User:Snotbot/AfD's requiring attention

The page is now updated at User:Cyberbot I/AfD's requiring attention. Please change links accordingly. You can still see the table below.

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 01:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC).

AfD	Time to close	Votes	Size (bytes)	Score
Chloe Lewis (figure skater)	51 days ago	5	6366	2876.41
Battle of Ajmer	21 days ago	1	7137	1900.94
French ship Gapeau (B284)	37 days ago	9	11984	1882.84
Wilson, Indiana	21 days ago	2	6064	1737
Chip Merlin	20 days ago	3	12852	1608.02
Larkana Institute of Nuclear Medicine and Radiotherapy, Larkana	16 days ago	0	3681	1584.41
Albert Tjåland (2nd nomination)	19 days ago	4	7816	1545.9
List of television programmes broadcast by ITV (2nd nomination)	16 days ago	2	6307	1437.23
Unzela Khan	16 days ago	2	10318	1399.09
Micro (text editor)	16 days ago	3	6463	1370.2
Maicol Azzolini	14 days ago	1	3326	1354.15
Aida Vee	14 days ago	1	3376	1354.1
Cooperative web	13 days ago	0	3170	1351.99
Violin Sonata in B minor	16 days ago	3	9401	1349.81
List of songs about Bangalore (2nd nomination)	13 days ago	1	4294	1337.12
Chak 15 DNB	13 days ago	0	3307	1334.81
Lya Stern	15 days ago	2	5401	1326.31
Muhammad Saleh Thattvi	13 days ago	0	7462	1318.21
Lotu Filipine	13 days ago	1	4576	1304.62
Gonçalo Foro	13 days ago	1	3664	1303.1
Rahaman Abiola	16 days ago	4	9282	1297.18
Alley of the Dolls (band)	13 days ago	1	4551	1296.22
6th North Carolina Infantry Regiment	12 days ago	0	8138	1267.97
Supermium	14 days ago	2	5338	1237.73
Nick Capstick-Dale	11 days ago	0	3068	1215.5

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Withdrawn by nominator.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)

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 [1], 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 [2] 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; [3] 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)

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)

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)

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. ([4][5][6]). 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)

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)
Delete, without other sources than a map, it is not an encyclopedic article. Looking at the category, there is no precedent to create individual articles about the chaks in the district. If anything, they could be covered in a list. Geschichte (talk) 03:58, 27 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)

Muhammad Saleh Thattvi[edit]

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

Lack of notability. Only 1 source of any kind mentions Muhammad Salih Tatahwi (misspelled throughout wikipedia article). That would be Savage-Smith, Emilie; Belloli, Andrea P. A. (1985). "Islamicate Celestial Globes: Their History, Construction, and Use". Smithsonian Studies in History and Technology (46). Washington, D.C., where he gets barely a few sentences. The other sources cited do not mention him at all. Based on searches on google scholar, that one source is the only secondary source to mention him; all sources on google web search are derived from wikipedia. Also, as is, almost everything on the article is wrong, including the spelling of his name, his place of birth, and the time period he lived in, and what kind of globes he made, and it incorrectly places him in mathematician and astronomer categories. All other details are about other people and historical trends already covered elsewhere on wikipedia. Hi! (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Mathematics, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Comment. The subject here wrote his name in a different alphabet, for which there are multiple correct transliterations. (So, the correct spelling of his name is something like "محمد صالح التاتفي"; at least, that is what Google Translate gave to me.) If kept, we should use the most common transliteration. No strong opinion on notability; this could use the attention of a Persian, Arabic and/or Urdu speaker, as there may be be sources in those languages. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

For a brief article I think there's just enough material in the reference you indicated, to quote the main part of it:

Besides the Lahore family workshop, there was in the seventheenth century another maker in northwestern India who was producing globes that appear to be cast seamless globes. The instrument maker is known by three astrolabes and two globes (Nos. 25 and 29). On the earlier globe, executed in 1070 H/AD 1659-1660 at the request of a certain Shaykh cAbd al-Khaliq, the maker signed himself as Muhammad Salih Tatah-wi, while on the second globe, made in 1074 H/AD 1663-1664 he signs as Muhammad Salih Tatawi. The spelling of Tatah-wi, which uses quite unusual orthography, is probably an attempt on his part to indicate the pronunciation of the name, for with the second spelling one might be inclined to pronounce it Tatwi. It seems unlikely that he was actually from Tatta in the delta of the Indus river as some have suggested, since the name of the town is written with different characters and should more accurately be transliterated Thattha.

Both globes by Tatawi seem to be quite precise with full sets of constellation figures, though the available photographs of his earlier globe show little detail. Of special interest is the fact that the second globe has the names of the constellations and the signature written in both Arabic and in Sanskrit (see Figure 18, which also clearly shows a plug from the casting process). One might speculate that this maker perhaps worked in the Kashmir area, where at the end of the sixteenth century cAli Kashmiri ibn Luqman may have produced his apparently seamless metal globe. Kashmir was a region where Sanskrit was the language until replaced for official purposes by Persian in the late fifteenth century, and consequently might have been an area where a globe in both Arabic and Sanskrit would have been requested.

