User:Bearcat/XfD log
This is a log of all deletion discussion nominations made by this user using Twinkle's XfD module.
If you no longer wish to keep this log, you can turn it off using the preferences panel, and nominate this page for speedy deletion under CSD U1.
This log does not track XfD-related deletions made using Twinkle.
February 2024[edit]
- Category:Buskerud church stubs: nominated at CfD (CfM); merging to Category:Norwegian church stubs; notified 4ing (talk · contribs) 16:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Cluster of stub categories, too-narrowly overcategorizing an insufficient number of articles. As always, stub categories are not free for just anybody to create on a whim -- a stub category needs to have at least 60 articles before its creation is warranted, and for that very reason stub categories have to be authorized by WikiProject Stub sorting before their creation is permitted.
But there's no evidence that project approval was sought, and absolutely none of these categories have 60 articles in them -- the largest of them has just 19 articles, all of the others only have between two and four entries, and there aren't even 60 articles combined across all of them put together, so there's no need to stubsort them this narrowly.
I'm agnostic on whether the templates even need to exist -- they can always just file their entries in the parent category, so the bar for the creation of a template isn't 60 the way it is for a dedicated category, but it's still questionable whether this many separate templates are actually needed for just two, three or four articles each, when {{Norway-church-stub}} already exists.
- Reason: Cluster of stub categories, too-narrowly overcategorizing an insufficient number of articles. As always, stub categories are not free for just anybody to create on a whim -- a stub category needs to have at least 60 articles before its creation is warranted, and for that very reason stub categories have to be authorized by WikiProject Stub sorting before their creation is permitted.
- Terra Cotta, Ontario: nominated at AfD; notified Danielg532 (talk · contribs) 18:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: As at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayfield West, Ontario, the same editor again created a poorly sourced article about a submunicipal neighbourhood within the town of Caledon, again at the improper and absolutely unacceptable title "Terra Cotta, Ontario, Canada" in order to bypass the fact that the correct title already existed as a redirect to Caledon.
The fundamental issue here remains identical, however: per WP:GEOLAND, unincorporated communities within incorporated municipalities are not automatically notable enough for their own standalone articles as distinct topics from their municipality -- they get to have their own separate articles only if they can be shown to pass WP:GNG on the quality of their sourcing, and get redirects to the municipality if they can't. But again, this is based entirely on primary and unreliable sources that are not support for notability, with not a whit of GNG-worthy coverage in proper reliable sources shown at all.
- Reason: As at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayfield West, Ontario, the same editor again created a poorly sourced article about a submunicipal neighbourhood within the town of Caledon, again at the improper and absolutely unacceptable title "Terra Cotta, Ontario, Canada" in order to bypass the fact that the correct title already existed as a redirect to Caledon.
- Canadian Climate Institute: nominated at AfD; notified AndrewJPatrick (talk · contribs) 18:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Semi-advertorialized article about an organization, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for organizations. As always, organizations are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH on their sourcing. However, 21 of the 25 footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability (mainly but not exclusively content self-published by the organization on its own website) -- and of the just four footnotes that actually come from GNG-worthy media, three are just glancing namechecks of the organization's existence in the context of a staffer offering a short comment to a reporter on a subject other than itself.
Just one footnote here actually represents media coverage about the organization, which isn't enough coverage to get this over GNG all by itself.
It also warrants note that this was created by a new editor whose username matches a name in the staff directory on the organization's website, which violates conflict of interest rules as organizations are not allowed to create their own articles about themselves.
- Reason: Semi-advertorialized article about an organization, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for organizations. As always, organizations are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH on their sourcing. However, 21 of the 25 footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability (mainly but not exclusively content self-published by the organization on its own website) -- and of the just four footnotes that actually come from GNG-worthy media, three are just glancing namechecks of the organization's existence in the context of a staffer offering a short comment to a reporter on a subject other than itself.
- Alozno Church: nominated at RfD; Target: Alonzo Church (notified); notified Partofthemachine (talk · contribs) 19:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Redirect from typo. There's no discernible evidence that any known sources actually think the subject's name was "Alozno" instead of "Alonzo", so it isn't a real-world usage that we need to concern ourselves with -- it's just a straight-up typo of the sort that absolutely anybody might make if their fingers were typing faster than their brain, and we don't need millions of redirects to preemptively anticipate every possible combination of mistyped letters that any random user might ever produce.
- The List of Characters of Adventue Time: nominated at RfD; Target: List of Adventure Time characters (notified) 19:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Unnecessary redirect with a highly implausible combination of misspellings ("Adventue"), miscapitalizations ("Characters") and a leading "the" where one would not be expected by most readers or editors. This has been around since 2011, so it isn't recent enough that I could legitimately speedy it as an R3, but it's still not necessary at all.
- Knocking one out on your pillow: nominated at RfD; Target: Masturbation (notified); notified The Iron Rod (talk · contribs) 19:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Redirect from a sexual euphemism with no obvious real-world usage. This was first created with a person's name in the edit summary, so I'm not sure whether the intent was to disparage that person by implying that he masturbates a lot or to immortalize a neologism that person created, but either way I can't find much evidence on the web that this phrase actually has any significant real-world usage as a euphemism for choking one's chicken.
- Minecrat: nominated at RfD; Target: Minecraft (notified) 19:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Redirect from typo. I can find no evidence on the web that any significant number of people actually refer to this game as "Minecrat" on purpose -- I can find a few stray examples of people who mistyped it as Minecrat, but not nearly enough to suggest that there's any significant phenomenon of people spelling it that way to take into account.
- Theroy of Evolution: nominated at RfD; Target: Evolution (notified) 19:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Redirect from typo. While it's obviously possible that anybody could accidentally type "theroy" instead of "theory" by mistake, we don't need to create preemptive redirects from every typo we can possibly imagine somebody making -- a person could also accidentally type "tehroy", "theryo", "hteryo", "rgwiet", or any number of other things, so there's no need for us to anticipate every possible typo in advance by creating reams and reams of redirects from every possible typo.
- 0ld English: nominated at RfD; Target: Old English (notified) 19:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Redirect from implausible typo. That's a zero in the redirect, if you're confused.
We simply don't need millions of zero-to-o redirects for every title with an o in it, and there's no reason to believe that Old English has any special need for something that no other title with an o in it has.
- Reason: Redirect from implausible typo. That's a zero in the redirect, if you're confused.
- List of 'years in Canada': nominated at RfD; Target: List of years in Canada (notified) 20:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Redirect of dubious utility. This results from a 20-year-old page move: the page was originally created at this bad title, and then moved to its current title as soon as a more experienced user noticed it. At the time, the rules in place required even a bad-title redirect to be kept for WP:GFDL attribution reasons if it was where the page had originally been created, but that's long since been deprecated and we now only keep such redirects if they demonstrably have usefulness -- but there's no real reason why a redirect that wraps part of the title in single quotes would actually be useful, so there's no need to hang onto it anymore.
- Drew Dixon: nominated at RfD; Target: Sharon Pratt (notified) 22:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: "Family member of article subject" for a person not named in the target article at all. Sharon Pratt Kelly does have a daughter named Drew Dixon, but the extent of her role in her mother's article amounts to "[Pratt and her husband] have two daughters". The other problems here are that (a) as a former executive for a record label, Drew Dixon is likely independently notable enough to have her own separate article, rather than just being a redirect, and (b) Drew Dixon is also the nom de porn of a contemporary porn performer who is very much not Sharon Pratt Kelly's daughter -- and while I can't speak with any authority as to whether the porn actor would pass notability criteria for porn actors or not, he's at the very least a plausible enough search term that a reader might think we're saying he's Sharon Pratt Kelly's child (which he's not) if the article fails to contexualize why Drew Dixon is redirected there. So because the daughter/executive is almost certainly notable enough for her own article, and the porn guy may or may not be but is absolutely semi-famous enough to create confusion regardless, this probably should be a redlink rather than a redirect.
