User:Cyberbot I/AfD's requiring attention

Below are the top 25 AfD discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters. The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc. This page is updated by a bot roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 10:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC).

AfD	Time to close	Votes	Size (bytes)	Score
Chloe Lewis (figure skater)	50 days ago	5	6366	2829.81
Battle of Ajmer	21 days ago	1	7137	1854.34
French ship Gapeau (B284)	37 days ago	9	11984	1836.24
Liverpool Privateers	23 days ago	3	7163	1831.94
Reproduction speed	22 days ago	3	7259	1791.75
Wilson, Indiana	20 days ago	2	6064	1690.44
Chip Merlin	19 days ago	3	12852	1561.42
Larkana Institute of Nuclear Medicine and Radiotherapy, Larkana	15 days ago	0	3681	1537.82
Lovari (musician)	15 days ago	0	4400	1500.46
Albert Tjåland (2nd nomination)	19 days ago	4	7816	1499.29
Leinster Chess Leagues	17 days ago	2	22270	1493.76
Marcos loyalist rallies	17 days ago	2	7137	1461.08
Gauda–Gupta War	17 days ago	2	10251	1429.44
List of television programmes broadcast by ITV (2nd nomination)	16 days ago	2	6307	1390.64
Unzela Khan	15 days ago	2	9416	1367.53
Adi Oasis	13 days ago	1	4253	1341.98
Micro (text editor)	16 days ago	3	6463	1323.62
Maicol Azzolini	13 days ago	1	3326	1307.57
Aida Vee	13 days ago	1	3376	1307.5
Cooperative web	12 days ago	0	3170	1305.39
Violin Sonata in B minor	15 days ago	3	9401	1303.25
Rahaman Abiola	15 days ago	3	9085	1300.62
List of songs about Bangalore (2nd nomination)	13 days ago	1	4294	1290.54
Chak 15 DNB	12 days ago	0	3307	1288.21
Lya Stern	14 days ago	2	5401	1279.73

Chloe Lewis (figure skater)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator. I withdraw this nomination. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sports, and Oregon. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep. This is a useful short article on a skater who was successful in international junior skating tournaments; her best result was the Youth Olympics. Articles such as Figure skating at the Winter Youth Olympics work in their current format because there are articles on most of the medalists; there is therefore no need to say anything about the medalists in such articles. Deleting articles such as this one, through an over-zealous application of rules to borderline cases such as this one, has a detrimental effect on other articles.-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that there is significant coverage in independent reliable sources, as mentioned below.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't pass wp:gng Big Money Threepwood (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Daniel (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:NSKATE and fails WP:SIGCOV. Contributor892z (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 1, consensus was to relist for further discussion. I will strike the sockpuppetry above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep Previous votes failed to assess the article's sourcing. At the time of the nomination, it was sufficient to pass WP:GNG—namely this profile in the Oregonian and this briefer one in the Colorado Gazette. The nominator has also since said I felt my original nomination was flawed, given that GNG tops an SNG. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 21:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to close this as a "speedy keep" because there are additional "delete" votes, but I would endorse this being closed as "keep". Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Passes GNG per the references provided by Hamelton. These in-depth profiles offer SIGCOV of the subject. Frank Anchor 00:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep: There's WP:SIGCOV in multiple WP:RS and therefore the subject passes WP:GNG. TarnishedPath^talk 06:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Ajmer[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no such a battle named "Battle of Ajmer" in any of the WP:RS nor any Historians named a battle as "Battle of Ajmer" between Mher tribe and Ghurids. The article body talks about a conflict between Mher tribe and Ghurids, whereas the infobox describes Rajputs as the belligerents. Neither from the source of R. C Majumdar, nor from Romila Thapar, I could even find a scattered line about this event. The actual event per cited is the prelude of Battle of Kasahrada (1197). The current content could be added into this parent article (edit: it is already present the background section). Fails WP:GNG, and not found any RS calling the event by the name of "Battle of Ajmer". Imperial ^[AFCND] 05:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Geography, and India. Imperial ^[AFCND] 05:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Draftify or Very Weak Keep. The sources from Majumdar and Thapar, like ImperialAficionado I too could not verify or find on this Battle and would have opted for delete but the source from Dr Ashoka Srivastav from Department of history at University of Gorakhpur had me hanging from where the page got its attribution from. There is need for improvement on this page and some more detail that is missing or wrong about the battle, siege, and the belligerents. From Srivastav Belligerents were Mhers, many Hindu Rajas, Raja of Nagor, Raja of Nahrwala. It does not say Rajputs. More sources will help too. RangersRus (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 10:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is rapidly filling up with made-up Indian battles. Mccapra (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I agree, I'm seeing more and more articles written on little-known or little-documented battles fought in Central and South Asia. Many of them end up being disucussed here in AFDs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep or Draftify The sources do actually have SIGCOV around this battle, although it's not well formatted but could be fixed. I think the author has cited the different volume of History and Culture of the Indian People therefore we find nothing about this event in that volume, but after my findings in its preceding 5th volume, there is a significant coverage:

"In A.D. 1195-6 the Mher tribes of Ajmer combined with the Chalukyas to expel the Turks from Rajputana. Aibak had to rush to the help of the Turkish governor of Ajmer. Finding the Mhers camping near Ajmer he engaged them in a battle, but when the enemy were reinforced by the Chalukya ruler’s army, Aibak was forced to withdraw into". I guess these two sources should be enough, if not then draftify it, so that the author of the page could improve it by adding some more sources. Also the source from Thapar should be removed. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 07:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Draftify: The page creator as a new user should receive our support if there's reason to believe sourcing could be found as described by User:Based Kashmiri. Page creator attempted themselves to move this to draft during this discussion but was reverted appropriately for procedural reasons. BusterD (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

French ship Gapeau (B284)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only reliable source for this fishing ship / unarmed military transport ship is a massive 10-book encyclopedia of all German warships no matter how small or insignificant. The other source, netmarine.net, is more of a large hobby site / semi wiki than anything else ("Si vous souhaitez compléter ces pages par des récits, illustrations ou autres documents, écrivez nous."). Fram (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Transportation, France, and Germany. Fram (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Keep. We have always kept commissioned naval vessels. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- No, we haven't, and is in any case not a reason to keep things. "We keep because we always keep" is ignoring things like Wp:CCC and the stricter standards we have for establishing notability instead of assuming some inherent notability across many topics. Fram (talk) 09:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- You tried the exact same argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS LSM-316, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS LSM-422 and the like, which ended in redirection, with the closing admin noting the particular weakness of your argument. Fram (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
  - So you discount my argument because you disagree with precedent but then cite a closer's remarks (which did not refer to my argument specifically, incidentally) as some sort of precedent? You've got to laugh! But, other than those numbered vessels, which are all pretty much the same, and some static accommodation barges, would you like to cite the AfDs where commissioned military vessels were deleted. Just so we know. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
We have if they got more than routine coverage. A fishing vessel pressed into navy service isn't the HMS Ark Royal or USS Missouri, so it won't have that level of coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Reading the article for 2 seconds shows that it was requisitioned for service as a military ship during World War II, so stating fishing ship / unarmed transport ship, is technically correct but is a misleading strawman. I'm not arguing for or against deletion because I don't know if there is a separate method for assessing the notability of ships, but that statement just irked me. Curbon7 (talk) 09:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- I meant "unarmed military transport ship", otherwise my addition of "unarmed" would make little sense, but I agree that not including "military" was involuntarily misleading. I've added it now, I hope that's better? Fram (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
  Much appreciated Curbon7 (talk) 09:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Keep The vessel served with two navies and two commercial fishers. Although unarmed in French Navy service, she was definitely armed in Kriegsmarine service. If Netmarine is objected to, I can add from Janes All the World's Ships, which most definitely passes WP:RS. Mjroots (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Lloyd's Register is also a reliable source. Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
  - That Lloyd's mention is reliable, but it doesn't contribute to the topic's notability. See WP:SIGCOV. I'm familiar with Janes' usual entries, and while they're also reliable I'm not sure that will meet the SIGCOV bar either. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Keep per Mjroots and longstanding practice. Kablammo (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Vorpostenboote in World War II. I'm not concerned with the scope of Gröner's work, but I am interested in its depth of coverage. From the article's content, I'm guessing it does check that WP:SIGCOV box (in addition to all the other points at WP:GNG). Unfortunately, that's only one source, and Lloyd's table doesn't reach that bar. If there's a typical entry in Jane's Fighting Ships, I'm guessing that wouldn't either. As a result, I think this topic can be covered in the main Vorpostenboote list, or if needed that list could be split. (Per GNG footnote 4: "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic.") Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete: Non-notable boat/fishing trawler/transport. Wasn't involved in any heroic anti-submarine battle or any notable rescue at sea that would garner coverage. What's used for coverage is routine ship registry listings, tracing the vessel's career until being scrapped. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Weak Keep - Added a little more history from an additional source. - Davidships (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A "no consensus, leaning keep" closure was overturned per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 9
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete Unless actual WP:SIGCOV can be presented from sources (and at this point, I will need the actual text from the references copy-pasted here to prove it since they're inaccessible), then there isn't notability being shown for this article subject. And it's already well known that sources like Lloyd's Register are not significant coverage and just list basic info for all military ships that have existed period. The Dictionary of French Warships seems no better. In fact, all the sources used in the article seem very underwhelming on actual significant coverage (and is Netmarine.net even a reliable source?).

