hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
2013 Mardan funeral suicide bombing: No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT .  LibStar ( talk ) 14:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Terrorism ,  and Pakistan .  LibStar ( talk ) 14:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2013 .  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 19:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Desertarun ( talk ) 15:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Toadette Edit!  16:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2013 .  Mangoe ( talk ) 19:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as suggested.  Sadly, like shootings since 2012 in the United States, terrorist attacks in Pakistan around 2013 were all too common and part of a pattern.  Bearian ( talk ) 14:20, 1 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
Allied Supermen of America: Quick Quokka [⁠ talk • contribs ] 20:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation , Popular culture ,  and United States of America .  Quick Quokka [⁠ talk • contribs ] 20:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Some coverage from a reliable source (staff editor of Nesarama/GamesRadar+) [1] .  I think the likely best option is a redirect (perhaps with a small amount merged) to Brigade (comics) , but I'm open to other options.  — siro χ o 23:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Redirect , of the source that I can access, Comicvine, it does not look like it supports notability.  ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 23:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions .  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 00:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge .  Can't find anything on this when checking for sources, and seems completely not notable.  While this article, List of teams and organizations in DC Comics , seems like a heavy WIP, it is also probably the best redirect target, though it lacks information on this group as of now.  A selective merge of information from this article into there seems like the best way to preserve what's listed here.  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 14:10, 20 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
Opinion polling for the 1945 Canadian federal election: No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG.  Also wp:not.  Only "Stats only" sources.  North8000 ( talk ) 19:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] BTW I did this for 4 of these articles at the same time: Opinion polling for the 1958 Canadian federal election , Opinion polling for the 1980 Canadian federal election , Opinion polling for the 1949 Canadian federal election and Opinion polling for the 1945 Canadian federal election North8000 ( talk ) 16:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I'm baffled why this was created as a stand-alone article rather than within 1945 Canadian federal election , which is can accomodate it without the need for a WP:SPLIT .  Reywas92 Talk 23:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Reywas92.  We only need a separate opinion polling article for an election if there are, or are likely to be, a large number of polls to include.  -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Reywas92.  — Joeyconnick ( talk ) 15:59, 15 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
Independence County, Washington: Parts of this could probably be merged into the Whatcom County, Washington article too PersusjCP ( talk ) 00:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 00:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List_of_U.S. _county_secession_proposals#Washington .  Reywas92 Talk 01:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Geography .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : We can add more sources and use archived links for the broken sources - Master of Hedgehogs ( converse ) ( hate that hedgehog! ) 14:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect into List_of_U.S. _county_secession_proposals#Washington , where it is already referenced.  No prejudice against re-creation if enough WP:RS -based coverage to pass WP:GNG can be found.  Sal2100 ( talk ) 15:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd also support a merge to List_of_U.S. _county_secession_proposals#Washington just to be clear :) PersusjCP ( talk ) 18:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect per previous votes.  BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 21:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: merge
Unlockable (gaming): We have Glossary of video game terminology for stuff like this, which isn't independently notable.  The main problem is that unlockable in a gaming sense doesn't really mean anything different than it does in normal usage.  It's something you can unlock.  Everything else is merely an attempt to give examples.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 15:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 15:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per WP:NOTDICT .  The glossary article's function is for articles exactly like this.  Sergecross73 msg me 16:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per WP:NOTDICT .  This is more appropriate for a glossary since Wikipedia doesn't do short dictionary definition articles.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 01:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge .   This article struck me as silly when I merged in content from another article that was even more specific, but I figured there'd be some resistance to merging it.   I guess times have changed since 2013, when it was almost impossible to get anything deleted on Wikipedia.  NinjaRobotPirate ( talk ) 21:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to glossary article per above.  // Timothy :: talk 04:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge .  A lot of the content are examples, detailing their implementation in particular games and trivia-like content.  But we don't really want or need that.  The glossary article can work for that.  SWinxy ( talk ) 23:41, 15 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