- Category:Television meteorologists: nominated at CfD (CfR); renaming to Category:Television weather presenters 03:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Category that isn't effectively encompassing a significant distinction. While there is technically a distinction between a meteorologist and a weather presenter, it's an opaque one that doesn't make a meaningful difference to the television audience, and is hard to maintain.
According to the usage note on this category, it should only be for people who actually have "meteorologist" credentials, while those who don't should just be catted in the generic "weather presenters" without differentiation for nationality or medium -- but the average viewer neither knows nor cares whether their favourite TV weatherperson is a "meteorologist" presenting forecasts they prepared themselves or a "presenter" presenting forecasts that were prepared by other people, and just wants to know what the weather is going to be.
This is not, for instance, a valid reason why Al Roker should only be in an undifferentiated "presenters" category that fails to sub him out for either "American" or "television" instead of sitting with other American TV weather personalities in a common category for American TV weather personalities -- and given the fact that the average viewer usually doesn't even know whether their weatherperson actually has meteorologist credentials or not, the terms get used far more interchangeably than they should in reality, so non-meteorologists get filed in the meteorologist category and vice versa all the time.
So while there is a technical distinction, this just isn't the best way to go about categorizing for it. Instead of having the category tree separate "television meteorologists" and "television weather presenters who aren't really certified meteorologists" into two separate buckets, we should really just collapse that distinction and treat "television weather presenters" and "meteorologists" as two completely distinct things. That is, there should just be one "television weather presenters" category that applies regardless of whether the person a meteorologist or not a meteorologist -- and if the presenter is also a meteorologist, then they should just have the appropriate "meteorologists" category applied separately from the category for their TV gig.
- Reason: Category that isn't effectively encompassing a significant distinction. While there is technically a distinction between a meteorologist and a weather presenter, it's an opaque one that doesn't make a meaningful difference to the television audience, and is hard to maintain.
- Sloan Science in Film Awards: nominated at AfD; notified HalfTailDale (talk · contribs) 22:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a film award, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for events. As always, awards are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH on third-party media coverage about them -- analysis about their impact, evidence that the media consider the award to be significant enough to cover the presentation as news, etc. -- but apart from one media hit (which isn't enough by itself) this is otherwise referenced entirely to a reference-bombed cluster of 248 primary sources, mostly its own self-published website about itself but occasionally streaming copies of the films on YouTube or Vimeo, none of which are valid support for notability at all.
Simply existing isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt this from having to have proper GNG-worthy coverage about it in real media independent of its own self-created web presence.
- Reason: Article about a film award, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for events. As always, awards are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH on third-party media coverage about them -- analysis about their impact, evidence that the media consider the award to be significant enough to cover the presentation as news, etc. -- but apart from one media hit (which isn't enough by itself) this is otherwise referenced entirely to a reference-bombed cluster of 248 primary sources, mostly its own self-published website about itself but occasionally streaming copies of the films on YouTube or Vimeo, none of which are valid support for notability at all.
- Alloa, Ontario: nominated at AfD 21:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Following up on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayfield West, Ontario and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terra Cotta, Ontario, three more new articles about neighbourhoods in Caledon -- again using primary sources rather than reliable ones, and again all created at improper "Neighbourhood, Canada" titles to bypass the fact that "Neighbourhood, Ontario" already existed as redirects to Caledon in all three cases.
The issue remains that WP:GEOLAND does not confer automatic notability freebies on submunicipal neighbourhoods just because they exist -- they have to be shown to pass WP:GNG to get their own articles, and only get redirects to the municipality otherwise. But none of these three neighbourhoods are being shown to pass GNG at all, so they all need to be deleted, and have their original redirects to Caledon (which I had to delete in the process of moving the pages to their proper titles) restored.
- Reason: Following up on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayfield West, Ontario and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terra Cotta, Ontario, three more new articles about neighbourhoods in Caledon -- again using primary sources rather than reliable ones, and again all created at improper "Neighbourhood, Canada" titles to bypass the fact that "Neighbourhood, Ontario" already existed as redirects to Caledon in all three cases.
- Laura Thompson (journalist): nominated at AfD 01:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of an arts journalist, not properly referenced as passing notability criteria for journalists. As always, journalists are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to show external validation of their significance: notable journalism awards, third-party coverage and analysis about their work in sources independent of their own employer, and on and so forth. But seven of the eight footnotes here are just her own work metaverifying its own existence, and the last one is a MySpace (!), meaning that none of them represent GNG-building coverage about Laura Thompson.
Again, you don't get a journalist over the bar by citing sources where she's the bylined author of coverage about other things, you get a journalist over the bar by citing sources where she's the written-about subject of coverage authored by other people, and nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have that kind of sourcing.
- Reason: WP:BLP of an arts journalist, not properly referenced as passing notability criteria for journalists. As always, journalists are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to show external validation of their significance: notable journalism awards, third-party coverage and analysis about their work in sources independent of their own employer, and on and so forth. But seven of the eight footnotes here are just her own work metaverifying its own existence, and the last one is a MySpace (!), meaning that none of them represent GNG-building coverage about Laura Thompson.
- Destani Wolf: nominated at AfD; notified SeriousMooonlight (talk · contribs) 22:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a singer, not properly referenced as passing WP:NMUSIC criteria. The strongest attempt at a notability claim here is that she's been a contributor to Grammy-nominated albums -- but NMUSIC #8 requires the subject to have personally been singled out as an award nominee in her own name for her own contributions, and simply having appeared as a guest musician on an album that somebody else got a Grammy nomination for doesn't count.
But nothing else here meets any NMUSIC criteria at all, and the referencing is depending far too heavily on bad primary and/or unreliable sources that aren't support for notability -- Bandcamp, blogs, IMDB, etc. -- while the only reliable sources in the bunch are a couple of hits of in the hyperlocal community media of her own hometown (but just having a couple of hits of "local person does stuff" coverage in her own hometown media isn't enough to get her over the bar all by itself if it's the best sourcing she has), a PopMatters album review that briefly mentions Destani Wolf's name without being about her in any non-trivial sense, and a Pitchfork article that fails to name Destani Wolf at all, serving only as tangential verification of one of the Grammy nominations that she wasn't actually the recipient of.
Again: she can't claim "notable because Grammy", because she wasn't personally named as the recipient of any Grammy nominations in her own name, and was merely a contributor to albums that other people got Grammy nominations for, so nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass WP:GNG on much better referencing than this.
- Reason: Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a singer, not properly referenced as passing WP:NMUSIC criteria. The strongest attempt at a notability claim here is that she's been a contributor to Grammy-nominated albums -- but NMUSIC #8 requires the subject to have personally been singled out as an award nominee in her own name for her own contributions, and simply having appeared as a guest musician on an album that somebody else got a Grammy nomination for doesn't count.
- Levi Addison Gardner: nominated at AfD; notified RogerNotable (talk · contribs) 18:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Biography of a politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The main notability claim here is that he was mayor of a small town, which is not an automatic inclusion freebie in and of itself -- mayors don't automatically get articles just because they existed, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on substantive coverage and analysis about their mayoralty: specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their leadership had on the development of the town they were mayor of, and on and so forth, but there's absolutely none of that here.
The only other notability claim being attempted here is that he was the grandfather of a more notable person -- but notability is not inherited, and people who are not themselves notable in their own right don't get articles just because they were related to other people. And the footnotes here are both just genealogy sites, which are not support for notability at all, rather than reliable source media coverage or books about him to establish his notability.
This is different enough in form from the first version to not qualify for immediate speedy as a recreation of deleted content, but it isn't providing any stronger evidence that he would pass any notability criteria in his own right independently of being a grandfather.
- Reason: Biography of a politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The main notability claim here is that he was mayor of a small town, which is not an automatic inclusion freebie in and of itself -- mayors don't automatically get articles just because they existed, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on substantive coverage and analysis about their mayoralty: specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their leadership had on the development of the town they were mayor of, and on and so forth, but there's absolutely none of that here.