The closer should disregard any Keep votes above claiming "we always keep them", as this isn't an actual notability argument. It's the same sort of nonsense that was done with sports biographies previously and we finally forced that group to follow WP:GNG requirements. We are long past time to force the same requirements on the walled garden that Ships wikiproject editors have been constructing. Silver seren^C 18:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep 84.142.24.48 (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep As notable as many other ships with similar references. Until such time as the guideline for which ships are sufficiently notable for their own article is debated at a more visible venue the article should be kept Lyndaship (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Then you should showcase how it's notable by presenting significant coverage in reliable sources. Otherwise, WP:ITSNOTABLE is explicitly one of the arguments to avoid. Silver seren^C 00:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Lyndaship and Silver seren: I intend to open a discussion at WT:MILHIST on the subject of auxiliary warships such as these once this discussion is closed. Mjroots (talk) 09:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to List of Vorpostenboote in World War II per Ed. Claims we commonly do something require linked support from guidelines and policy. I agree this is a close call; we can verify the subject, we are just stuck on direct detailing in multiple reliable sources independent of the topic. We don't have sufficient citations in this case. I suspect they will one day be found. As an alternative to deletion, we might redirect the page until sources can be applied. Redirects are cheap, and remove nothing from page history. BusterD (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Liverpool Privateers[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Unlikely to become notable, if the team is defunct. Unsourced (though I know that's probably fixable). Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Canada. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Keep. The team easily passes GNG due to substantial news coverage in Nova Scotia and the Maritimes. Here are a few of the more recent news on the team. [1][2][3][4][5] I question whether the nominator completed WP:BEFORE on this nomination. I'm baffled what is meant by "Unlikely to become notable, if the team is defunct". As per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, the article might be poorly sourced in its current state, but can easily be improved. Flibirigit (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
I did indeed complete a before search. I found numerous news articles regarding the move of the team, all based on press releases. I found routine coverage, e.g. of matches. I found articles based on what a spokesperson for the team said, without WP:SECONDARY analysis. I found nothing that was WP:INDEPTH, WP:SECONDARY, WP:INDEPENDENT to satisfy GNG. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep - per Flibirigit. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 07:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see a review of newly found sources to see if GNG is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Agreeing with Liz here, we also need clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusty4321 ^{talk contribs} 14:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete: Unfortunate accusations against the nominator aside, there's nothing approaching significant coverage applied, linked above, or found during my reasonable BEFORE which renders this subject sufficiently notable for its own article. I see no evidence this can be improved. BusterD (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- @BusterD: There was no intent to accuse anyone of anything. My only intent was to convey that I felt a BEFORE was not done. We simply disagree on the sources. I have nothing personal against @Curb Safe Charmer:. Best wishes and happy editing. Flibirigit (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  - @Flibirigit: And that language would have been more appropriate to a civil disagreement, like AfD. "I-messages" are helpful because they're not so threatening. We must be able to argue freely, even sometimes beyond the bounds of reasonableness. Sometimes screaming is quite necessary. Give yourself permission to step over the line occasionally, if in doing so you might push our entire Wikipedia movement forward. IMHO, that's the heart of WP:IAR. I am proud to participate in a process in which civil disagreement makes us a stronger (and more cohesive) community. Nice to meet you. BusterD (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Unfortunately I'm not convinced that the new sources linked here are enough to establish notability. They're all fairly routine, and the best sources are still almost entirely reliant on press releases or press conferences. CarringtonMist (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was delete‎. Given the discussion, there is no clearly fitting redirect target as an ATD Star Mississippi 13:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Reproduction speed[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTDICT. Since this term seems to be used in several different contexts, it can redirect to Reproduction (disambiguation). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Generation time. A quick Google search of "replication speed" focuses on the term's use in microbial genetics, highlighting that a telecommunications-focused article on this term would be inappropriate. Even adding the word telecommunications to the query returns very few sites using the term, mostly with an entirely different use as the RPM of turntable discs. However, given that the term is mostly used in a biological application. I would support a redirect to Generation time over Reproduction (disambiguation), as none of the articles on the latter disambig page appear to contain wikilinks to former article. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 07:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have two different Redirection target articles suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Reproduction (disambiguation). It may be more likely that someone would search for this term in the context of biological reproduction or replication, but the content is clearly intended to be for telecommunications. I could also live with a delete, though. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Again we have two differernt Redirect suggestions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete. The context in which reproduction speed is being used will determine the relevant meaning of reproduction. If our best option is to link to a disambiguation page then we're saying that we can't anticipate what that context will be. It seems better to me that people search or link to the appropriate reproduction page, rather than being directed to Reproduction (disambiguation).

I will also mention that if we were going to redirect to the biological meaning, Basic reproduction number is the target for Reproduction rate so could be appropriate here. The reason I am not !voting for that is that I don't think reproduction rate is regularly referred to as reproduction speed, and a Google search showed pages about photocopying, faxing, and sound and video reproduction all used the phrase reproduction speed before I found anything biological. Mgp28 (talk) 11:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

With the perspective of a public health graduate student, I want to note that the basic reproduction number is how many people we expect an infected person to pass the disease onto, so reproduction speed, as opposed to a rate, is not an appropriate descriptor. When I use Google, the first five results describe the generation time of crops, generation time among baboons, generation time under asexual reproduction, bacterial generation times, and the generation times of large animals. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 19:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The Google results are odd. Clearly Google's algorithm doesn't think I am interested in biology. When I search for reproduction speed, 19 of the first 20 results seems to he about video and sound reproduction, which isn't at all a subject I spend time reading about.

I will certainly agree that the basic reproduction number not a measure of speed, but then of course it is also not a "rate". I was thinking what we might guess someone was most likely to be interested in if they searched or linked to reproduction speed. Given the diversity of answers we are finding in our searches, I still suspect we're unlikely to find a widely useful redirect target. Mgp28 (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nominator. This article (as written) is about data (not biology), literally a pair of definitions taken directly from a tertiary source. If we're looking at choosing disambiguation pages and unrelated topics for redirect targets, we're much safer nuking the page from orbit. BusterD (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

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.