... The use of the word c_amal is usual with Diya al-Din of the Lahore workshop as well as later makers such as Muhammad Salih Tatawi of the seventeenth century, ...

There are also some details given on two of his globes (one in the Red Fort Archaeological Museum), and references are indicated to be present in Robert T. Gunther The astrolabes of the world and W. H. Morley Description of a Planispheric Astrolabe Constructed for Shah Sultan Husain Safawi, King of Persia, and Now Preserved in the British Museum; Comprising an Account of the Astrolabe Generally, with Notes Illustrative and Explanatory: to Which Are Added, Concise Notices of Twelve Other Astrolabes, Eastern and European, Hitherto Undescribed. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep as there are sources that mention the figure for it to be notable. However cleanup unsourced and poorly cited information.

SKAG123 (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Lotu Filipine[edit]

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

All available citations are profiles. Does not meet WP:NSPORT. Only one brief article exists [here https://www.looptonga.com/business/lotu-filipine-wins-500-cash-digicel-tonga-easter-promotion-91903], which is not enough. Shinadamina (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Sports. Shinadamina (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: the article I linked to, is not even about his career and may not be him. Shinadamina (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union, Japan, and Oceania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

There's also a sexual harassment incident when he was captain of the Tonga under-21 team [7]. There should be more on this, but it would require digging in NewzText, which I don't have access to. IdiotSavant (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep World Cup player and a simple search is bringing up WP:GNG passing coverage. There is likely more coverage offline also from the time of his career and locations of his playing career. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Please share 2 or 3 reliable sources that have in-depth coverage on the person. We cannot assume reliable sources from the past can be found. We need to find them. Appearances in World Cup are not sufficient, unless there is such a WP policy which I am not aware of. If so, please link to the said policy. Shinadamina (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 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!} 23:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Gonçalo Foro[edit]

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

All available citations are profiles. Does not meet WP:NSPORT. Shinadamina (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, and Portugal. Shinadamina (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep Extensive career, albeit for a minor nation, however a simple search is bringing up coverage. I imagine there will highly likely be more offline or not easily accessible non-English language sourcing. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Please share 2 or 3 reliable sources that have in-depth coverage on the person. We cannot assume reliable sources from the past can be found. We need to find them. Having an extensive career is not sufficient, unless there is such a WP policy which I am not aware of. If so, please link to the said policy. Shinadamina (talk) 04:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 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!} 22:14, 20 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)

Alley of the Dolls (band)[edit]

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

Newly created article, PROD declined. Sourcing does not establish WP:GNG being met. WP:BEFORE brings up only a couple of brief reviews of their EP. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Happy to add additional citations to the EP as many exist MusicForeverYours (talk) 01:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Added citations to additional reviews, more are available but not always in English as the band has a lot of support in none English speaking countries so reviews are not in English as is requested by Wikipedia. MusicForeverYours (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete: Source 18 is a RS for the album review; the rest used now in the article is primary or non-RS. I can only find the Spill Magazine review, so without any other sources, the band is not at notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Draftify: If more citations for this article exist, they should absolutely be added. it's free realist 9 16:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Two additional reviews and citations added to establish bands obvious notability. More available but dont want the article to just be a list of magazine reviews. Happy to add more if this view isnt shared. MusicForeverYours (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

6th North Carolina Infantry Regiment[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NORG. No sources found meeting WP:SIRS, nothing addressing the subject directly and indepth. Article does not indicate any engagements in which the unit was notable.

Source eval table:

Comments	Source
Blog post/timeline, fails WP:RS, does not have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indpeth	*https://civilwarintheeast.com/confederate-regiments/north-carolina/6th-north-carolina-infantry-regiment/
Enthusiast website, fails WP:RS	*https://www.carolana.com/NC/Civil_War/6th_nc_volunteers_regiment.html
Troop register, fails WP:IS, SIGCOV. Government troop registers do not show notability	*https://www.carolana.com/NC/Civil_War/Register_of_North_Carolina_Troops_1861.pdf
Fails WP:IS, WP:RS, Memories written down in 1901 source states, "WRITTEN BY MEMBERS OF THE RESPECTIVE COMMANDS."	*https://www.carolana.com/NC/Civil_War/Histories_of_the_Several_Regiments_and_Battalions_from_NC_in_the_Great_War_Volume_I_Walter_Clark_1901.pdf
Troop register, fails WP:IS, SIGCOV. Government troop registers do not show notability	Register of North Carolina Troops, 1861, by John Spelman page 13.
Duplicate of above ref	Capt. Lawson Harrill on April 9, 1901, page 786-808 in the "History of the Several Regiments and Battalions from North Carolina in the Great War-'65-Volume 1.