- Template:Barelvi-stub: nominated at CfD (SfD); notified QuadriOnMobile (talk · contribs) 20:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Stub template of unclear necessity. It's used on just two articles, neither of which need it as they're not actually short enough to need stub-tagging at all -- and while the template itself is a couple of months old, within the past couple of days somebody attempted to make it sort its entries into a dedicated "Barelvi stubs" category that doesn't exist, which I had to revert because redlinked categories are forbidden (meaning I couldn't just leave it there) but stub categories can't be created for just two pages, and require a minimum of 60. So for all of those reasons, it's unclear whether even the template is necessary.
- Category:Tamil-language LGBT-related television shows: nominated at CfD (CfM); merging to Category:Indian LGBT-related television shows 01:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Overly narrow category for just two TV shows. This would be fine if there were a lot of shows to categorize here, but isn't necessary for just two, and we don't have a comprehensive scheme of categorizing all LGBT-related television shows for primary language across the board. Even the proposed target category only has 15 shows in it, none of which are subbed out for language besides these, so it isn't large enough to need this either.
- Morningside (2024 film): nominated at AfD; notified SunjayDash (talk · contribs) 04:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about an as yet unreleased film, not demonstrated as the subject of nearly enough production coverage to be exempted from the primary notability criteria for films. As always, the main notability criteria for films hinge on the film having been released to the public, and require things like film reviews by professional film critics, noteworthy film awards, and other things like that -- some leeway is given to films still in the pipeline if they have a lot of production coverage, but we don't just immediately accept an article about every film that enters the production pipeline.
According to the only reliable source cited here, the film only just started shooting in December 2023, so we're at best months away from any potential release date. So no prejudice against recreation later in the year if and when it actually comes out and starts getting more coverage, but one media hit is not enough all by itself to make a film that's still in the production process permanently notable this far in advance of release.
- Reason: Article about an as yet unreleased film, not demonstrated as the subject of nearly enough production coverage to be exempted from the primary notability criteria for films. As always, the main notability criteria for films hinge on the film having been released to the public, and require things like film reviews by professional film critics, noteworthy film awards, and other things like that -- some leeway is given to films still in the pipeline if they have a lot of production coverage, but we don't just immediately accept an article about every film that enters the production pipeline.
- Shores: nominated at AfD 16:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a band, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The only real notability claim in evidence here is that the music exists, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of sufficient reliable source coverage about them and their music to pass WP:GNG -- but four of the seven footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as their own promotional materials on the self-published website of their own record label, a Tumblr post and a Q&A interview in which a band member is talking about himself in the first person -- and what's left for reliable sources is very short blurbs, not substantive enough to add up to a GNG pass if they're all the third party coverage this band has.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have better sourcing than this, especially since the article has been tagged for notability questions since 2012 without significant improvement.
- Reason: Article about a band, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The only real notability claim in evidence here is that the music exists, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of sufficient reliable source coverage about them and their music to pass WP:GNG -- but four of the seven footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as their own promotional materials on the self-published website of their own record label, a Tumblr post and a Q&A interview in which a band member is talking about himself in the first person -- and what's left for reliable sources is very short blurbs, not substantive enough to add up to a GNG pass if they're all the third party coverage this band has.
- Nonfiction (band): nominated at AfD 16:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Completely unsourced article about a band, not making any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The only notability claim being attempted here is that one song was a "modest commercial success" in unspecified ways, which isn't an instant notability pass if you can't quantify and properly reference a specific Billboard chart placement -- and otherwise this is on the level of "band who existed", which isn't an inclusion freebie either. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have any referencing, and the article's been tagged for lacking sources since 2008 without ever having any sources added.
- Common Shiner (band): nominated at AfD 16:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a band, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The main notability claim being attempted here is minor local music awards that don't pass WP:NMUSIC #8 -- that's looking for major national awards on the order of the Grammys, not just any small-fry music award that exists -- but otherwise this is on the level of "band who exist(ed)". The sourcing, meanwhile, is not establishing that they would pass WP:GNG: two of the four footnotes are to their own self-published EPK on SonicBids, one is to a (deadlinked) Q&A interview in which they're talking about themselves in the first person on a non-notable and unreliable blogs, and the last is a (deadlinked) piece of "local band tries to make it" in the local newspaper of their own hometown, which is not enough to singlehandedly vault them over the notability bar all by itself if it's the only piece of acceptable third-party coverage they have.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have a lot more and better coverage than this, and the article has been tagged for notability concerns since 2016 without improvement.
- Reason: Article about a band, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The main notability claim being attempted here is minor local music awards that don't pass WP:NMUSIC #8 -- that's looking for major national awards on the order of the Grammys, not just any small-fry music award that exists -- but otherwise this is on the level of "band who exist(ed)". The sourcing, meanwhile, is not establishing that they would pass WP:GNG: two of the four footnotes are to their own self-published EPK on SonicBids, one is to a (deadlinked) Q&A interview in which they're talking about themselves in the first person on a non-notable and unreliable blogs, and the last is a (deadlinked) piece of "local band tries to make it" in the local newspaper of their own hometown, which is not enough to singlehandedly vault them over the notability bar all by itself if it's the only piece of acceptable third-party coverage they have.
- Black & Grey: nominated at AfD 17:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Articles about a band and their sole recorded EP, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The main notability claim being attempted here is regional or special interest awards that are not prominent enough to clinch instant free passage of NMUSIC #8 -- that is, they'd be fine if the article were properly sourced, but aren't "top level" enough to constitute an instant notability freebie just because the article has the word "award" in it -- but except for one newspaper article that briefly namechecks the band's existence without being about them in any sense, the band article is otherwise referenced entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and the EP article is referenced only to a single primary source.
Nothing stated in either article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to pass WP:GNG on considerably better referencing than this.
- Reason: Articles about a band and their sole recorded EP, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The main notability claim being attempted here is regional or special interest awards that are not prominent enough to clinch instant free passage of NMUSIC #8 -- that is, they'd be fine if the article were properly sourced, but aren't "top level" enough to constitute an instant notability freebie just because the article has the word "award" in it -- but except for one newspaper article that briefly namechecks the band's existence without being about them in any sense, the band article is otherwise referenced entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and the EP article is referenced only to a single primary source.
- Malgosia Majewska: nominated at AfD 18:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Completely unsourced article about a model, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for models. The primary notability claim here is that she won Miss World Canada and then went on to compete but not win in the international Miss World finals -- which would be fine if the article were properly sourced, but is not "inherently" notable enough to constitute an automatic inclusion freebie without WP:GNG-worthy sourcing to support it.
Most Miss World Canada winners, in fact, do not have articles at all, and neither do many of the contestants listed in Miss World 2006.
So nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have proper reliable source coverage about her in real media.
- Reason: Completely unsourced article about a model, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for models. The primary notability claim here is that she won Miss World Canada and then went on to compete but not win in the international Miss World finals -- which would be fine if the article were properly sourced, but is not "inherently" notable enough to constitute an automatic inclusion freebie without WP:GNG-worthy sourcing to support it.
- Wikipedia:WikiProject The Weeknd: nominated at MfD 19:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Single-person WikiProject with very little activity. Since Wikipedia would not be well-served by an endless profusion of narrow WikiProjects with little participation, we have a rule that new WikiProjects are not free for just anybody to create on a whim for just any topic of their choosing, and have to be proposed for creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals to ensure that there's a market for them and that their creation follows proper process. But this was first created in November 2021 by a single user, with absolutely no locatable evidence that they followed the proper channels at all as there's no record of it a proposal having been submitted in the proper place.