Wilson, Indiana[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Here we have a puzzle. There are two data implying that this a rail point. First, the label starts out right next to the tracks before drifting south on more recent maps, towards a string of houses on Rt. 60. Second, GMaps informs us that the name of the road that crosses the tracks at this point is named "Wilson Switch Rd." Against this I have, well, nothing, because searching is pretty much hopeless. The question is whether that string of houses is now known as Wilson or not, and here I draw a blank. Mangoe (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
This is an interesting one, partly because there seem to be multiple names associated with the same location. A 1908 map identifies the settlement as "Dallas", while others like this plat map show it as "Wilson". (An 1875 map gives it as "Wilson Station" and notes an accompanying mill.) When time permits I'll aim to check the local histories in more detail, but the fact that it's been consistently present on area maps for the last 150 years suggests it was at one point an actual settlement, so for now I think it's best to keep it. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Comment Searching for just Wilson got me nowhere, so I tried Wilson Switch, and I got some interesting results. A 1973 story about sales tax called Wilson Switch a community of 300, but this 1991 story about the local landfill just refers to the locals as "Wilson Switch Road residents", as do later stories about landfill projects. Earlier mentions of Wilson Switch were mostly about car accidents or railway incidents in the area, which doesn't clarify much. Wilson is still on the latest Indiana state highway map, though I don't know how thorough Indiana is about vetting small communities. Not sure which way I lean on this one. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete I can still sleep at night if this is deleted. It's Rail station on the C., I. & L. (Monon) Railway [6], this same source explains that the post office was called Dallas. Lest we not forgot that old post offices were one word names, and were not required to share a name with their location. Huwmanbeing's observation that it is variously known as Dallas, Wilson's switch, and Wilson suggests it doesn't have a strong identity and that people were just referring to the landmarks as a way of being clear about locations. That book I cite above would use the place as a reference if it actually existed. Google snippets from this source [7] states the area around the switch was known as Dallas, and later Wilson, and is an "Unplatted village". I believe that source is just assuming that the place was called Dallas because of the post office at or near the train station. The name Wilson is almost certainly taken from the station, and post office was probably just that. The local paper only has mentions of for about 20 or so years starting 1942. Just life activities of people living near it. The satellite imagery would be very different if some sort population center had existed there in the twentieth century. Be careful researching it, it's not the only rail infrastructure with this name.James.folsom (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Chip Merlin[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. I had declined this at AfC and still don't see references showing notability despite being moved to mainspace by another editor. CNMall41 (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Law. CNMall41 (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

*Keep subject meets notability requirements for an athlete and has been covered in a variety of sailing publications and websites. I feel it is worth noting that off the bat CNMall41 immediately accused me without evidence of having a personal connection to the subject and seems to bear some personal grudge against this article, previously having said they would step away from being involved in the editorial process.Sailbanshee (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep Sports career coverage is notable and significant and subject has notable legal and writing career with well cited sourcesAnatomyoffear (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

*Keep Article is well cited and establishes notability as a prominent athlete in the world of yacht racing with a verified track record and unique, well documented story covered in a variety of independent, verifiable sources.Captbloodrock (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote. Since you moved to the main space, I am wondering if you can point out the references that specifically show how subject meets WP:GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

:::Multiple articles covering subject in yachting and boating websites, coverage in major newspapers, documentation of subject competing and placing in major yachting events…Captbloodrock (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay. I am asking for the specific ones. The ones that discuss him in-depth that are considered reliable under Wikipedia standards. Are you able to point those out?--CNMall41 (talk) 04:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

::::: The Tampa Bay Times article, the Museler article(s), the article about his obtaining a new ship for an established boat racing team, the multiple articles about his participation and placing in races… I thought the original article author was being paranoid but I’m beginning to side with them there’s some bias on your part against this article’s subject. I believe this article meets notability requirements which is why I moved it. I’ve stated my case for such and won’t engage in any more nit-picking. You put the article up for a vote, let the vote decide.Captbloodrock (talk) 05:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

AfD is a discussion, not a vote. As far as the WP:aspersions, feel free to take it to WP:ANI. If you are unable to point out specific references other than naming a publication, I am unsure how to further discuss. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep: Sail magazine and the Tampa Bay Times article (the first two cited) are each WP:SIGCOV. There appears to be some WP:REFBOMB going on here and improvements need to be made, but there is enough here for this to be kept. Let'srun (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to confirm, you are talking about this Tampa Bay Times reference which is a routine announcement about his law firm. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep Article is well sourced and subject meets Wikipedia:Notability (people) for both his law career but especially sports athletic career, which the article documents and cites well with appropriate citations.IOProfessor (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

All right, given that (1) this has been confounded by confirmed socks, (2) the article shows signs of COI, and (3) this is the only thing in your entire edit history, I must ask how you discovered this particular AfD, IOProfessor. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to confirmation that socks dominated the previous keep !votes. Will strike through the sock comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep- as a person who previously voted keep, I’m voting keep again. And since I am not a sock, I assume it will still be counted. Anatomyoffear (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Anatomyoffear and User:IOProfessor were listed among suspected socks of Captbloodrock but unconfirmed, therefore I did not strike through their remarks. Note, though, that IOProfessor's only Wikipedia contribution ever was to chime in on this specific AfD. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
It’s actually possible for multiple people to disagree with you. I am in fact my own whole and separate person, and I can see perfectly well that you’re wrong and doubling down. Let me know if you’d like me to send you a picture of myself and today’s newspaper to prove that I’m a real person and not an evil doppelganger or a figment of your fevered paranoia. 2603:9001:953F:178:B824:2ECE:2DE1:DC7 (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

If I were doubling down, I would not have reopened this AfD. This is the opposite of that. In 16 years as an admin, this is the first time I have ever been persuaded to reopen an AfD, and it is because I read the report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Captbloodrock. Incidentally, who are you, unsigned user? Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I was in such a hurry to point out how you’re wrong about me that I posted from my phone, which wasn’t logged in. But I’m here now. Hello! It’s me, the person you think is Captbloodrock. I am, in fact, not. Nor am I whoever IOProfessor is, either. There are a number of other people I am also not, but you haven’t accused me of being any of those, so I’ll leave that be. Anatomyoffear (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

While I hesitate to respond and take this down some rabbit hole of a tangent, I will point out that I only mentioned you to note that despite the inclusion of your name in the sock investigation that I linked, you were not found to be a sockpuppet and therefore I did not strike through your comments. Now that you have drawn attention, though, I am curious: What drew you to the Chip Merlin AfD after six months away from Wikipedia? Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I like lawyer stuff. I've noted things on other lawyer pages as well. Ironically, I discovered this guy through his sailing, not his lawyer stuff, but how's that for a small world? Anatomyoffear (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment: This one might have legs; [8] is about him and the law firm... It's hard to filter out all the PR and promo items in searches. This talks briefly about him [ https://books.google.ca/books?id=qGh0ol-_mCEC&lpg=PA20&dq=%22Chip%20Merlin%22%20-wikipedia&pg=PA20#v=onepage&q=%22Chip%20Merlin%22%20-wikipedia&f=false]. Oaktree b (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Selective Merge to S/V Merlin: There are three topics:

the law firm which Merlin founded. This is possibly WP:NOTEWORTHY given the claim that it is "the second-largest firm in the United States in the field of representing insurance claims for natural disaster victims" -- but not overwhelmingly so (second largest in a single [large] country in a subdomain of a specific domain), and would require WP:NCORP to be clearly met... which it certainly doesn't on current sourcing.
the S/V Merlin which Merlin purchased and which has a long prior history. The yacht is almost certainly notable, but its article is in need of proper referencing and copyediting for WP:TONE and editing and monitoring for WP:COATRACK).
Merlin himself, whose level of notability/noteworthiness can reasonably be tied to his law firm, but not to purchasing/owning/operating the yacht (WP:NOTINHERITED)

... which gets us onto sources. Self-published sources don't count as WP:SIGCOV, and nor do sources which are not WP:INDEPENDENT and nor do WP:PASSINGMENTIONS in stories focussed primarily on another topic - this includes Oaktree b's Tampa Bay Times story & the passing coverage in the ABA journal, and Let'srun's highlighting of the Sail Magazine and Tampa Bay Times citations. Nor are the sources I've looked at any more reassuring.

