This page transcludes all of the deletion debates opened today on the English-language Wikipedia, including articles, categories, templates, and others, as a convenience to XfD-watchers. Please note that because this material is transcluded, watchlisting this page will not provide you with watchlist updates about deletions; WP:DELT works best as a browser bookmark checked regularly.
One of a number of BLP recently created directly to main space by קוונטום דוץ. Multiple editors have pointed out issues with these such as notability, sourcing, refbombing. This is perhaps the weakest. Lecturer with an h-factors of 8, no major awards, no major mentions, weak independent sourcing and many unsourced paragraphs. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails GNG, 2 of the 3 sources are dead. The estimated population is very small at around 1000, and no significant coverage of their contribution to Luxembourg society. LibStar (talk) 06:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:SPORTSCRIT, Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources.C67904:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just like the Kingsgate article, I propose that we redirect this one into the Eastport–Kingsgate Border Crossing article. There's only a few sources, and I feel that a couple of sentences can fit in the border crossing rather than being placed in an article that feels like a stub with nothing interesting or pleasing to the reader. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
merge/expand The issue here is really that now the border crossing has basically co-opted the town. I think the latter makes the most sense as a section within the crossing article rather than as a separate article. Also, I have to point out that the only "good" source here, that is, the only one that has content which could be used as the basis for writing article text, is not likely to cut the mustard as a reliable source, given the lack of authorship info and citations. Mangoe (talk) 04:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would urge anyone who comments in this discussion to look on the talk page from (one of) the subjects of the article. GnocchiFan (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think that Marziyeh Amirizadeh is too notable to delete. Maryam Rostampour is arguably notable as well, despite the fact that Marziyeh Amirizadeh is the only one of the two with continuing coverage. Eastmain (talk • contribs)01:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If agreement is that there is enough information to split, I think this is a good idea. Otherwise, I think that Marziyeh Amirizadeh's name be removed from this article per request and this article moved to Maryam Rostamour-Keller per your suggestion. GnocchiFan (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Split I think it is reasonable to have this specific article deleted. However, I would be open to the thought of having a separate article for Maryam Rostampour if she is notable enough. Marziyeh Amirizadeh on the surface level appears to be a notable figure (I have not done much research into her life though), so I would be more comfortable with having a separate article for her. ❤HistoryTheorist❤18:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A person claiming to be one of the subjects of the article requested that it be deleted because they don't want to be associated with the other person? The title is probably inappropriate and would be more appropriate as something else but this does appear to be a notable event. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the editor claiming to be the subject says on the talk page that she paid $300 to have her Wikipedia article written. Is this the current draft, created by an editor who has edited no other topic? PamD22:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is based on album reviews for Infinity on High. so it doesn't establish a separate WP:SIGCOV. I searched sources independently and I found two, both from NME,[1][2] one written from Patrick Stump's point of view and the other from Pete Wentz's view. Those sources don't say anything different from what is already said by the sources present in the article. And Infinity on High mentions part of the article's content anyway. (CC)Tbhotch™03:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RedirecttoInfinity on High: sources in article only make very brief mentions of the song, and the same goes for the two NME articles the nominator linked. Nowhere near enough for an independent article. I wouldn't oppose a merger if there are any valuable statements included here which aren't already in the album article. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I came here from DYK and I am the editor who approved this article's nomination when it ran on the main page. During the approval process many editors, administrators and readers vetted the article. The article clearly meets our general notability guide. A topic is "notable" if there is enough usable coverage of it in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, to write a good encyclopedic article. I think that is what we have here, a good encyclopedic article about the song, based on multiple secondary sources. Lightburst (talk) 01:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should not focus on the SNG - WP:NSONG, according to WP:NA topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG); and t is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. I believe that it meets GNG based on the RS. Lightburst (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the talk page I left the sources review. I don't see the independent, non-trivial, non-passing mentions content that indicate significant coverage that is independent from the parent album. I see sources speaking about the song from the album's context focusing on being named after a Michael Jackson album and inadvertently having a rap intro by Jay-Z, both facts that can be covered by the album's composition section.