The project has since tagged just two of The Weeknd's songs as being under its wing -- but the things they haven't tagged include 119 other songs, even one of his albums, his standalone discography articles, any of his concert tours, The Idol, or even his BLP itself, which indicates that the project just isn't very active if it's been missing that many boats for over two years. The only new activity it's seen lately is one user editing the project page itself within the past few days to file it in a redlinked category that doesn't exist to have things filed in it, which had to be reverted because redlinked categories cannot be used.
Individual people rarely need their own dedicated personal WikiProjects, especially if so few editors are actually participating in them -- this would be fine if there were a consensus of many users that The Weeknd needed special attention that the broader Wikipedia:WikiProject Music couldn't handle, but it's not a thing that should be created on a lark by just one user who has failed to follow through on most of what a WikiProject actually requires.
- Reason: Single-person WikiProject with very little activity. Since Wikipedia would not be well-served by an endless profusion of narrow WikiProjects with little participation, we have a rule that new WikiProjects are not free for just anybody to create on a whim for just any topic of their choosing, and have to be proposed for creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals to ensure that there's a market for them and that their creation follows proper process. But this was first created in November 2021 by a single user, with absolutely no locatable evidence that they followed the proper channels at all as there's no record of it a proposal having been submitted in the proper place.
- Elaine Nalee: nominated at AfD 16:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of an actress, not properly sourced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, actors are not automatically entitled to have articles just because the article lists acting roles, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about them and their performances -- but this is referenced entirely to primary source directory entries that aren't support for notability at all, with no evidence whatsoever shown of any GNG-building media coverage about her career, and even the roles themselves are virtually all supporting or bit parts rather than "major" roles.
Further, she's so poorly sourceable that the article has bounced all over the place over its three years of existence, as editors have disputed whether she's American, Canadian or South African by nationality without ever showing a shred of sourcing for any of those claims. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to get over GNG on her sourcing.
- Reason: WP:BLP of an actress, not properly sourced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, actors are not automatically entitled to have articles just because the article lists acting roles, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about them and their performances -- but this is referenced entirely to primary source directory entries that aren't support for notability at all, with no evidence whatsoever shown of any GNG-building media coverage about her career, and even the roles themselves are virtually all supporting or bit parts rather than "major" roles.
- List of villages in Potiskum: nominated at AfD 19:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Poorly sourced list and overly narrow list of debatable accuracy. This is stated as a list of villages in a specific area, but Potiskum's article describes it as a city, not a region, and cities normally contain neighbourhoods rather than "villages" -- and even if "villages" were actually the appropriate designation here, it would still be far from clear that we actually needed a standalone list of them, as a separate page from Potiskum's main article, instead of just naming them in Potiskum's main article.
The sole source here, further, is a generic postal code directory which serves only to confirm that all of the places listed here have the same postal code across the board, while utterly failing to clarify the matter of whether these are really "villages" or "neighbourhoods", and thus doesn't constitute proof that this article needs to stand separately from Potiskum as a whole.
- Reason: Poorly sourced list and overly narrow list of debatable accuracy. This is stated as a list of villages in a specific area, but Potiskum's article describes it as a city, not a region, and cities normally contain neighbourhoods rather than "villages" -- and even if "villages" were actually the appropriate designation here, it would still be far from clear that we actually needed a standalone list of them, as a separate page from Potiskum's main article, instead of just naming them in Potiskum's main article.
- Category:IBM Stubs: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified Radionerd13 (talk · contribs) 15:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Unused stub template and category. As always, it's not helpful to have an endless profusion of virtually unused stub templates and categories specially dedicated to every possible topic under the sun, so stub categories aren't free for just any user to create on a whim -- there have to be at least 60 articles to use a template on before it can legitimately have its own dedicated category. This template hasn't been applied to anything at all, however, so I have to presume that it was meant for IBM the computer company and not some other unrelated use of that acronym, but a quick scan of Category:IBM failed to find more than a tiny handful of articles that could legitimately be tagged as stubs -- and the very few I did find are all already tagged as {{compu-network-stub}} or something else that's already a subcategory of the only possible alternative place for this to upfile any entries to, meaning that this template would add nothing but unnecessary duplicate parent-and-child categorization.
Further, both the template and the category have actually been misspelled -- note both the capitalization of "Stubs" in the category and the non-capitalization of "bm" in the template name.
So the category isn't warranted if the template isn't already on 60 articles, and even the template isn't necessary at all if a dedicated category isn't viable.
- Reason: Unused stub template and category. As always, it's not helpful to have an endless profusion of virtually unused stub templates and categories specially dedicated to every possible topic under the sun, so stub categories aren't free for just any user to create on a whim -- there have to be at least 60 articles to use a template on before it can legitimately have its own dedicated category. This template hasn't been applied to anything at all, however, so I have to presume that it was meant for IBM the computer company and not some other unrelated use of that acronym, but a quick scan of Category:IBM failed to find more than a tiny handful of articles that could legitimately be tagged as stubs -- and the very few I did find are all already tagged as {{compu-network-stub}} or something else that's already a subcategory of the only possible alternative place for this to upfile any entries to, meaning that this template would add nothing but unnecessary duplicate parent-and-child categorization.
- Igor Anić: nominated at AfD 15:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a handball player, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for sportspeople.
As always, sports figures are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show evidence of passing certain tests above and beyond merely existing -- but Wikipedia:Notability (sports) doesn't list any specific inclusion criteria for handball at all, which means it's WP:GNG or bust. This currently cites absolutely no sources at all, however, and even going back into its edit history, it's only ever cited primary sources in the past, and has never had any GNG-worthy reliable sourcing in it at all.
As I don't have access to the French or Bosniak media databases that would have to be checked for archival sourcing from 10 or 20 years ago, I'm perfectly willing to withdraw this if somebody who does have access to such resources can find enough to salvage it -- but absolutely nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have any proper sourcing.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a handball player, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for sportspeople.
- Josh LaBove: nominated at AfD 16:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about an actor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, actors are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the notability test isn't in listing roles, it's in showing WP:GNG-worthy reliable source media coverage about at least some of their performances: biographical coverage about them, reviews of the films or TV shows that single their performances out for dedicated attention, properly sourced evidence that they won or were nominated for a major acting award, and on and so forth.
But the closest thing to a notable role listed here is a television commercial, not a major starring role in a feature film or television series -- he only ever had bit parts otherwise, and the article does not feature (and never has featured in its entire history) even one footnote of GNG-building coverage about him.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on his sourceability.
- Reason: Article about an actor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, actors are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the notability test isn't in listing roles, it's in showing WP:GNG-worthy reliable source media coverage about at least some of their performances: biographical coverage about them, reviews of the films or TV shows that single their performances out for dedicated attention, properly sourced evidence that they won or were nominated for a major acting award, and on and so forth.
- List of Angolan co-produced films: nominated at AfD 17:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Unsourced list with no pressing reason to exist. This is a list of just three films, all of which are already also listed in the base List of Angolan films as it is -- so they can simply have their status as coprods mentioned in the notes column of the main list, without needing to stand alone as a separate list.
- List of Bahraini films of 2014: nominated at AfD 17:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: List of just two films, with no pressing need to exist. Standard practice of WikiProject Film is that a country gets one base list of its films first, with individual by-year lists spun off only once the base list has become large enough to need that for size management purposes -- but specifically in 2014, one user went around indiscriminately creating "List of [Country] films of 2014" for every single country where they could find even one film to list, which isn't the established practice and has not been continued.
Bahrain, however, doesn't even have its own standalone list at all yet, and instead List of Bahraini films just exists as a redirect to Bahrain's subsection in the continent-wide List of Asian films, where there are just six films listed including both of these.
So no prejudice against the creation of one base list of Bahraini films if somebody wants to take on the job of looking for titles that are still missing, but there would need to be a hell of a lot more than just six Bahraini films before spinning out separate by-year lists would be necessary.