I'm thus landing on redirection of Chip Merlin to S/V Merlin, with Chip Merlin as a lawyer appearing there as something concise along the lines of "Chip Merlin, a Florida personal injury attorney whose firm Merlin Law Group is (as of 2024) the second-largest in the United States in the field of representing insurance claims for natural disaster victims", and the contents of this article regarding the yacht selectively merged to S/V Merlin -- which could improve that article. If, at some point, Merlin Law Group manages to pass the WP:NCORP bar and has a compliant article written (noting WP:PAID and WP:COI and WP:LUC), then Merlin could instead be redirected there. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 00:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Also note that given the S/V Merlin is a large yacht whose Merlin Racing Team is captained by Chip Merlin, individual notability on WP:NATHLETE grounds doesn't really apply here, but WP:NTEAM could -- but WP:NOPAGE would suggest that even if notability for the team itself could be established that S/V Merlin is the right place to cover them. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Merge is fine, I'm not worried. It can be expanded later if the individual gains notability Oaktree b (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Liz:, I think a redirect would be a good WP:ATD but there is already more than sufficient information on that page about him. Would likely need to cut down quite a bit of that page due to referencing issues. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Larkana Institute of Nuclear Medicine and Radiotherapy, Larkana[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The press coverage received lacked depth or significance, failing to meet the WP:GNG. I don't see it passing WP:ORG either —Saqib (talk | contribs) 14:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 14:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 19:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I don't still get what you call PR. Though it may seem, but can't we check WP:BEFORE or any other way. This dawn.com author is a reporter per the articles written for the reliable news source. There is this from GBooks. In a search on news, I got many pop ups.here. All these are resourceful ways of checking the credibility of an article particularly to this one that focuses on Cancer(pharmaceutical) perhaps or whatever. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 13:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Lovari (musician)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to have any notable or significant credits. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 03:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 03:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

References for Lovari on Wheel Of Fortune (2023): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV8rMTIQ2C0

https://bobbymgsk.wordpress.com/2023/02/01/wheel-of-fortune-1-31-23/

References for Lovari on Judge Jerry Springer (2022):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U78Iy9fFQkc

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt25965282/releaseinfo/

https://followmy.tv/episodes/2487792/judge-jerry/3x104/103

References for Lovari on Match Game (2019):

https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/match-game-season-four-viewer-votes/

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5672484/characters/nm2102281

References for Lovari in The Barn 2 (2022):

https://dailydead.com/horror-highlights-8-found-dead-the-harbinger-the-barn-part-ii/

https://hellhorror.com/movies/the-barn-part-ii-movie-7804.html

https://podcasts.apple.com/es/podcast/trhs-random-chat-with-lovari/id1539578136?i=1000641962062

https://getoutmag.com/lovari-5/ 98.109.154.93 (talk) 04:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I added filmography and television appearances of the subject that reflect current dates through May 2024. 170.212.0.95 (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

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.

Albert Tjåland[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Albert Tjåland (2nd nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This succumbed to an AFD before, but since then it has been recreated due to "coverage in international media". It happened at a time when the player was looking to be moving up in the football hierarchy, but with all due respect to the player, the career has stagnated, which I think allows us to see the subject in a clearer light. In an encyclopedic sence, Albert Tjåland fails WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:SUSTAINED, WP:TOOSOON, WP:SIRS and as a consequence WP:SPORTCRIT.

ABT was a child whom international media took a novelty interest to.
His football career has not panned out. He plays on the fourth tier, has never played a league game for a first team, only reaching as far as appearing 6 times on Bryne's bench - as well as playing a cup game for Molde, which for WP:PEACOCK reasons is called "a professional debut". Nothing he has done remotely resembles a significant accomplishment within sport.
While there was coverage in many countries, there reports about various accomplishments in children's games lack significance, and was all the more packed with speculation and hot air. A big breakthrough is not currently looming on the horizon, and while it might of course happen one day, we have the too soon guideline for a reason.
The press coverage was exclusively motivated by him having a famous relative. Albert and Erling have similar names and likenesses, and joined the same club (Molde) as a youth player. Take the relative out of the equation, and what are you left with? Notability is not inherited from relatives. Geschichte (talk) 09:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Norway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Keep, passes GNG with significant coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no significant coverage, just churnalism. As I took the time to explain why I think so above, I think you should explain your view as well. Geschichte (talk) 07:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep - Per Ortizesp. Young player with ongoing career with pro Norwegian top flight team and many good sources already. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment. My further thoughts are that the keep opinions are annulled by their lack of explanation and non-existing response as to the nomination statement, which detailed a failure of several policies. "significant coverage" and "many good sources" are unfounded opinions; "ongoing career with pro Norwegian top flight team" is false, Tjåland has an ongoing career with a semi-pro B team on the fourth tier. Geschichte (talk) 07:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input please, especially please provide the significant coverage alleged
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Each of the keep assertions in this process make claims of notability. Let's examine those claims: 1) Passes WP:GNG with WP:Significant coverage? The burden is on those wanting to keep, and this page is wanting sourcing which directly details, as WP:SPORTSPERSON requires. 2) Young player with ongoing career with pro Norwegian top flight team and many good sources? So what? None of those adjectives or sources directly details the subject in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. We have stats and routine sportsnews mostly linked to a relative. This is a biography for a living person. Delete. BusterD (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Leinster Chess Leagues[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Leinster Chess Leagues article, and the articles I am combining in my nomination below that represent to tropies of the different leagues for the main article, fail the test of independent notability for each article and further, these articles are large WP:NOTDATABASE violations and full of WP:OR. This content would be better suited on the website of the organization and not Wikipedia as the pages often boil down to league rules and not secondary independent coverage.

Also nomintated for deletion:

Thanks, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 15:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Games, Organizations, and Ireland. Skynxnex (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
I have written a reply in the Talk page attached to this article. If you cannot read that reply I will copy it here. With thanks, sincerely JohnPDLoughran (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Comment. You should copy your reply here yourself. A closing admin may not (and is not necessarily expected to) search for comments placed outside the AfD discussion thread. You could consider leaving out the parts, of your comment, which are unrelated to the concerns raised in the AfD nomination. Guliolopez (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@JohnPDLoughran are you associated at all with the Leinster Chess Leagues or any of their associated divisions? microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 20:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Dear Marcus, copying my reply here as directed. Please excuse me as I am new to editing Wikipedia, and was confused as to where to post it. Some of the help files are confusing and mention the Talk area as a way to respond. Can I ask, should I prepend this reply with something like {{MicrobiologyMarcus}}? Here is my edited reply and answer to your query.

I was shocked to see that you were recommending the deletion of a large number of articles relating to chess in Ireland. These are valuable resources not only of current but also of historic interest, albeit to a small population of chess players. The Leinster Chess Leagues page links the different articles including one on the Armstrong Cup which I read with interest. It started in 1888 and may be one of the oldest such competitions in the world. The information in these articles is supported by two independent Irish chess history websites which are not affiliated to the Leinster Leagues. They quote many independent sources of information including newspaper articles, one written in 1888. If you delete these articles you will delete a valuable resource. Because the chess playing population is so small it is difficult to source more independent references, although I am continuing to work on this with collaborators, and I would be glad of advice on ways to improve this. Needless to say I am new to publishing in an encyclopaedia. One of the articles which first spurred my interest was the article on Chess in the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Regarding my links with the Leinster Chess Union. Firstly I am a player on a team that competes in the leagues, and currently the chairperson of Skerries Chess Club. I have no official membership of the LCU. Our club pays them a small fee to participate in the leagues each year. While it is true that Skerries did win the BEA Cup one year, it was before I was a member, so I had no personal interest in writing that first article. I added the article on the Leinster Chess Leagues after that simply to link various articles on each league together, and to avoid duplication of material within each league article. The reason I wrote the article on the BEA Cup was that we were given it by accident. Because it was a cup which had been donated in 1972 and passed from club to club since then and miraculously survived I felt it was worthy of note, so I did quite a lot of research, still ongoing, to discover the winners each season and record them in the article as well as taking a picture of this, in my opinion, priceless artefact, before getting its base repaired. I am of course open to suggestions as to how to improve the articles (BEA Cup or Leagues article) but I would be deeply disappointed to see these articles disappear, even moreso if their deletion was to have a knock on effect of causing the deletion of other valuable articles, which I had no hand in writing, on the other Leauges: Armstrong etc. With thanks, yours sincerely JohnPDLoughran (talk) 08:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment: The two independent sources in the article are WP:BLOGS and are therefore not reliable. I was able to find a few brief news items in the Irish Independent: [9] [10], but it doesn't seem like quite enough on its own to demonstrate notability for the leagues, much less for the individual divisions. I would either redirect everything to Irish Chess Union#Team competitions or otherwise redirect/merge the divisions into the Leinster Chess Leagues article. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
I just saw that the blogs cited old newspapers. If these sources can be confirmed, the individual divisions might very well be notable. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Given that there are several titles here to consider, my own recommendation is to:

Delete O'Sullivan Cup. This article, on the seventh (childrens?) tier of an amateur/regional chess competition, doesn't have sufficient reliable sources to even support its text. Not to mind a claim to notability. Under any applicable criteria. (The article itself states that there aren't sufficient sources to establish what happened in relatively recent runnings of the competition. I mean, we're relying on this random picture to "guess" that the people (children?) pictured might have come third in 2015? Seriously?)
Delete BEA Cup. This article, on the fifth tier of an amateur/regional chess competition, doesn't have sufficient sources to support its text. The author (within the text) states that there aren't even sources to establish who won the competition on any given year. That we reliant upon "reading the engravings off a cup" (and using that as a basis for content AND justification a stand-alone article) is a very clear indication that WP:SIGCOV is not met. By a significant margin. The thing (the cup) cannot be a reference for itself or represent coverage of itself. It's just backwards and bizarre.
Redirect Armstrong Cup, Heidenfeld Trophy and Ennis Shield. And maybe O'Hanlon Cup. Either to Leinster Chess Leagues (if that title is kept). Or to Irish_Chess_Union#Team competitions (if not). Similar to the above, I have significant concerns with the reliability and accuracy of the sources and content in those articles. And do not see any justification for the project being a WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTWEBHOST repo for previous winners of these amateur regional chess competitions. However, there is some limited coverage - to just about justify a redirect as an WP:ATD. And to mention the competitions WP:WITHIN the target article. For example, the Armstrong Cup is mentioned (almost always in passing and always/only in regional newspapers), in places like this, this and this. Which could justify covering it in either the Leinster Chess Leagues or Irish Chess Union articles. And perhaps leaving a redirect.
Weak keep Leinster Chess Leagues (or redirect to Irish_Chess_Union#Competitions). While I'm not swayed by the creator's arguments ("I'm shocked", "It's useful", "supported by 2x special interest websites"), there is a small smattering of limited coverage in some local sources. Like this, this and this or this. If kept, as a standalone title, the article needs significant work however.

My 2x cents anyway. FWIW. Guliolopez (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Source assessment with many, many thanks to @Guliolopez for collecting a list of sources. I want to preface this by saying I am trying to be fair and impartial and stave off concerns that I am attacking a particular chess league or its members and, should the evidence arrive that any or all of the articles I nominated are WP:Notable, I will gladly change my vote. Please let me know, I would be happy to add to the following table. As it stands, I still believe the articles are a violation of WP:NOTDATABASE and would need to be reworked, but I am a big believer in WP:THREE. With that said:

Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:MicrobiologyMarcus
"Garden squad win promotion". Irish Independent. 4 April 2012.		coverage about a team winning a match to advance to the Ennis Shield, a part of Leinster Chess league, does not surpass trivial coverage of either of those subjects.	✘ No
"Chess Club". Irish Independent. 11 March 2009.		? I would evaluate this as significant coverage of the tournament/event, I don't now if I would consider that coverage to be of the league itself, or if coverage of this extent would be inherited to the organization, such to meet WP:NCORP	? Unknown
"Chess club wins promotion to division two after dramatic final round of matches". Irish Independent. 14 June 2023.		as the first, coverage is of a club with trivial mentions of Leinster Chess League and Ennis Shield	✘ No
"It's checkmate for local club at Leinster Finals". Irish Independent. 11 May 2011.		? I would say this may meet SIGCOV of Leinster Chess Championships, which again is not the leagues. The extend of the coverage of that in the article is The cup was first competed for as far back as 1912 and has been won by a distinguished list of top Irish chess players over the years. The rest is, as before, coverage of the tournament/event with the same inheritance concerns.	? Unknown
"Chess club move into history books". Irish Independent. 24 April 2003.		subject of the coverage is again a club with passing trivial mentions of Heidenfeld trophy and Armstrong Cup	✘ No
"Chess mates descend on Bray". Irish Independent. 17 March 2010.		? strongest argument for SIGCOV of the tournamentevent articles in my opinion, coverage of the 203-word article is split equally among the event and then between the season structure of Leinster Chess Union League ("The league begins in September every year and lasts until March.") and the history of Armstrong Cup ("...new owners of the infamous Armstrong Cup, which was first presented in the 1888-1889 league, therefore making it one of the oldest sporting competitions in Ireland.")	? Unknown
"Chess club has come a long way over 25 years". Irish Independent. 3 August 2005.	interview with a member club member	? this is definetly SIGCOV of a club with probably acceptable mentions of Leinster Leagues ("...in the Leinster Leagues that run from September to March each year.")	✘ No
"Chess Club finally secure Ennis Shield". Irish Independent. 8 May 2002.		coverage of a club with mentions of the Ennis Shield, same inheritance concerns with all tournament/event articles, but even weaker argument here as the article itself isn't about the event.	✘ No
"Your weekly sporting club notes". Irish Independent. 3 October 2006.		trivial coverage of the tournament/event Heidenfeld Shield mentioned, nothing in depth about subject or organization	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I would gladly add to the above table if sources are provided, or if you believe my assessment of any of the above are wrong, I would be happy to discuss. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 17:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Given all the sources and analysis done to date in the table, I feel the like strongest !keep argument would be to have a Leinster Chess Union League as that seems to be the most frequently used identifier of the WP:NCORP, but I think this would come down to how strong the passing mentions are of the leagues in the event coverage above, and whether the coverage of the event is WP:Inherited to the Chess Union League itself or not, and whether the coverage satisfies as significant; I'm leaning no, based on my reading of WP:SIGCOV:

Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.

but I would understand where this might be interpreted differently here. Given that, then all the other articles could be redirects (see WP:CHEAP) and the ones which are sourced by only event coverage could have their own sections on the main article. I think that would be the strongest possible argument for keep, however, given the current references. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

A chess blog website claims that newspapers such as the Irish Times and Irish Press have written some sort of coverage about the various leagues decades ago, e.g. for the Branagan Cup. I have no idea what this coverage looks like, whether it's also trivial, etc. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. With respect to WP:OFFLINE, I can't help but feel as if these were present and properly cited in the article, they would be suitable, but to mass copy and paste them into an article from their collection on the organisation's website feels less-than-inline with WP:V. Given the context of the page, I would suspect someone has gone back (probably very labouriously) to compile the records and statistics of the page, but I doubt they are significant coverage of the organisation itself in such a manner to establish WP:NCORP. They would, however, be suitable to cite the (probably WP:NOTDATABASE violation that is the laundry) list of past winners, in such a manner to satisfy WP:OR concerns—that is, the ones that cite news articles and not tweets. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 20:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

keep/merge my sense of the source analysis is we have enough coverage for the topic to have an article. I'm not sure which article title is best. We do have reason to believe there are offline sources too. For now I'd say keep Leinster Chess Leagues and merge the rest (a couple sentences at most for all but the Armstrong Cup) into it. I'm happy to take an expansive view of this article having coverage count that covers those various topics... Hobit (talk) 11:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep main page, merge and redirect cups, stubify to verifiable facts: As the nom, I think I'm the only hold questioning notability. For consensus, I would concede notability for the main league given the breadth of coverage, in spite of my SIGCOV concerns above. I think altogether these pages should be merged to the main article, the cup pages redirected, and the articles signifcantly reduced to simply contain facts and not the long NOTDATABASE violations. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Marcos loyalist rallies[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOT a repository of links. This isn't really an article, it is a statement and some links. I've approached the editor with some help on his talk page. Note there is also a Draft version by the same editor. The editor seems to have a history of just adding lists of links in articles rather than citations or prose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Having an article of demos that routinely end without much incident is no more notable than having to tally other rallies by groups in other sides of the political spectrum. Borgenland (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Perfectly fine stub that helpfully lists sources that can be used for future expansion. The cited sources (including from The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and The Washington Post, so not just local coverage) clearly indicate that these demonstrations were considered notable at the time, and notability is not temporary. "Too many links" is not a valid reason for deletion and probably if they weren't there there'd be complaints about lack of references – it's a wonder people still bother writing articles. – Joe (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Comment I can't access all the sources in this article, but the ones I can read are about specific rallies rather than the treatment of all these linked rallies as an overarching topic. They seem, at least from the sources I read, to be disparate and not directly related, not "a series" as the article asserts. At least one does not even seem to be about a rally. What connects these various sources is the wider topic of post-People Power Marcos loyalism, which found (and continues to find I suppose) a number of outlets of expression. The hardest expression is covered in Coup attempts against Corazon Aquino, one aspect is covered in Historical distortion regarding Ferdinand Marcos. Ferdinand Marcos's cult of personality skips straight over this period, although it seems likely very relevant to that article topic. All that is to say that there is a broader topic here for which we don't seem to have a broad topic article, and it is not clear whether this perhaps slightly synthy coverage of the rallies works as an independent subtopic within that. CMD (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