Grand Inquisitor (Star Wars): No reception section, outside plot summary, or list of works he appears in we just have a 'concept and creation' based on primary sources and mentions in passing.  Seems to fail WP:GNG (SIGCOV).  Considering ATD, maybe redirect (merge a bit?) to List of Star Wars characters ?  I don't think the single source that mentions him in-depth CBR is of use (it seems to be just a plot summary).  There is also this but it is just about a piece of art featuring this character, very niche trivia.  PS.  BEFORE showas few more sources but the coverage is limited to effectively: "this character has been redesigned from one side-show (Rebels) to another (Obi-Wan Kenobi) which upset some fans who complained about canon consistency".  I don't think this is enough to merit keeping this ( Screenrant , Screenrant again .  The latter is discussing a fan theory.  This is not encyclopedic stuff IMHO.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 12:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 12:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Soft merge and redirect to List of Star Wars characters .  Yeah, I mean not much to go off of here.  There's some WP:SIGCOV , but it's mostly partial at best.  That being said, there's enough controversy regarding the character that can be included in Star Wars Rebels , but the redirect to the aforementioned.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 16:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per Conyo14.  It's an unlikely search term, but there is a valid target.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 03:29, 18 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
Kathleen M. O'Sullivan: O'Sullivan's notability was not specifically discussed.  Neither the planned nor actual nomination by Presidents Obama and Trump were successful, and I see no other path to notability for this attorney.  Star Mississippi 17:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women ,  and Law .  Star Mississippi 17:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New York and Washington .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge .  In the previous mass-nomination, I noted that this subject "was nominated by one president and then declared, but not submitted, as a nominee by the next president, which is also a highly unusual and noteworthy circumstance".  While I do think that this adds an extra layer of possible notability, I think the correct outcome here is to merge to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies , with a note indicating that the subject was also proposed, but not formally nominated, by President Trump.  BD2412 T 18:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and Redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies .  Subject is not notable enough for a standalone article, but here we have a related article as a ATD with regards to her failed judicial nomination, and a sentence noting her failure to be renominated under Trump can be included there as well.  User:Let'srun 15:51, 17 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
Nevow: All of the sources that are currently on the page are either primary or don't provide in-depth coverage.  I found a 2005 book that gives a short example of how to use Nevow and a few others that mention it in passing, but this isn't enough to establish notability.  HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 01:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 08:15, 24 May 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!  02:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Twisted (software)#Applications using Twisted .  There are three books that meet SIGCOV about Nevow, but two of them have the same publisher (and theme) and they don't provide much information, and all of them mention it as a great add-on to Twisted.  Aaron Liu ( talk ) 02:41, 1 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
Deco Online: WP:VG/S 's reliable source search finds no coverage, but only press releases on GamesIndusty and IGN from 2008-09.  Metacritic has no critic OR user reviews for the game.  Mobygames (An unreliable WP:USERG directory, but useful for finding other reliable sources, magazines, etc) doesn't even have an entry for it.  Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPRODUCT both.  -- ferret ( talk ) 01:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  -- ferret ( talk ) 01:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and South Korea .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Joymax per WP:ATD , as the article doesn't seem notable.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 11:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Has long been closed, making it very unlikely any new sources will appear.  I don't think a merge is advisable because I'm not particularly convinced that the publisher is notable either - at least not independently from their better known game.  - MrOllie ( talk ) 16:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Joymax seems to be just 1 of several publishers the game bounced through.  -- ferret ( talk ) 16:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Being its English publisher and this being English Wikipedia it's still a believable target.  If people think Joymax is also non-notable, they are free to nominate it for deletion as well, which will remove the redirect entirely if found to be so.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 11:46, 20 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!  01:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree with a light merge to Joymax as WP:ATD .  — siro χ o 07:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment As nominator, I can accept a redirect to Joymax, but I strongly recommend a Salting due to on going promotional efforts.  During this AFD, yet another promo SPA has popped up claiming that no, THEY are the ones actually running the game now.  There's numerous recreations/pirate servers of the game and multiple promo efforts targeting the article name.  -- ferret ( talk ) 14:45, 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