- Reason: List of just two films, with no pressing need to exist. Standard practice of WikiProject Film is that a country gets one base list of its films first, with individual by-year lists spun off only once the base list has become large enough to need that for size management purposes -- but specifically in 2014, one user went around indiscriminately creating "List of [Country] films of 2014" for every single country where they could find even one film to list, which isn't the established practice and has not been continued.
- Paul Owens (dog trainer): nominated at AfD; notified Usestrict (talk · contribs) 19:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a dog trainer and author, not properly sourced as meeting inclusion criteria. The only notability claim on offer here is that his book exists, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about it -- but the only "references" present here are directly affiliated primary sources that are not support for notability, with absolutely no evidence of GNG-worthy coverage shown at all.
- Stealing Elvis: nominated at AfD 16:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Advertorialized article about a film, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. The main notability claim being attempted here is that it was nominated for and/or won awards at minor film festivals that aren't prominent enough to clinch an instant notability freebie in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy sourcing -- we're looking for major film festivals on the order of Cannes, Berlin, Venice, TIFF or Sundance, not just any small-fry film festival that exists on earth. But the referencing here is more than half primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and what's left for media coverage is a couple of hits in small community hyperlocal weeklies that aren't widely-distributed enough to add up to a GNG pass if they're the only substantive media coverage this has.
As I don't have access to archives of British media to determine whether this had stronger coverage a decade ago, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with such access can find enough to salvage it -- but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to be referenced better than this, and the blatant advertorialism present in the article means it would have to be substantially rewritten regardless.
- Reason: Advertorialized article about a film, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. The main notability claim being attempted here is that it was nominated for and/or won awards at minor film festivals that aren't prominent enough to clinch an instant notability freebie in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy sourcing -- we're looking for major film festivals on the order of Cannes, Berlin, Venice, TIFF or Sundance, not just any small-fry film festival that exists on earth. But the referencing here is more than half primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and what's left for media coverage is a couple of hits in small community hyperlocal weeklies that aren't widely-distributed enough to add up to a GNG pass if they're the only substantive media coverage this has.
- Arend and Anneesa Feenstra: nominated at AfD; notified The Anome (talk · contribs) 20:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP1E of a couple who got a tiny blip of media attention in the past week for trivial reasons that would not pass the ten year test for enduring significance. Doing something dumb without thinking, and then giving one interview to a media outlet about it, is not in and of itself a reason to immortalize somebody forever in an encyclopedia just because they had a couple of news stories written about that in the first couple of days. Obviously, this can be recreated in the future if it actually turns out to have a significant long-term impact on the world (seems unlikely, though I won't say never -- I suppose they could theoretically launch a cult compound in Kamchatka and accidentally trigger World War III or something?), but as of right now this is essentially just a WP:NOTNEWS violation about low-profile private citizens who've done absolutely nothing of permanent significance.
- Beru Revue: nominated at AfD 14:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a band, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The principal attempt at a notability claim here is that they had "one notable radio hit", but without any attempt at sourcing that the song was ever actually a hit -- NMUSIC #2 looking for IFPI-certified national pop charts on the order of Billboard, not just "any song that ever got any radio airplay at all", so a song isn't automatically a notability-clinching "hit" just because you call it one without proper sourcing for that. But there's no other strong notability claim here at all, and the referencing is entirely to (deadlinked) primary sourcing and blogs that aren't support for notability at all, with not a shred of WP:GNG-building coverage about them shown at all, and the article has been flagged as needing better referencing since 2010 without improvement.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have much, much better referencing than this.
- Reason: Article about a band, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The principal attempt at a notability claim here is that they had "one notable radio hit", but without any attempt at sourcing that the song was ever actually a hit -- NMUSIC #2 looking for IFPI-certified national pop charts on the order of Billboard, not just "any song that ever got any radio airplay at all", so a song isn't automatically a notability-clinching "hit" just because you call it one without proper sourcing for that. But there's no other strong notability claim here at all, and the referencing is entirely to (deadlinked) primary sourcing and blogs that aren't support for notability at all, with not a shred of WP:GNG-building coverage about them shown at all, and the article has been flagged as needing better referencing since 2010 without improvement.
- 2025 in Spanish television: nominated at AfD; notified 59Efra (talk · contribs) 14:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:TOOSOON article about the future. The only thing currently listed here right now is the debut of a television series whose actual premiere date is listed as "TBA" -- no definite premiere date has been confirmed by the source at all, so it's entirely possible that it could debut in late 2024, or not until 2026, and thus it's a WP:CRYSTAL violation at this time.
As always, pages like this do not need to exist this far in advance of any verifiable content for them -- absolutely no other country already has its "2025 in [Country] television" already in place yet as of today, and the presumed but unconfirmed premiere date of one series is not sufficient to earn Spain special treatment. So no prejudice against recreation in the fall of 2024 when we start seeing confirmed premiere dates of television series, but this isn't already necessary in February 2024.
- Reason: WP:TOOSOON article about the future. The only thing currently listed here right now is the debut of a television series whose actual premiere date is listed as "TBA" -- no definite premiere date has been confirmed by the source at all, so it's entirely possible that it could debut in late 2024, or not until 2026, and thus it's a WP:CRYSTAL violation at this time.
- Women & Songs: nominated at AfD 01:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Set of almost completely unreferenced articles about a compilation album series. To be fair, they were largely created at a time when Wikipedia's approach to the notability of albums tended toward completionist directoryism -- as long as a compilation album had notable artists on it and was verifiable as existing, it was considered "inherently" notable regardless of sourcing issues. But that's long since been kiboshed, and now compilation albums are notable only if they can be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability.
These, however, are all virtually unsourced: I just now added one reference to the series overview article to get it out of the "unreferenced since 2009" bucket, while each of the individual articles is "referenced" solely to an AllMusic directory entry -- but to the extent that AllMusic counts as support for notability, it doesn't hinge on the album having an AllMusic entry per se, it hinges on whether that entry contains a written review of the album by one of AllMusic's professional music critics, which absolutely none of them do. And even on a ProQuest search for at-the-time coverage, I found a couple of short CD reviews for one or two of the earliest albums, but mostly I just found glancing namechecks of their existence in coverage of individual artists who had placed songs on one of them, which doesn't help.
So I just haven't been able to find anything like enough coverage to salvage all of these -- and even if somebody else can find more coverage than I did somewhere else, it would still be far from clear that we would need 18 separate articles here instead of just one omnibus article about the series as a whole.
- Reason: Set of almost completely unreferenced articles about a compilation album series. To be fair, they were largely created at a time when Wikipedia's approach to the notability of albums tended toward completionist directoryism -- as long as a compilation album had notable artists on it and was verifiable as existing, it was considered "inherently" notable regardless of sourcing issues. But that's long since been kiboshed, and now compilation albums are notable only if they can be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability.
- Taras Sokolyk: nominated at AfD 06:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a political organizer, not properly sourced as having a genuinely strong claim to passing WP:NPOL. As currently written, the main notability claim here is that he exists, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of strong evidence that he would pass WP:GNG -- and while this is a pared-back version of an article that's been moderately longer in the past, I can't revert to older versions as they contained criminal allegations that can't be in the article at all without airtight sourcing for them.
So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody wants to write a substantial article and source it properly, but the scandal can't be in the article at all without solid sourcing for it, and without the scandal he just doesn't have any other notability claim at all.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a political organizer, not properly sourced as having a genuinely strong claim to passing WP:NPOL. As currently written, the main notability claim here is that he exists, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of strong evidence that he would pass WP:GNG -- and while this is a pared-back version of an article that's been moderately longer in the past, I can't revert to older versions as they contained criminal allegations that can't be in the article at all without airtight sourcing for them.
March 2024[edit]
- Ravi Atchuthan: nominated at AfD; notified Mfb2523 (talk · contribs) 14:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a filmmaker, not properly referenced as passing notability criteria for filmmakers. As always, filmmakers are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis about them and their work -- but this article was "sourced" predominantly to IMDb and his own LinkedIn and streaming copies of his films on YouTube, and even the three footnotes I didn't strip are still primary sources that still aren't support for notability.
