hsuvaskakoty/wide_analysis huggingface dataset:
Bore pitch: Chidgk1 ( talk ) 16:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This might be at the wrong title , but I'm not sure why we'd need to remove an article explaining a mechanical engineering parameter.  I got true positives for both "bore pitch" and "bore spacing" at Google Scholar, TWL, Gale Academic, and Springer.  Got results for "bore spacing" at Jstor.  Close to twenty inbound links to the article, and I'm not seeing a suitable merge target, with the caveat that I'm not a mechanical engineering.  I think this is clearly an engineering concept we should explain somewhere, even if it's not important enough to earn its own academic studies or book chapters.  Folly Mox ( talk ) 00:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:30, 17 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!  17:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Bore (engine) .  The Bore article is very short and sweet, but this is clearly a closely related concept that doesn't need a separate article.  Some of the content is unencyclopedic but the topic should be at least mentioned at target.  -- ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 19:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge never goes out fo style.  Two short articles related to each other are ripe for a merger.  Prefer to merge over deletion.  Bearian ( talk ) 01:41, 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
KBRO-LD: Most references are to the FCC website.  Could merge into Dish Network .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 05:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Colorado .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 05:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note to closing admin.  Please could you look at a suggestion I made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KPDC-LP for an alternative to deletion if it comes to that.  Thanks Karl Twist ( talk ) 12:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with List of television stations in Colorado#LPTV stations : it is listed there, and a redirect there would seems like a valid alternative to deletion , though at the moment no programming information is listed there (which is pretty much all that could be merged there).  The Dish Network marketing the station is currently used for does not seem worthy of a merger there (and without that, a redirect there would bet too much of a surprise ).  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting as we have two different proposed Merge target articles.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with List of television stations in Colorado#LPTV stations , which, unlike Dish Network , mentions this topic.  It's basically Dish's ATSC 3.0 sandbox.  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 16:17, 26 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
Skartaris: Plot summary and few notes about media appearances.  Fails WP:GNG and my BEFORE failed to find anything of use.  Best WP:ATD I can think of would be to redirect this to the comic series it is the setting of.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:19, 16 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 Comics and animation .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge the Publication History section to Warlord (DC Comics) , which has some useful information.  The rest is trivial, and the location itself does not appear to pass GNG.  Rhino131 ( talk ) 13:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Warlord (DC Comics) : Almost all of the sources in the article are various comics, and the brief mentions in marginally reliable sources are little better.  ― Susmuffin Talk 02:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge with the extradimensional realms section of List of DC Universe locations in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE .  -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 17:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Warlord (DC Comics) .  Some light merging from the "Publication History" might be warranted, but that is about it.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 21:05, 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
2020 North Carolina's 11th congressional district election: WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to 2020_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_North_Carolina#District_11 , most of the content is there already anyway; individual congressional elections generally don't need standalone articles.  Reywas92 Talk 20:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Reywas92 and nom - not especially notable.  SportingFlyer T · C 20:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge No separate articles for other congressional districts too.  Killarnee ( talk ) 22:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to 2020_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_North_Carolina#District_11 per Reywas92 and others.  Clearly no need for a standalone article .  Sal2100 ( talk ) 20:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Seems to be enough content for a standalone article.  BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 02:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article is about the 11th congressional district election, should all other individual congressional elections get an own article too?  Or what's so special about this district?  Killarnee ( talk ) 01:19, 17 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
Easy Allies: Described as website, however main output appear to be videos and livestreams.  Only notable source is blog Kotaku, which mentions former GameTrailers staff.  Merge into GameTrailers subsection may be viable.  IgelRM ( talk ) 01:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 5 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 01:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media , Video games , Companies ,  and California .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge , while somewhat notable within the context of GT, I don't think it merits its own article for the moment.  -- ProtoDrake ( talk ) 19:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, – Joe ( talk ) 08:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Nom's rationale seems sound - there are few sources online about them.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 07:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Zxcvbnm.  Timur9008 ( talk ) 13:13, 14 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
Santa Cruz County Fairgrounds: Information could likely just be included in the city or county's page, which even then would seemingly amount to "The city also has a fairgrounds".  A separate article could potentially be made for the Santa Cruz County Fair - though this also seems like it would best be included in the greater Santa Cruz, California article.  A MINOTAUR ( talk ) 23:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Watsonville, California § Culture which already covers the subject.  — siro χ o 23:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP there is absolutely no reason to merge this article Evangp ( talk ) 04:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Evangp I see you are the creator of this article.  Do you have any particular reason why the contents of this article can not / should not exist within the greater city or county pages?  There doesn't seem to be much of anything distinguishing the fairgrounds as independently notable, and it's hard (in my opinion) to discern what this article really provides, especially as it has remained essentially unchanged for 10~ years.  A MINOTAUR ( talk ) 17:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Watsonville, California#Culture .  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 09:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: merge