That is kind of my point, that this is just a collection of links that aren't directly relatable as a coherent topic. Is there an article that can be written on the topic? Maybe, but it would be completely rewritten to provide a notable "overarching topic". For starters, you would need sources talking about the rallies as a whole, not just individual rallies. Leaving as is, it is just a list of links. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

At a brief look I couldn't find sources on the rallies as a whole, but teasing out a specific topic among the broader Marcos corpus is not easy so I'm not putting too much stock in that, they may exist somewhere. I will note that it would be a shame to lose the collected sources. Some of them would fit on Ferdinand Marcos's cult of personality, filling that odd gap, for the others though I'm not sure if we have something more specific than History of the Philippines (1986–present). CMD (talk) 01:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

You could always copy the links over to the talk page of the history of the Philippines article, and I would probably make a note in the summary as to the editor's name that provided them for attribution since this may get deleted. I wouldn't say there is enough to merge or draftify but that is how I would save the links if you think they are worth exploring. Farmer Brown - 2¢ (alt: Dennis Brown) 05:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

In that case wouldn't it make more sense to upmerge or rename it? Something like Marcos loyalism? – Joe (talk) 07:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

If there was substantial or unique content, then perhaps, but there isn't (the article is one sentence), and there aren't sources to link it together as a single topic to pass GNG. I think you have to start with sources that at least tie the concepts together to have a broad topic that is "notable" first, then fill in the blanks with these kinds of sources that cover the individual events. The individual links might have value somewhere, but it would require WP:OR to stitch them together into this article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jake Wartenberg (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Gauda–Gupta War[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If the article focuses solely on the conflicts between the Gauda kingdom and the Guptas, it lacks WP:RS and historians do not consider these mutual campaigns as a single state of war, known as the "Gauda—Gupta War(s)". If we include the mutual conflicts between the Guptas and Gaudas in the article's scope, it becomes a result of original research and the synthesis of multiple conflicts. The conflicts involving Ishanavarman, Jivitagupta I, and Gopachandra are mentioned, but figures such as Kumaragupta III, Dharmaditya, and Samacharadeva are not addressed in the War section, but in the infobox. Upon reviewing the sources, authors are uncertain about the statements, with a weak consensus. In essence, the article combines non-notable military conflicts, cited by low-quality sources, involving different kingdoms—the Maukhari dynasty and the Later Gupta dynasty—against the Gauda kingdom, and labels it as the "Gauda—Gupta War". It adds minor conflicts to create the impression of significance, which is not justified. The article fails to meet GNG and contains original research. There are significant issues to address, AFD is limiting the discourse. Imperial ^[AFCND] 13:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Bangladesh, and India. Imperial ^[AFCND] 13:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep @ImperialAficionado There's no synthesis and OR, every cited source comes to the conclusion that Maukharis and later Guptas fought against Gaudas on behalf of the Gupta emperor.

It's quite likely that the war of Ishanavarman against the Gaudas whom he had forced to take shelter on the sea shore and the victory of Jivitagupta I over the enemies who stood on the sea-shore, refer to the expeditions launched by the Maukharis and the Later Guptas, separately or jointly, against the kings of Bengal discussed above who had declared their independence of the empire and had assumed the imperial title. Probably, the Maukhari and the Later Gupta rulers undertook these campaigns in the name of the Gupta emperor who was their nominal overlord, though their success increased their own power, and not of the emperor. From Goyal (1967).

The people of Gauda (W. Bengal) also achieved prominence, and a Maukhari chief claims to have defeated them. The Later Guptas also fought against some enemies who lived on the sea-shore. The reference in both cases may be to the kings of Bengal mentioned above, and the military campaigns of the Maukharis and the Later Guptas might have been undertaken, jointly or severally, on behalf of the Gupta emperor, their nominal overlord. Majumdar (1970).

Quoting these two should be enough. The other sources are right there, you should have thoroughly verified it before proposing AFD for this article. According to nom it's cited with low quality sources seriously? As far as I know the works of S.R. Goyal, R.C. Majumdar, K.K Dasgupta, H.K Barpujari and others are qualitatively reliable. If nom has any doubt for the cited sources then they should verify those at RSN.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonharojjashi (talk • contribs)

@Jonharojjashi, cited with low quality sources is referring my earlier statement in the proposal authors are uncertain about the statements, with a weak consensus, take the time to read the whole proposal reason. The weakness of the statements from the sources are evident from the above quotes, presented by yourself above. It's quite likely that...Probably, the Maukhari and the Later Gupta rulers un... from Goyal and The reference in both cases may be to the kings of Bengal mentioned above...and the Later Guptas might have been undertaken, jointly or from Majumdar. Keeping this weak statements aside, surprisingly I couldn't find any latest records about the event(s).--Imperial ^[AFCND] 17:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

If that's the issue then the article body should reflect the sources whether they have "weak consensus" or not. And that is what I have done in The War section. From what I have seen, many articles are made after being based on even less consensus, like Sasanian–Kushan Wars, you should also see my question regarding this at the help desk [11], and here the sources do say "possibly" so I can do the same in Infobox and article body (basically I'm reflecting what the sources say). Again I don't get what the problem is, just because sources hold weak consensus thus they are of low quality? And you didn't answer where does it contains synthesis and OR. Looks like you didn't even read the article and verify it with the cited sources and stuck to the possilikely words. -- Jonharojjashi (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Dear. That's why I said AFD is limiting the discourse, I need a bigger space to expose the whole mess within the article. And no need to drag Sasanian–Kushan Wars here. Take that to the respective talk section if you have any problem with it. Imperial ^[AFCND] 17:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

No that should not be a reason, AFD is what exactly for highlighting all the cons of the article, there's no limiting discourse. Just say you can't show where this article contains synthesis, OR and weak sources. You're free to expose any drawbacks of this page. There's no need to be in the grey area. I'd assume that you're either procrastinating or failing to prove your points.

I'm not dragging Sasanian–Kushan Wars here instead, I cleared your doubts regarding "weak consensus" through it. Don't just throw away it by saying no need to drag.