The notability test on Wikipedia, as always, doesn't hinge on saying that he did stuff -- it hinges on the amount of media coverage that he did or didn't get for doing stuff, and nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have media coverage.
- Reason: Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a filmmaker, not properly referenced as passing notability criteria for filmmakers. As always, filmmakers are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis about them and their work -- but this article was "sourced" predominantly to IMDb and his own LinkedIn and streaming copies of his films on YouTube, and even the three footnotes I didn't strip are still primary sources that still aren't support for notability.
- James Moyle (treasurer): nominated at AfD; notified RylanMalk (talk · contribs) 15:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Biography of a politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The attempted notability claim here is that he held office at the local municipal level, in an area that's part of the major city of Toronto now, but was only a small, rural township at the time he held office -- which means that he does not get to claim notability on global city grounds the way a contemporary Toronto city councillor would usually get, and would have to pass NPOL #2 the same way as most other municipal councillors.
But one of the two footnotes here is a primary source (the municipal council's own self-published records), while the other is a book which briefly namechecks James Moyle on one page without being about him in any non-trivial sense, which means it would be fine for use in a properly referenced article but doesn't represent enough coverage to secure the notability of a smalltown local officeholder all by itself.
There's just nothing here that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much more and better coverage than this.
- Reason: Biography of a politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The attempted notability claim here is that he held office at the local municipal level, in an area that's part of the major city of Toronto now, but was only a small, rural township at the time he held office -- which means that he does not get to claim notability on global city grounds the way a contemporary Toronto city councillor would usually get, and would have to pass NPOL #2 the same way as most other municipal councillors.
- David Tully: nominated at AfD; notified Gorgonopsi (talk · contribs) 15:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a political figure, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. As always, the notability test at NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, and non-winning candidates get articles only if they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway. (That is, for example, why the winner of this by-election already had an article before the by-election: not because he was a candidate in Rochdale, but because he had already been an MP in the past.)
The existence of a small handful of run of the mill campaign coverage, further, is not sufficient to say that a person has passed WP:GNG and is therefore exempted from NPOL -- every candidate in every election everywhere can always show a handful of campaign coverage, so if that were enough to exempt a candidate from NPOL then every candidate would always get that exemption and NPOL would be meaningless and unenforceable. So the campaign coverage just makes him a WP:BLP1E, not a person who has suddenly passed the ten year test for enduring significance.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if he accomplishes something more permanently notable, but coming in second in a by-election is not enough in and of itself.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a political figure, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. As always, the notability test at NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, and non-winning candidates get articles only if they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway. (That is, for example, why the winner of this by-election already had an article before the by-election: not because he was a candidate in Rochdale, but because he had already been an MP in the past.)
- Aparicio Villatoro: nominated at AfD; notified Pupusareawesome (talk · contribs) 14:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a mayor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. As always, mayors are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- a mayor has to pass NPOL #2 on significant media coverage enabling us to write a substantial article about his political impact: specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his mayoralty had on the development of the town or city, and on and so forth.
But this is just "he is a mayor who exists", which is not enough substance, and it's referenced to just one hit of media coverage, which is not enough sourcing.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a mayor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. As always, mayors are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- a mayor has to pass NPOL #2 on significant media coverage enabling us to write a substantial article about his political impact: specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his mayoralty had on the development of the town or city, and on and so forth.
- User:Vintagemi/sandbox/Margot Covaci: nominated at MfD; notified Vintagemi (talk · contribs) 15:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:HOAX-like cluster of articles in a user's personal sandbox, which appear to exist entirely to create an imaginary alternate world in which Margot Robbie's surname is "Covaci" instead of "Robbie". Every single one of these, right across the board, is a straight copy-paste of an article related to Margot Robbie that already exists in mainspace, and remains identical to the mainspace article but for the search-and-replace of Robbie with Covaci (and mainspace links replaced with in-universe links to other pages within this walled garden, wherever that was necessary to maintain the illusion because the mainspace link would say Robbie instead of Covaci).
As always, sandbox is not just a playground to do any random thing you want to for the lulz: it's for working on improvements to the encyclopedia, so the only acceptable justification for this would be if Margot Robbie had actually changed her surname to Covaci in the real world, which I can't find any sourceable evidence that she has.
- Reason: WP:HOAX-like cluster of articles in a user's personal sandbox, which appear to exist entirely to create an imaginary alternate world in which Margot Robbie's surname is "Covaci" instead of "Robbie". Every single one of these, right across the board, is a straight copy-paste of an article related to Margot Robbie that already exists in mainspace, and remains identical to the mainspace article but for the search-and-replace of Robbie with Covaci (and mainspace links replaced with in-universe links to other pages within this walled garden, wherever that was necessary to maintain the illusion because the mainspace link would say Robbie instead of Covaci).
- Lenin M. Sivam: nominated at AfD; notified Veerapathiran (talk · contribs) 17:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a filmmaker, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for filmmakers. As always, film directors are not "inherently" notable just because their work exists, and have to show evidence of third-party reliable sources covering and analyzing their work -- but after stripping numerous unacceptable sources of the "film sourced to its own directory entry in IMDb" variety (which is not support for notability at all), what's left is one unreliable source reporting that he won an award at a minor local film festival that isn't prominent enough to clinch "notability because award" -- that's looking for major film festivals like Cannes, Berlin, Venice, TIFF or Sundance whose award announcements get covered as news, not just any film festival that exists on the planet -- and one film review in a source that's fine for use but not widely distributed enough to get him or the film over GNG all by itself. In fact, the film's article got draftspaced last year for lacking properly substantiated evidence of notability over and above the same single film review, and then got deleted as a stale draft without ever seeing any further improvement.
The two films I've bundled here are also both referenced entirely to primary sources rather than reliable or notability-building ones. There's one film I'm not bundling, as it actually does have reliable sources present in it, but it's still not at all clear that it has enough sourcing to clear the bar.
Nothing present in any of these articles is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to be referenced better than this.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a filmmaker, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for filmmakers. As always, film directors are not "inherently" notable just because their work exists, and have to show evidence of third-party reliable sources covering and analyzing their work -- but after stripping numerous unacceptable sources of the "film sourced to its own directory entry in IMDb" variety (which is not support for notability at all), what's left is one unreliable source reporting that he won an award at a minor local film festival that isn't prominent enough to clinch "notability because award" -- that's looking for major film festivals like Cannes, Berlin, Venice, TIFF or Sundance whose award announcements get covered as news, not just any film festival that exists on the planet -- and one film review in a source that's fine for use but not widely distributed enough to get him or the film over GNG all by itself. In fact, the film's article got draftspaced last year for lacking properly substantiated evidence of notability over and above the same single film review, and then got deleted as a stale draft without ever seeing any further improvement.
- Diane Carr: nominated at AfD; notified Joanebeaudoin (talk · contribs) 14:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of an artist, not properly referenced as passing WP:NARTIST. The main notability claim here is that she and her work exist, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of sufficient third-party coverage about her and her work to clear WP:GNG -- but three of the four footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and the fourth is a single deadlinked newspaper article of purely local interest in the local newspaper of the city where she was living at the time, which is not enough to get her over GNG all by itself if it's the only reliable source in the mix.
Additionally, this has recently undergone several days of vandalism by an anonymous IP who persistently blanked large portions of it, generally with claims that the stuff they were removing was "incorrect" -- but the quality of the referencing is so poor that I can't even sort out what's correct or not in the first place, and the IP may possibly have a conflict of interest to boot.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass GNG on her sourceability.
- Reason: WP:BLP of an artist, not properly referenced as passing WP:NARTIST. The main notability claim here is that she and her work exist, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of sufficient third-party coverage about her and her work to clear WP:GNG -- but three of the four footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and the fourth is a single deadlinked newspaper article of purely local interest in the local newspaper of the city where she was living at the time, which is not enough to get her over GNG all by itself if it's the only reliable source in the mix.