As much as you'd like to keep the page, this hadn't had to run on the main page in the first place and you made a mistake by approving an article built on trivialities. Proof of this is the fact that this song hasn't been discussed by critics in subsequent releases thoroughly and it needs to have a background that doesn't even mention the song and has to rely exclusively on trivial album mentions. (CC)Tbhotch™04:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have made seven edits to the article and you have typed 6527 characters (1062 words) in an effort to remove an article that is only 2963 characters (517 words). This AfD time-suck is an example of why I am not as active in deletion lately. You have lost credibility in your source assessment because I randomly looked at #9: you referred to three full paragraphs discussing the song as a passing mention. And #15 you refer to an article which features this song as one of 15 heaviest songs as a passing mention. I am not going to focus on all the WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments. Also I really need to start observing WP:COAL and maybe you should too. Lightburst (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Opinion divided between Keeping this article and Merge/Redirect it. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already at AFD before so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!05:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Telegram: Significant coverage in BBC Pidgin and likely in the non-English articles as well (which I cannot read). Telegram article is long but could easily accommodate a short section on the game, which seems to have drawn attention. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what is this? A game? A crypto-coin? A ponzi scheme? The sources don't say (and are largely about a related game called "Hamster Combat"), which demonstrates that there is insufficiently substantial coverage. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: In the first AFD discussion, the closure was Delete but this discussion is bringing up more possible outcomes. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RedirecttoThe Open Network (TON). The Persian-language sources seem to be primarily about a hamster-related game of a different name that employs the Notcoin/"Natcoin" token. But I'm not seeing WP:SIGCOV for Notcoin itself, at least not in sources that clear WP:NCRYPTO; however, WP:TRADES sources ([3], [4]) do show evidence that it's a major game/token on TON, so as an AtD that redirect makes sense. Like Walsh90210 I would oppose a redirect to Telegram. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist, no consensus here yet. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looking through the Google Scholar results Loki has linked to, I could not find any detailed discussion of the Burr dilemma. Many of the articles do not use the phrase "Burr dilemma" and seem to be included in the search solely because they include Jack Nagal's paper in their list of references. Mgp28 (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please identify a target articleen prop whosing a Merge or Redirect or your argument will be pretty much dismissed as it can't be realized. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the editor who made this page did a mistake by creating a draft and then again creating it into the main space, maybe he is a newbie that's why....but if we look at the person's page, he was awarded the community Leader Award from the Kerala State Women's Development Corporation which is a state award from the person's home state which is in Kerala and the Fulbright Foundation’s Global Changemaker Award in 2023 which is a International award given by the US Government which i believe at least qualify the award category of the people's notability guidelines according to the guidelines written in Wikipedia. This guy also has a significant coverage in The Times of India, Economics Times , Ahmedabad Mirror which i believe is considered reliable in Wikipedia. So we have 2 of the 3 basic criteria except the national dictionary thing ....also While reading the content of these articles i don't see any kind of sponsored post written or a disclaimer in the news coverage these are just my analysis. SATavr (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may be ignorance / new editor who wrote the draft and then made a new page, but destroyed the first edits in the first draft and deleted it in a completely unrecognizable form, added another person to it and added it to his date of birth and created a misunderstanding because of lack of knowledge?? Draft:Muhammed Faris Mannekkara Difference between revisions[5], Draft:Muhammed Faris Mannekkara 2nd Difference between revisions[6]Spworld2 (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do agree with you. It was a stupid mistake done by this new editor and i think he lacks the patience for it and just wanted to go directly with a shortcut way for publication. Thats why he change the draft content to a different person and he thought we would'nt know lol..... I believe he has learned a lesson not to do it again and i hope he has got to know that things doesnt workout like this. SATavr (talk) 09:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A before search comes up with many sources. (e.g. [1] [2]. Numerous articles featuring the names appear, the most of them in Hindi and English. Tiger-in-Action (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be nice to hear from some more experienced editors about whether sourcing is sufficient to establish notability. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I nominated quite a few of the diplomat articles I previously created for deletion, but I left this one out as there was coverage of his time in Malawi in the Nyasa Times and other Malawian sources. : [7], [8], [9], [10][11]. May be more available. Unsure if this fails GNG. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 09:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No sourcing that I could find besides sales listings and a single sentence mention in an issue of The Booklist from 2008, but there is a language barrier so my Japanese searches may have not been effective. Could probably be merged and mentioned somewhere if there aren't other sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for a Merge or Redirection. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!00:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:delete, the category suggests that it is about the island of Great Britain (as it also contains the early 18th-century years in England and Scotland) but there aren't any sibling categories for the island, so this is merely confusing in relationship to the Kingdom of England (see below). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