For other voters: Note that there's an AFD discussion going on their own page [12] and also note that the nom hasn't clearly provided anything to show this article holds any OR, synthesis and weak sources. Jonharojjashi (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete Another WP:SYNTH mess. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Two reliable sources that I can verify the content on the page are from historians R. C. Majumdar and K.K. Dasgupta. Some other sources though are from historians like Sailendra Nath Sen but I can not verify them. Taking the two reliable sources that help with verification, I feel this page passes the general notability guidelines. RangersRus (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

List of television programmes broadcast by ITV[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails NOTDIRECTORY/NOTTVGUIDE. List criteria is programming "that are either currently being broadcast or have previously been broadcast", Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide, current or historical. Fails NLIST, no independent reliable sources discuss this as a group. BEFORE found programing schedules, nothing more. List has grown so much is it hard to tell if any of it is original programming, BEFORE did not find sources showing original programming discussed as a group. // Timothy :: talk 07:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete: As per nominator. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 13:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep - Refer to Category:Lists of television series by network. Generally speaking, most of them list the programs they carry, and have no sourcing. Most of them are also kept current if programs are added or dropped. There are literally hundreds of stations involved, if not thousands of stations and programs involved. If anyone disagrees with how it's handled, I'd suggest discussing it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. — Maile (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment A couple of comments on the nomination. For those more familiar with television elsewhere, the UK traditionally only had a very small number of TV broadcasters - the ITV group was one of two from 1955 to 1982, the other being the BBC. So there is a lot of original programming in that list - prior to 1982, about half of the UK's locally-originated TV programming was made by one of the ITV companies. In terms of reliable sources discussing this as a group, one I'd suggest is Asa Briggs' The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom, Volume V: Competition, which has a lengthy chapter (Audiences and Programmes (1955-1960), pp141-255) discussing the early development of ITV programming across a range of genres and contrasting it with BBC TV in the same period. Adam Sampson (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Unzela Khan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It appears the subject doesn't meet the WP:JOURNALIST or WP:AUTHOR, as their works don't seem noteworthy enough. The press coverage in WP:RS also not significant or in depth enough, so fails to meet WP:GNG. Does not satisfy WP:N —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Pakistan, and United Kingdom. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Television, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete the article is not noteworthy.

Crosji (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Or better to be moved to the draft Kotebeet (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep: I disagree with the nominator. A British Muslim Awards recipient is already qualified for a Wikipedia entry per WP:ANYBIO and from the article was cited to a reliable source per WP:RS. Also, as a journalist of a notable newspaper or TV which she was for Huffpost give us assurance of passing WP:JOURNALIST. She also wrote a book which is notable enough to qualify WP:NAUTHOR. What's then needed for an article? Not being braid doesn't mean it came be a standalone article. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Courtesy ping to @Saqib, @Crosji, and @Kotebeet for the argument per se. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I so saw so may PR but was able to get reliable ones. See here and here. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
SafariScribe, I'm curious about how she meets the WP:JOURNALIST criteria simply for working at Huffpost. The policy doesn't say anything like this. Additionally, is writing just one book sufficient to meet WP:NAUTHOR? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
One book which is reviewed by reliable sources is considered as notable. But may not require a article. However, we usually have problem when journalists wrote about others as few or less writing about them, in other way, winning an award for such excellence in media is part of both ANYBIO and JOURNALISM. While these are additional criteria, the article generally meets our general notability guidelines where being cited to reliable sources, verifiable and significantly covered per WP:SIGCOV. Even as there isn't any fact for such, a redirect should have served better not only when she won a major award and a book mistake reviewed. Let's be truthful herein and ignore certain additional essays. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete, because the article raises concerns regarding its credibility due to several factors: 1) Excessive Referencing: With only six sentences, the presence of ten references seems disproportionate. This abundance of citations may suggest an attempt to over-validate the content rather than provide genuine support for the points made. 2) Questionable Contributor: The primary contributor, "User:Kotebeet," [contributed approximately 80% of the content], is no longer active on the platform. This raises doubts about the reliability and verifiability of the information provided, as there is no way to verify the expertise or credibility of the contributor.--Crosji (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
@Crosji, you are wrong here. I disagree that an AFD process requires the author except in major cases like undisclosed WP:UPE or thereabout. I am asking you do look at the article by our process of inclusion; WP:GNG. If you have any issue with the creator, then face them. I can't find any argument you're making besides you vote says "not noteworthy". Meaning? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
@Crosji, also there is no issue of WP:REFBOMB here. I don't seem to understand your statement This raises doubts about the reliability and verifiability of the information provided, as there is no way to verify the expertise or credibility of the contributor, when a creator doesn't require anything on whether to delete an article or keep them. However, this is a process and you can't vote twice. Do remove any of the votes. Thanks! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Focus on policy, not issues that can be addressed via editing and Crosji, please strike your duplicate vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Adi Oasis[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has been moved disruptively by the creator that has COI without improvements since last decline, so I am taking this to AfD. I cannot tell whether this passes notability, but as I can tell from the comments of the reviewers. Before search shows primarily stories on her releasing songs and albums, and sources listed are rather mostly interviews and videos. Toadette^Edit! 15:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep: Sources 2, 3 and 4 are listed as RS. Seems ok, some PROMO concerns but we can edit those out of the article. Oaktree b (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Micro (text editor)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Besides one potentially WP:RS on the article, I wouldn't consider this article to pass WP:GNG. "[D]esigned around simplicity and ease of use" also makes the article quite promotional. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The promotional wording wasn't intentional. Anyhow in the context of WP:NSOFT, having 20k stars on GitHub and coverage in Linux Magazine and many other FOSS-focused sites makes it notability imo. Wqwt (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep: has decent coverage in Linux Magazine, ItsFoss, HowToGeek, and MakeUseOf. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm inclined to add a single sentence on GNU nano and redirect there. I don't think the sourcing is quite sufficent to justify a separate article yet. Github stars aren't really something we can write an article from, and how to guides aren't that great either, and that, rather than a measure of how significant or important something is, is what "notability" means here. A single sentence shouldn't be too undue either Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
The sourcing seems comparable to say Geany or Kate or Code::Blocks. Surely you would consider Linux Magazine a RS. Is there a consensus on itsFoss as a source? MakeUseOf seems to be a borderline case. In the context of FOSS applications, which are still niche in coverage compared to Windows and Mac programs, there is extensive coverage here. Wqwt (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
I am not aware of any prior consensus regarding It's FOSS either on RSN or elsewhere, but based on their about page and what I know of them, they're a group blog, not something that has a formal editorial review process. Not that I would be unhappy if this is kept, either also as no consensus or outright, I just don't think there is sufficient consensus for a carve out for FOSS from the usual coverage based requirements. Though, to be honest, I'm fairly sure most Windows and Mac programs wouldn't be notable either. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete: The Linux Magazine link is the only applied or presented source which in my opinion passes RS (and it's not that great as direct detailing). The FOSS, HowToGeek, and MakeUseOf are not reliable sources because they are providing software usage instructions, not a directly detailing product review or coverage of the product or producer. My reasonable BEFORE finds nothing better. BusterD (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Maicol Azzolini[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Italian rugby player who fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I found this interview and a couple of transactional announcements (1, 2, 3), but nothing substantial. JTtheOG (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Italy. JTtheOG (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep I think there is just about enough here to suggest a WP:GNG pass. Obviously a lot of team announcements and transactional stuff, but there are a few bits in there that could pass WP:GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Aida Vee[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

lack of notability. little to no 3rd party articles detailing artist Minmarion (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Music, Africa, and Uganda. Minmarion (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep: Seems to have enough sources to satisfy the WP:GNG criteria. ([13][14][15]). GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Cooperative web[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found technical papers using the term "cooperative web" in a few different ways (e.g. as an extension to the semantic web), but this article refers to one or more attempts to create a collaborative real-time editor, particularly IBM's Blue Spruce project and its obscure successor OpenCoWeb. It might be possible to create an article about Blue Spruce, but this article's title and content are not appropriate for such an article. There's also the older, wiki-inspired collaborative service CoWeb, which stands for "Collaborative website", but this service is unrelated to IBM's project. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Violin Sonata in B minor[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This disambiguation page is redundant of Sonata in B minor, which was originally at this title before a page move. The redirect was then reverted. The two sonatas listed here are already covered at Sonata in B minor (a broader disambiguation page). Additionally, one of the sonatas listed here (Sonata in B minor (Atterberg)) is only a partial-title match because it is generically for strings, not solely for violin. I propose restoring the redirect. I am also nominating the following page for redirecting as well since it is also redundant:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Disambiguations. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Sonata in B minor to avoid duplicate list. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep all. None of them is a duplicate of another. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree that they're not duplicates, but they are redundant. Additionally, as I noted, the Violin Sonata DAB page contains just two entries, and one is a partial-title match that's already covered at Sonata in B minor; I've also reorganized the broader DAB page into sections. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I still think that the Piano one is needed and I therefore do not mind the violin one. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
(But the latter could be a simple redirect maybe). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Why not just have the piano one redirect to Sonata in B minor § Piano sonatas in B minor? voorts (talk/contributions) 18:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Because /Sonata in B minor/ primary "super-topic" (in which, Liszt's one is obviously the most notable, ie the primary topic) are the Piano ones imw. Rephrasing: when one searches "Sonata in B minor", it's a piano sonata one is most likely searching, and, very probably, Liszt's, so that it is clearer, in my opinion, to have the piano ones on one page (with a See also for the sonatas for other instruments). I hope I am making sense. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