- Yovan Nagwetch: nominated at AfD 14:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a musician, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The strongest notability claim here is a nomination for a specialty music award, which would be fine to mention if the article were properly sourced but is not top-level enough to constitute an automatic pass of NMUSIC #8 on bad sourcing -- but the article is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, with not even one reliable or GNG-building source shown. There was, additionally, a completely unreferenced article about his band, which basically made no other notability claims at all besides this guy being in it, so I've redirected that to the BLP as well -- and I would also note that this is essentially a walled garden, because there isn't a single inbound link to this article from any other Wikipedia article: the redirects from the band and one of his album titles are the only inbound links leading to this, and until I unlinked them as recursive redirects just now this article was the only inbound link leading to the band or the album title either.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him or his band from having to have much better sourcing than this.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a musician, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The strongest notability claim here is a nomination for a specialty music award, which would be fine to mention if the article were properly sourced but is not top-level enough to constitute an automatic pass of NMUSIC #8 on bad sourcing -- but the article is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, with not even one reliable or GNG-building source shown. There was, additionally, a completely unreferenced article about his band, which basically made no other notability claims at all besides this guy being in it, so I've redirected that to the BLP as well -- and I would also note that this is essentially a walled garden, because there isn't a single inbound link to this article from any other Wikipedia article: the redirects from the band and one of his album titles are the only inbound links leading to this, and until I unlinked them as recursive redirects just now this article was the only inbound link leading to the band or the album title either.
- Andrea Gabriel: nominated at AfD 21:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of an actress, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NACTOR. As always, an actress's notability doesn't hinge on just listing acting roles per se, it hinges on the extent to which the article can or can't be referenced to media coverage about her and her performances: articles about her, reviews of her films or TV shows which single her performance out for dedicated attention, properly sourced evidence that she won or was nominated for a major acting award, and on and so forth.
But the sole footnote here is a short blurb which glancingly namechecks Andrea Gabriel's existence without being about Andrea Gabriel in any non-trivial sense, which isn't enough to get her over GNG all by itself if it's the only source she's got.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be the subject of a lot more coverage than this.
- Reason: WP:BLP of an actress, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NACTOR. As always, an actress's notability doesn't hinge on just listing acting roles per se, it hinges on the extent to which the article can or can't be referenced to media coverage about her and her performances: articles about her, reviews of her films or TV shows which single her performance out for dedicated attention, properly sourced evidence that she won or was nominated for a major acting award, and on and so forth.
- List of Sammarinese films of 2014: nominated at AfD 14:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Unsourced list of unclear necessity. Standard practice of WikiProject Film is that a country gets one base list of its films first, with separate by-year lists spun off only when that base list has become too large and needs to be chunked out for size management purposes -- but specifically in 2014, one user undertook a misguided project of creating standalone "list of country films of 2014" for every single country where they could find even one film to list, which has never otherwise been done for any other year before or since.
But this is a list of just one film that doesn't even have an article to link to, and San Marino doesn't even have a base list at all -- it's such a small country that it's deeply unlikely to have any significant film industry of its own, and is likely at best an annex to the Italian film industry, so that we don't even have a Cinema of San Marino overview either. So no prejudice against the creation of List of Sammarinese films if somebody can be arsed to put the research into finding more than one film to list in it, but we don't need a 2014-specific list with just one unlinked film in it.
- Reason: Unsourced list of unclear necessity. Standard practice of WikiProject Film is that a country gets one base list of its films first, with separate by-year lists spun off only when that base list has become too large and needs to be chunked out for size management purposes -- but specifically in 2014, one user undertook a misguided project of creating standalone "list of country films of 2014" for every single country where they could find even one film to list, which has never otherwise been done for any other year before or since.
- Jaimie McEvoy: nominated at AfD 15:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a political figure, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The main notability claim here is that he served on the municipal council of a mid-sized suburban city, which is not "inherently" notable -- at the local level of office, the notability test is not passed just by verifying that the person exists, but by writing and sourcing substantial content about his political impact. But while this is at least trying to head in that direction with some statements about specific projects he's been involved in as a councillor, it's completely failing to source them properly: the only two footnotes here are the city's self-published list of its council members on its own website and a book he wrote himself circularly cited as verification of its own existence, neither of which are support for notability. We need to see third-party coverage about his work in sources independent of himself, not just stuff he had editorial control over himself.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this.
- Reason: Article about a political figure, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The main notability claim here is that he served on the municipal council of a mid-sized suburban city, which is not "inherently" notable -- at the local level of office, the notability test is not passed just by verifying that the person exists, but by writing and sourcing substantial content about his political impact. But while this is at least trying to head in that direction with some statements about specific projects he's been involved in as a councillor, it's completely failing to source them properly: the only two footnotes here are the city's self-published list of its council members on its own website and a book he wrote himself circularly cited as verification of its own existence, neither of which are support for notability. We need to see third-party coverage about his work in sources independent of himself, not just stuff he had editorial control over himself.
- Safe Surrey Coalition: nominated at AfD 15:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a municipal political party represented on a single suburban city council, not properly sourced as passing WP:ORGDEPTH. As always, political parties are not "inherently" notable just because they exist -- notability hinges on media coverage about their activities, not just on verifying their existence. But this is referenced almost entirely to content self-published by the city council itself, which isn't support for notability at all -- and even the one hit that actually comes from a WP:GNG-worthy media outlet isn't about this party at all, but is here solely to verify a tangential fact about somebody else from a different party.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have much, much better referencing than this.
- Reason: Article about a municipal political party represented on a single suburban city council, not properly sourced as passing WP:ORGDEPTH. As always, political parties are not "inherently" notable just because they exist -- notability hinges on media coverage about their activities, not just on verifying their existence. But this is referenced almost entirely to content self-published by the city council itself, which isn't support for notability at all -- and even the one hit that actually comes from a WP:GNG-worthy media outlet isn't about this party at all, but is here solely to verify a tangential fact about somebody else from a different party.
- Surrey First: nominated at AfD 15:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a municipal political party represented on a single suburban city council, not properly sourced as passing WP:ORGDEPTH. As always, political parties are not "inherently" notable just because they exist -- notability hinges on media coverage about their activities, not just on verifying their existence. But this is referenced almost entirely to content self-published by the city council itself, which isn't support for notability at all -- and while one footnote does come from a real WP:GNG-worthy media outlet, ORGDEPTH and GNG both militate that one hit of media coverage isn't enough in and of itself.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have much, much better referencing than this.
- Reason: Article about a municipal political party represented on a single suburban city council, not properly sourced as passing WP:ORGDEPTH. As always, political parties are not "inherently" notable just because they exist -- notability hinges on media coverage about their activities, not just on verifying their existence. But this is referenced almost entirely to content self-published by the city council itself, which isn't support for notability at all -- and while one footnote does come from a real WP:GNG-worthy media outlet, ORGDEPTH and GNG both militate that one hit of media coverage isn't enough in and of itself.
- Ken Popove: nominated at AfD; notified Buffalkill (talk · contribs) 15:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a politician, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL. As always, mayors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to have significant reliable source coverage enabling us to write substantive content about their political impact: specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their leadership had on the development of the city, and on and so forth.
As written, however, this is strictly on the level of "Ken Popove is a mayor who exists, the end", and features absolutely none of the type of content that an article about a mayor needs to show -- and for sourcing, it's citing purely run of the mill verification of his election victories, with absolutely none of the ongoing "in office" coverage that's required.
Chilliwack is a large enough city that its mayors would be eligible to keep substantively written and well-sourced articles that met WP:NPOL #2, but it is in no sense large or significant enough that this would be enough.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a politician, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL. As always, mayors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to have significant reliable source coverage enabling us to write substantive content about their political impact: specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their leadership had on the development of the city, and on and so forth.
