russia during the Russian invasion of Ukraine .  Super Ψ Dro 00:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Russia ,  and Ukraine .  Super Ψ Dro 00:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Aviation .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Attacks in Russia during the Russian invasion of Ukraine per nom.  This strike does not stand out from the many other drone strikes on oil refineries listed in that article.  Gödel2200 ( talk ) 13:01, 28 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
Will Botwin: It may be preferable to Merge this page somewhere within Columbia Records , but I'm of the opinion that it be Deleted .  AlexTheAwkward ( talk ) 15:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting list for Businesspeople .  AlexTheAwkward ( talk ) 15:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Coverage is all about him talking about the musical people he represents, nothing specifically about him.  [10] one paragraph blurb where he answers questions, then [11] is typical.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge , i like your suggestion of merging the content, not all of it, but just a brief small couple of lines that takes all of the content and retains the most important bits within the actually notable aricle, Columbia Records .  Iljhgtn ( talk ) 16:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think it's possible to merge a sentence or two to Columbia Records § The 1990s–present — siro χ o 17:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and California .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Was the subject part of the awards here or am I missing something?  Anyway, leaning towards delete as there is nor SiGCOV in RS and fails WP:GNG , WP:BIO , and ultimately WP:ANYBIO .  dxneo ( talk ) 08:09, 19 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
Morales (The Walking Dead): Once again all coverage is casting information and episode summaries, there is interviews but those arent independent.  Questions?  four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:37, 12 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 Television .  Questions?  four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep if more sources are found, otherwise merge to List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters .  BOZ ( talk ) 23:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirecting to that page would be more sutable as the information there is sufficent.  Questions?  four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/redirect per all.  There aren't enough sources here, but this would WP:PRESERVE the history for someone to revisit.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 15:13, 18 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
LGBTQ+ Production of Family: Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 02:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Support deletion - there's plenty of content here, but the article is very poorly-written and is redundant to LGBT reproduction and LGBT parenting .  Any useful content should be merged to one of those articles, where appropriate.  sawyer / talk 03:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Medicine .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - this reads like a hodgepodge SYNTH and a content fork of several better articles we already have, including LGBT parenting , LGBT reproduction and Artificial insemination .  If Fram 's claim is true that entire sections were copied without attribution from those other pages, the problem is even more serious.  Owen× ☎ 14:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Support Deletion - As said already by Owen× ☎ and sawyer , we already have articles that cover what is mentioned on this one, making the article very redundant, if there is any new information that is properly referenced, should be merged with one of those articles.  — Nanami73⚓ ( talk ).  15:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment this article was created by a student editor.  It may make sense to move this to the creating users namespace.  Esolo5002 ( talk ) 07:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to LGBT reproduction if there is anything to merge.  This is an obvious content fork.  My very best wishes ( talk ) 02:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for either a Merge or Userfying this article to the page creator's sandbox.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : duplicate topic.  बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 04:05, 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
The Steve Earle Show: Hits for "The Revolution Starts Now" are about the song of the same name, not the radio show.  Fails WP:GNG .  Let'srun ( talk ) 13:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Music , Radio ,  and Politics .  Let'srun ( talk ) 13:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to parent article.  That seems simple and reasonable enough.  Why?  I Ask ( talk ) 14:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to Steve Earle per WP:ATD .  Currently the biography doesn't even mention the show by name and the content would seem like a better fit on Earle's bio page than on the radio station page for WP:WEIGHT reasons.  4meter4 ( talk ) 18:25, 2 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
2023–2024 Indian truckers' protests: No prejudice to recreation/undeletion if this does become a huge national event like the 2020/2021 protests.  Sohom ( talk ) 20:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Law , Transportation ,  and India .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm happy to support a Merge as well.  Sohom ( talk ) 11:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP definitely an important event in the history of Strikes for New Law Systumm ( talk ) 16:12, 9 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!  22:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : WP:TOOSOON .  It's important is not a rationale for keeping.  Queen of Hearts 03:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Motor Vehicles Act per below and WP:ATD .  Queen of Hearts 06:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It seems  important and has lots of sources, could be improved though BasedGigachad ( talk ) 19:10, 15 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!  23:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Motor Vehicles Act and move this article's text to its controversies.  Charlie ( talk ) 14:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Selective merge with Motor Vehicles Act .  This lacks significant secondary coverage in its own right but a few details might be relevant at the target page.  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 23:52, 19 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
Winkin Sports Complex: The citations are either the related university or an un-reliable blog.  Chris Troutman ( talk ) 18:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Maine .  Chris Troutman ( talk ) 18:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note I've added several more news stories about the complex.  It's a borderline case of meeting GNG, IMO.  I'd lean towards keep and if not then merge to Husson University#Athletics . -- User:Namiba 21:03, 23 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! 22:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : The article isn't particularly interesting per se , and in its current state is indeed probably borderline. Maybe WP:NVENUE ? The Bangor press might just get it over the line, however, we have many, many stubs about less not particularly significant places and structures (e.g., Pickford, Michigan , University of Belgrade Faculty of Civil Engineering , Taiwan Design Museum , Kiroli Park , or River Cur – all of which need better refs and some general improvement, but should be kept in my view). I'm mostly for keeping and improving things if they aren't rubbish or worse (i.e., I lean " inclusionsist "), so I'd also lean keep or merge (the latter only if it's not salvageable). -- Cl3phact0 ( talk ) 11:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Husson University#Campus if, as at present, sources lack sufficient independent coverage to pass the GNG and no further sources contributing towards notability are found.  Rupples ( talk ) 22:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge properly sourced content to Husson University#Campus .  Target article will be improved and a material from this article will find a home.  // Timothy :: talk 05:01, 5 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
Impa: Article mostly relies on Valnet sources at reception, thus failing WP:GNG .  SyFy Wire is the only valuable source, but only that isn't enough.  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 13:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games .  Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 14:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Characters of The Legend of Zelda#Impa .  The article simply relies far too much on content farm sources from the same group of websites.  I assume that the creator, Fieryninja was unaware of this, but content farms publish insane amounts of fictional minutia, and should not themselves be what an article relies upon to prove notability, as is rapidly becoming a more and more common problem.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 15:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Characters of The Legend of Zelda#Impa , per Zx.  I'd like to keep this around, but the current sourcing state just isn't doing it, and I don't believe there's enough SIGCOV to buff the article's current state per a search.  Ping me if something turns up and I'd be willing to change my vote, though.  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 16:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Characters of The Legend of Zelda#Impa .  Looking back, there is not enough significant coverage for this character.  Fieryninja ( talk ) 05:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nom, plus creator self admits a lack of coverage.  NegativeMP1 ( talk ) 15:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Characters of The Legend of Zelda .  Article relies on poor-quality video game content-farming "journalism" that doesn't demonstrate notability.  – dudhhr talk contribs 23:12, 20 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
CinemaWins: I will note, that the target of this as a redirect Cinema Sins does not currently contain information about this channel.  Tartar Torte 14:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Entertainment ,  and Internet .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect : Article currently only referenced by two primary sources (both of which appear to be CinemaWins's YouTube channel).  Should stay as a redirect.  ★ The Green Star Collector ★ ( talk ) 15:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Restore the redirect with added information.  No independent sources.  My solution is to convert the "Controversy and criticisms" section to a "Reception" section and give CinemaWins its own section.  Questions?  four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's this source: https://www.avclub.com/tv/reviews/cinemawins-2015 110.175.62.4 ( talk ) 03:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails GNG.  InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 04:05, 1 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