Greedo: Given he's rather minor, I'd support a redirect either to the character list or to Han shot first.  Has one ever considered Magneton?  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 21:27, 19 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 Film .  Has one ever considered Magneton?  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 21:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Han shot first .  Not seeing stand-alone notability - we just have plot summary and then discussion of 'Han shot first'.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 06:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Han shot first per the above discussion.   Looking at the category  we have articles about all the characters more important to the franchise than Greedo but not those less notable than he.   In particular if it wasn't for the Han shot first controversy he would be pretty clearly non-notable with insufficient sources to support a separate article.  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 01:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Han shot first per others.  He's not really notable aside from that controversy.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 03:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge , but only the Han shot first section to Han shot first , and the rest to List of Star Wars characters#G .  That content would not easily fit into Han shot first , and the List of Star Wars characters#Greedo section would be left hanging as a link only here.  If someone has more secondary sources, please let me know.  No time to look myself.  Daranios ( talk ) 11:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - per Daranios' suggestion: "only the Han shot first section to Han shot first , and the rest to List of Star Wars characters#G ."  Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk ) 23:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Daranios.  The main redirect can point to List of Star Wars characters#Greedo .  The rest of the re-organization can happen through editing.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 21:50, 24 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
List of Through the Dragon's Eye episodes: This makes me think that the article is a possible copyvio itself.  Either way the plot summaries excessive, and this is not an encylopedic list.  -- D'n'B - t -- 09:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  -- D'n'B - t -- 09:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Lists ,  and United Kingdom .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:52, 14 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!  07:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to parent article Through the Dragon's Eye in it's existing "Episodes" section, but use the Template:Episode table template to organise this neater and with a condensed episode summary.  I agree that it's hard to justify the need for a separate episode article for this TV series, which I recall well from my own childhood, but none the less accept the episodes themselves aren't particularly notable.  I am not convinced by the WP:COPYVIO concerns as expressed by the nom, as it seems the episode summaries were written (c.2008) before they were uploaded to youtube (c.2010).  If there was evidence the current episodes prose existed/exists elsewhere before being added to the article, that may then give weight to deletion.  Bungle ( talk • contribs ) 12:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as outlined by Bungle – neither this list nor the parent article is long enough to justify a split.  Some summaries may need to be trimmed after merging to comply with MOS:TVPLOT .  RunningTiger123 ( talk ) 01:52, 23 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
Queentanisha: Unneeded CFORK.  No sourcing shows the different name is notable for a standalone article.  Suggest redirect to Tânia Tomé#Music and writing where the subject already exists.  // Timothy :: talk 05:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Women , Africa ,  and Portugal .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Tânia Tomé : no reason to have two articles on one person.  Use whichever title has the better notability.  Pam D 09:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Tânia Tomé : No need to have this useless fork.  Owen× ☎ 11:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Tânia Tomé per the content fork rules.  The merge should be easy due to the duplicated prose.  Her recent music under the name Queentanisha is one segment of her career and is less notable than the accomplishments under her real name.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 15:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Tânia Tomé , seems to be the COMMONNAME, the pseudonym gets a lot of hits but the legal name is used across RS. — siro χ o 19:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as above. -- Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 12:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Tânia Tomé per nomination.  Darling ☔ ( talk · contribs ) 19:21, 3 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
Street Jams: Tooncool64 ( talk ) 07:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , unable to find any significant secondary coverage.  Left guide ( talk ) 07:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions .  CptViraj ( talk ) 09:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Rhino Entertainment , as this appears to be Rhino's product.  — Maile ( talk ) 17:59, 23 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
Ange Kagame: Notability isn't inherited, most refs are either about accompanying her father or getting married.  Nswix ( talk ) 01:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Politics ,  and Rwanda .  Nswix ( talk ) 01:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge content into Paul Kagame#Marriage and children as there may be some info & refs here worth keeping for encyclopedic coverage.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 03:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge As per Indefensible.  MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:45, 15 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