System Shock Infinite: A WP:BEFORE yields only three reliable articles out there from Rock Paper Shotgun [40] , PC Gamer [41] and GameStar [42] .  The GameStar source does provide some good coverage and thoughts on the game's features and faults.  The RPS source describes the concept and plot in a paragraph but doesn't assess it beyond stating that it's "fanfic-y".  The PC Gamer article briefly announces there's an update for it and assesses that it's a "neat concept".   I feel there just isn't enough variety of independent coverage in these sources beyond describing what it is.  Thanks in advance for any thoughts.  ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 05:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 05:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to System Shock 2 .  It got a mention in Kotaku as well, but SIGCOV is limited to GameStar, which doesn't pass muster in my book.  However, it is at least worthy of a mention.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 11:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with System Shock : As there is some sourcing talking about this mod, we could probably put a mention that it exists and was reviewed.  Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs ) 12:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nom.  OceanHok ( talk ) 11:47, 31 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
Sha Tin Junior School: See WP:MILL .  WizardGamer775 ( talk ) 19:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions .  WizardGamer775 ( talk ) 19:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of English Schools Foundation schools .  Pasmorade ( talk ) 19:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Hong Kong .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to English Schools Foundation .  WP:MILL is an essay and is not sufficient reason to delete.  However, it is interesting to note that the article currently cites zero sources, which is a red flag.  Before deciding to delete, we perform a WP:BEFORE search, which shows that Sha Tin Junior School is frequently mentioned in the South China Morning Post .  However, after checking a dozen or so of these articles, it appears that most of these articles are brief mentions.  So far, I haven't been able to find one that focuses in depth on Sha Tin Junior School; the newspaper typically covers STJS alongside other ESF schools, and so redirecting to English Schools Foundation seems apt.  I don't agree with redirecting to List of English Schools Foundation schools , as it seems unclear whether that list meets the criteria for a stand-alone list, and the other article offers a lot more depth about the subject.  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 23:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/redirect to English Schools Foundation#Schools per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion .  I did not find significant coverage about Sha Tin Junior School ( traditional Chinese : 沙田小學 ; simplified Chinese : 沙田小学 ) in my searches for sources.  Cunard ( talk ) 09:46, 2 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
Mary Gloria Lawson: No independent, third-party, reliable sources present, with the exception of a brief article from the AP regarding her death.  Let'srun ( talk ) 14:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Law ,  and Louisiana .  Let'srun ( talk ) 14:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete, sadly, there isn't much coverage.  [16] is what I found.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Southern University Law School#Notable alumni , not enough to support an independent article in my opinion but worth keeping a reference on the list.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 19:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I agree that this article should be merged into Southern University Law School#Notable alumni as there are not enough useable sources to support an independent article.  Paul H. ( talk ) 19:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Southern University Law School#Notable alumni per Indefensible and Paul H. Sal2100 ( talk ) 21:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into SULC , same reasons as above.  Kalethan ( talk ) 18:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Insufficient coverage to meet WP:NBASIC .  If more sources are found, I would be pleased to reconsider my ! vote.  MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Southern University Law School#Notable alumni Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 23:45, 26 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
Probka Restaurant Group: Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it.  Some coverage, but not enough.  Boleyn ( talk ) 15:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Companies ,  and Russia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Aram Mnatsakanov as he's primarily notable for this group.  Examples how they're discussed in the sources togeter: 1 , 2 -- PaulT2022 ( talk ) 00:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  This seems to be a promotion of non-notable enterprise.  My very best wishes ( talk ) 16:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 11:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and Redirect to Aram Mnatsakanov - seems like the most logical decision as per WP:ATD .  As it stands, this topic has no independent notability.  HighKing ++ 20:37, 27 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
AS/NZS 3788: TarnishedPath talk 11:34, 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 11:34, 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 ] Comment .  Many standards, including this one, are adopted by government agencies and therefore have the force of law.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 14:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The result would be identical if it were an actual law.  On its own, it is simply not notable.  The Standards Australia article is the right home for this info.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This does not make them notable in and of themselves.  Please refer to WP:KITCHENSINK .  Wikipedia is not a random collection of information.  TarnishedPath talk 00:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I could not find any coverage that would meet GNG.  The fact that many standards have the force of law is irrelevant to satisfying GNG.  LibStar ( talk ) 04:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge maybe into Hydrostatic test NealeWellington ( talk ) 10:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Multiple Merge targets proposed here.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  15:54, 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 ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  We are just trying to settle on one Merge target article here.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to hydrostatic test , seems the more appropriate redirect.  Deus et lex ( talk ) 05:50, 27 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 Naturist Society: TNS is occasionally cited in the news for top nudist resorts, etc. but there's nothing in depth about their work or the organization itself.  The same is true for the magazine, whose only coverage appears to be via members of the society and writers tied with the publication.
 NB: While Lee Baxandall appears notable, it does not appear that it is for his work in this field, so I'm not sure a redirect makes sense.  Not opposed to it though.  Star Mississippi 00:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Sexuality and gender ,  and Wisconsin .  Star Mississippi 00:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nude & Natural ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) bundled per note above.  Star Mississippi 00:54, 5 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!  00:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into - Naturism in the United States , due to not being wp:org .  A section on activists could be added, merging in the Lee Baxandall article also. -- WriterArtistDC ( talk ) 21:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps Baxandall has notability beyond naturism, and that article can stand alone.  The other two articles can be merges into.  Does that require a new discussion?  If not, I could do the merges.  WriterArtistDC ( talk ) 03:11, 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!  01:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Naturism in the United States .  — siro χ o 02:15, 19 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