So basically you want to merge Sonata in B minor into Piano Sonata in B minor? If that's the case, I don't see why that's necessary, since the current Sonata in B minor page accomplishes that. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
If the Liszt piece is the primary topic, then Sonata in B minor's intro can be rewritten as follows:
The '''[[Piano Sonata in B minor (Liszt)|]]''' was completed by Franz Liszt in 1853 and published in 1854.
'''Sonata in B minor''' may also refer to:
Since all of the non-piano pieces have an article title with "Sonata in B minor", they should not be in the see also section of the piano DAB page since they are valid entries on the more general DAB page. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
To clarify: I do not wish the non-piano instruments individual articles mentioned in the See also section of the Piano sonata DISAMB, my phrasing was misleading, sorry, just the Disamb page for sonatas for other instruments. Having two (or three) DISAMB pages seems at least as good as having 1 in the present case. Hence my K !vote.

If you wish to restore the REDIR for the Violin one, why not? but again, I'd rather have a Piano DISAMB and a General DISAMB.

Even regarding the Violin DISAMB, the violin/harpsichord sonata (in B minor) BWV 1014 is sometimes referred to as "violin sonata in B minor" (a misleading but common wording for sonatas for keyboard+ x instrument, when they aren't sonatas for x solo) and could be mentioned there (hence 3 articles). Anyway, decide for the best. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
I get what you're saying. I still think it makes more sense for readers to have one DAB with everything in proper sections, rather than multiple DAB pages. This would also things easier to maintain for editors. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I don't see a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Redirect both to Sonata in B minor. There's zero reason to have two different DA pages which include identical subjects. One unified DA page dovetails better with WP:Disambiguation guidelines than multiple redundant entries. BusterD (talk) 01:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Rahaman Abiola[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NJOURNALIST and generally WP:GNG. Sources are either announcing him as new editor-in-chief of Legit.ng, passing mentions or dependent on the subject. Being Reuters-trained, or working with other Nigerian media outlets, etc, isn't a credible claim of notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Even though notability is not inherited, Rahaman's contribution to the media space is evident here as his writings are used as a reference to several Wikipedia articles. As a known journalist, Rahaman is seen working for notable media houses like Legit.ng, Medium, Sahara Reporters, Nigerian Tribune, TheCable, Tuko, YNaija, BusinessDay Nigeria, The Media Online, Dubawa, Business Post Nigeria, The Paradigm and Theindustry.ng as seen on his verified Muck Rack page here. He is recognized by Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siagoddess (talk • contribs) 22:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Yet, these do not automatically confer GNG or JOURNALIST on him. For the former, there are several journalists whose publications in the media are being used on Wikipedia, that doesn't automatically make them notable. for the latter, these are all his employers/clients, etc, and still doesn't count towards GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Comment: @Vanderwaalforces, the entity passes criteria 1 of WP:NJOURNALIST as he is cited as a source for most Wikipedia pages as stated earlier. That alone confirms his notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siagoddess (talk • contribs) 23:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Internet, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete: BLP. Fails GNG and NBIO. The sources in the article and above do not meet WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found material failing WP:IS, and name mentions, nothing that meets SIRS from independent non-promotional sources addressing the subject indepth. // Timothy :: talk 09:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Source eval:

Comments	Source
Interview, fails WP:IS	1. "Award-winning Journalist, Rahaman Abiola Shares Tips for Creating Quality Stories -". primusmediacity.com. 18 April 2022. Retrieved 2024-04-03.
Routine mill news, fails WP:IS fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	2. ^ Obi, Daniel (2024-03-20). "INMA appoints Legit.ng's Editor-in-Chief Rahaman Abiola into its Africa Advisory Council Board". Businessday NG. Retrieved 2024-03-27.
Routine mill news, fails WP:IS fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	3. ^ Jump up to:a b Ola (2023-04-24). "Legit.ng gets new Editor-in-Chief, Head of Desk". I-79 Media Consults. Retrieved 2024-03-28.
Nothing about subject, fails WP:SIGCOV	4. ^ Toromade, Samson (2023-06-14). "Nigeria Health Watch lands over 250 solutions journalism stories in 2 years". Pulse Nigeria. Retrieved 2024-03-28.
Routine mill news, fails WP:IS fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	5. ^ Mix, Pulse (2024-03-20). "INMA appoints Legit.ng's Editor-in-Chief Abiola to Africa Advisory Council". Pulse Nigeria. Retrieved 2024-04-03.
Routine mill news, fails WP:IS fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	6. ^ Tosin, Alamu (2023-04-12). "Legit.ng Appoints New Editor-in-Chief, Head of Desk and Others". NGNews247. Retrieved 2024-05-09.
Routine mill news, fails WP:IS fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	7. ^ INMA appoints Legit.ng's Rahaman Abiola into its Africa Advisory Council Board.
Name mentioned in list, nothing meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subjeect directly and indepth	8. ^ "INMA: Africa Advisory Committee". www.inma.org. Retrieved 2024-05-09.

BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 09:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded Keep here and also if it gets deleted as a Soft Deletion, I have a feeling it will automatically be restored. Let's get some more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep - Entity featured on notable news websites, held talks on globally recognized platforms for journalist and his works are widely recognized. --Siagoddess (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete: source analysis from User:TimothyBlue is compelling and my reasonable BEFORE doesn't help. User:Siagoddess is the page creator and I'm not seeing anybody else asserting keep here. BusterD (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Per rationale by VWF, Timothy and BursterD. Best, Reading Beans 13:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

List of songs about Bangalore[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previous AFD was a mass nomination that ended in keep, for many reasons, except for the article's actual merits. Because there are none.

The deletion reason is the same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Ahmedabad, Madras, Oslo etc.: The list fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:LISTN and WP:OR. There is little to nothing worthwhile in this list, be it content or context. Geschichte (talk) 08:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and Karnataka. Shellwood (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Neutral None of these songs have their own articles, but some of the people singing them do, and the films they are in do as well. Dream Focus 03:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete Not a notable subject. The list shall never end. Shankargb (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Chak 15 DNB[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Non-notable village. Article is completely unsourced, and there isn't any evidence of notability either. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment I have added the GPS coordinates from Google Maps. The place does exist (and has buildings), but I can't find any good online sources about the location. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Lya Stern[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is mainly a resume. Most of the sources in the article consist of dead links from websites that are related to Lya Stern; the rest of the sources either have brief mentions of her or don't mention her at all. After doing a Google search to see if there were sources that could be added to the article, the only significant coverage I found of her was from a website that listed Wikipedia as a source. The rest of the information I found was from her YouTube channel and mentions of her from her students. As a result, she doesn't met WP:GNG or WP:NBLP. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 20:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Romania, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, California, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Comment One source via Newspapers.com goes into some depth. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete (Weak) - There is a big gap in WP on instrumental performers who have created the American musical/movie music scene, and in general the encyclopedia is too quick to delete (especially for women and minority performers), but here I think the AfD is correct. The Baltimore Sun article gives a bit of notability, but the other sources do not. A blurb on the back of one's teacher's independently published book is not enough. There needs to be more and I could not find anything that led to more than what a local performing teacher would have. Glad to be proven wrong. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 08:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep as there is a staff written bio at AllMusic here and an album review here to go with the detailed Baltimore Sun article linked earlier by Hameltion. Haven't done a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
What does Eudice Shapiro have to do with the subject of this article? That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 23:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Just agreeing with That Tired Tarantula above -- @Atlantic306 you have linked to reviews for a different musician. If Lya Stern had an Allmusic staff bio, that would be relevant, but I could not find one. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that, have struck my vote and comment. In my defence the erroneous AllMusic bio is the first reference in the article but I should have noticed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom lacks coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)