Ping me if IS RS with SIGCOV are found. // Timothy :: talk 17:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Comment: You might find more sources if you search the 16th North Carolina, which is apparently what this regiment was reorganized as in June 1861. The 16th doesn't seem to have a Wikipedia article, which is interesting given its combat history (Antietam, Gettysburg, Fredericksburg, and others). It might be worth rewriting the article for the 16th North Carolina, noting its origins as the 6th Volunteers. Intothatdarkness 00:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Reply:This sounds like a good solution. If @PaulusHectorMair: feels this is a good solution and wants to pursue it, I will support drafting as "16th North Carolina Infantry Regiment" or another appropriate title. The author is new, I'm not sure they know this discussion is taking place, PaulusHectorMair if you could reply here with your thoughts, even if it is just to let us know you are aware of the discussion. // Timothy :: talk 00:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
@TimothyBlue, Intothatdarkness, and PaulusHectorMair: - Let's hold up a minute on this. There's a conflation going on here - the "6th North Carolina Volunteers" was the unit that became 16th Regiment per this but there's also a separate 6th North Carolina Infantry Regiment. Per this brief NPS listing it had quite a bit of fighting, and the State of North Carolina published an entire book on this 6th Infantry. Hog Farm _Talk 01:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Reply So if I'm following this right:

This article (as currently written) is about the unit that was reorganized into the 16th North Carolina Infantry Regiment. Its currently named "6th North Carolina Infantry Regiment" but it was actually the "6th North Carolina Volunteers"

There is another unit "6th North Carolina Infantry Regiment" that is unconnected to the current article or the 16th North Carolina Infantry Regiment.

Let me know if I've got something wrong. // Timothy :: talk 01:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hog Farm, I thought about pinging you, but didn't want to run into the whole canvassing thing with AfD. The ACW isn't one of my major fields, especially Confederate units, so I just did a basic search. I wondered about the Volunteer/Infantry thing, but I've seen it used interchangeably with other units. I of course defer to your expertise. Intothat darkness 12:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello. I am indeed aware of this discussion and have been checking it every few hours or so. I would be open to pursuing an article on the 16th, as this was my original goal. I should have realized sooner that the two regiments were different, and frankly I am questioning my competence for such a silly mistake. PaulusHectorMair (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Making silly mistakes is part of the job... :) // Timothy :: talk 01:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Now that the unit confusion is sorted, is there sourcing for this unit?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Supermium[edit]

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

Supermium is essentially just Chromium backported to Windows XP. Is this really notable enough for its own article? Seems like it could just have a short mention in the Chromium page. Bringing up the phrase "Supermium" on Google news just reports two articles related to the program, and two related to a Spotify subscription tier. There are several videos made on it however on YouTube (though, mostly by small creators). HolyNetworkAdapter (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. HolyNetworkAdapter (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, it also seems like the article was originally created by a sockpuppet, if that contributes anything. HolyNetworkAdapter (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Supporting old versions of Windows is a large enough niche, and the article already has 2 external refs because of it. (Plus there are plenty of other browser articles for even smaller, less-relevant niches.) -Pmffl (talk) 17:14, 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!} 01:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

mjd made a video on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsSMmdwh89Y plus backporting is not easy esspcialy to windows xp and it has restored support for a lot of things

-Aero Glass and Aero Glass-style titlebars instead of Windows 10-style ones (#force-xp-theme in chrome://flags for the latter)

-Turnaround for major vulnerability patches generally less than one week from upstream disclosure

-A functional sandbox for enhanced security

-Google Sync

-On Windows 7 and up, Widevine CDM support for viewing DRM content

-GDI font rendering, using #force-gdi in chrome://flags

-Persistent dark mode on the browser's UI elements, using #force-dark-mode in chrome://flags

-Custom tab options including trapezoidal tabs, transparent tabs, and outlined tabs

-Many flags from ungoogled-chromium

-Support for SSE2-only processors in the 32 bit build 74.92.169.153 (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Being a fork or knock-off does not disqualify.--2601:444:7F:53A0:A1BD:97C3:2A74:18FC (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please provide policy-based opinions on what should happen to this article, this is not an article talk page to discuss the article or list features.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

WE should keep this because this is probably the best browser for Xp/Vista and 7 that will ever come to exist. Archiving is important. 71.11.225.163 (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist and hoping for some thoughtful participation by editors new to the discussion with opinions based in policy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Nick Capstick-Dale[edit]

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

Being the 316th wealthiest person does not guarantee notability. Subject fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Only two sources from the Evening Standard may establish notability, but one is an interview. All others are brief statements, mentions, a listing, and unreliable content. Toadette^Edit! 17:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, France, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)