- Clint Hames: nominated at AfD; notified Buffalkill (talk · contribs) 16:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a politician, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL. As always, mayors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to have significant reliable source coverage enabling us to write substantive content about their political impact: specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their leadership had on the development of the city, and on and so forth.
As written, however, this is mainly just background biographical trivia that has nothing to do with establishing notability, and features absolutely none of the type of content that an article about a mayor actually needs to show -- and for sourcing, it's citing a mix of run of the mill verification of his election victories and primary sourcing that isn't support for notability at all, with absolutely none of the ongoing "in office" coverage that's required.
Chilliwack is a large enough city that its mayors would be eligible to keep substantively written and well-sourced articles that met WP:NPOL #2, but it is in no sense large or significant enough that he would get an automatic notability freebie on an article that's this inadequate.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a politician, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL. As always, mayors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to have significant reliable source coverage enabling us to write substantive content about their political impact: specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their leadership had on the development of the city, and on and so forth.
- Dan Rogers: nominated at AfD 16:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Poorly-sourced article about a mayor. As always, mayors do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL just by virtue of existing -- the notability of a mayor hinges on writing and sourcing substantive content about his political impact: specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his leadership had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this is strictly on the level of "Dan Rogers is a mayor who existed, the end", and is "referenced" solely to his "meet your mayor" profile on the self-published website of the city government, which is a primary source that does not support notability at all.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to hand him an automatic inclusion freebie without WP:GNG-worthy coverage.
- Reason: Poorly-sourced article about a mayor. As always, mayors do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL just by virtue of existing -- the notability of a mayor hinges on writing and sourcing substantive content about his political impact: specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his leadership had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this is strictly on the level of "Dan Rogers is a mayor who existed, the end", and is "referenced" solely to his "meet your mayor" profile on the self-published website of the city government, which is a primary source that does not support notability at all.
- John Ruttan: nominated at AfD 17:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a mayor, not properly demonstrated as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to show significant reliable source coverage supporting substantive content about their political impact: specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, significant effects their leadership had on the development of the community, and on and so forth. But the bulk of the content here is background biographical trivia that isn't evidence of notability at all, while his mayoralty is summarily dispatched as "election result, the end" -- and for sourcing, there's one hit of verification of the election results, three primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and one book that doesn't cover the subject at all, but is here to tangentially "verify" background information about his ancestors, and fails to even really do that because it contains the name Ruttan but fails to name John Ruttan at all for the purposes of properly verifying that he's actually a descendant of anybody covered in that book.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much more sourcing and substance than this.
- Reason: Article about a mayor, not properly demonstrated as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to show significant reliable source coverage supporting substantive content about their political impact: specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, significant effects their leadership had on the development of the community, and on and so forth. But the bulk of the content here is background biographical trivia that isn't evidence of notability at all, while his mayoralty is summarily dispatched as "election result, the end" -- and for sourcing, there's one hit of verification of the election results, three primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and one book that doesn't cover the subject at all, but is here to tangentially "verify" background information about his ancestors, and fails to even really do that because it contains the name Ruttan but fails to name John Ruttan at all for the purposes of properly verifying that he's actually a descendant of anybody covered in that book.
- Jayme Kennedy: nominated at AfD; notified TimeToFixThis (talk · contribs) 20:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a politician, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL. The attempted notability claim here is that she serves as director of an electoral area within a British Columbia regional district, which is essentially that province's equivalent to a county council -- but politicians at the local level of office are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show a significant depth and range of media coverage about their work to demonstrate that they should be seen as special cases of significantly greater notability than the norm for that level of prominence.
But this is written more like a résumé than a neutral encyclopedia article, and is "referenced" entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, with not even one hit of WP:GNG-building media coverage shown at all.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a politician, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL. The attempted notability claim here is that she serves as director of an electoral area within a British Columbia regional district, which is essentially that province's equivalent to a county council -- but politicians at the local level of office are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show a significant depth and range of media coverage about their work to demonstrate that they should be seen as special cases of significantly greater notability than the norm for that level of prominence.
- Category:Lists of African film producers: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified Aficaedictor (talk · contribs) 20:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Category which exists solely to hold one list. This would be fine if there were several lists to file here, but is not needed for just one.
- Jackie Adedeji: nominated at AfD; notified Spcranger (talk · contribs) 13:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a journalist and podcaster, not properly referenced as passing notability standards for journalists or podcasters. As always, journalists are not "inherently" notable just because content they created exists, and the notability test hinges on the reception of significant third-party coverage about them and their work -- but this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that were self-published by companies or organizations she was directly affiliated with (e.g. documentary films that she appeared in "sourced" to their own presence on a streaming platform rather than media coverage about the films) or glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage that isn't about her (e.g. her name getting briefly mentioned in coverage about celebrities who were on her podcast). There's only one footnote here, #6, that actually represents coverage about her in a WP:GNG-worthy source, and that isn't enough by itself.
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern African Music & Sound: nominated at MfD; notified Viljowf (talk · contribs) 01:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: New "WikiProject", arbitrarily created by one user within the past few days with absolutely no discernible evidence of any consensus that there was any need for it. As always, WikiProjects are not free for just one user to create on a whim, and need some kind of broad consensus for their creation and use -- but I can't find any evidence that there was any sort of approval sought for this, and there's no evidence of any actual participation beyond the creator. They've also created a bunch of empty project categories without filing anything in any of them, which is not standard process either -- and even if such a project were warranted, "music & sound" isn't the name that would be expected for it anyway since it would be a subproject of "WikiProject Music", not "WikiProject Music & Sound".
- Eric Edem Agbana: nominated at AfD; notified Heatrave (talk · contribs) 13:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The notability claims here are as a youth political organizer and as yet unelected candidate in a future election, neither of which are grounds for a Wikipedia article per se -- the notability test at NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one -- but the referencing is almost entirely to primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage about other things, which are not support for notability, and the one hit of media coverage about him winning a primary to contest the future election is not by itself enough to make him more special than all the other unelected candidates in the country.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the fall if he wins the seat, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to already get him an article now.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The notability claims here are as a youth political organizer and as yet unelected candidate in a future election, neither of which are grounds for a Wikipedia article per se -- the notability test at NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one -- but the referencing is almost entirely to primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage about other things, which are not support for notability, and the one hit of media coverage about him winning a primary to contest the future election is not by itself enough to make him more special than all the other unelected candidates in the country.
- American Trial: The Eric Garner Story: nominated at AfD; notified 2A0D:6FC0:E88:8800:DCE2:39A:9598:6F5B (talk · contribs) 19:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not all "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to meet certain specific criteria to qualify for Wikipedia articles -- noteworthy film awards, a WP:GNG-worthy volume of third-party coverage and analysis (e.g. reviews by professional film critics, etc.) about them, and on and so forth. But the notability claim on offer here is that the film exists, which isn't enough in and of itself, and the referencing is entirely to Q&A interviews in which the filmmaker is talking about her own work in the first person, with absolutely no evidence of independent third-party analysis about the film shown at all.
As it's not a film I'm personally familiar with, I'm perfectly willing to withdraw this if somebody can improve the referencing, but the filmmaker just talking up her own film in the first person doesn't get the film over the notability bar all by itself if that's all the coverage it has and nobody's written about or analyzed it in the third person.
- Reason: Article about a film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not all "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to meet certain specific criteria to qualify for Wikipedia articles -- noteworthy film awards, a WP:GNG-worthy volume of third-party coverage and analysis (e.g. reviews by professional film critics, etc.) about them, and on and so forth. But the notability claim on offer here is that the film exists, which isn't enough in and of itself, and the referencing is entirely to Q&A interviews in which the filmmaker is talking about her own work in the first person, with absolutely no evidence of independent third-party analysis about the film shown at all.
- Beverley Elliott: nominated at AfD 17:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of an actress and singer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for actresses or musicians. As always, actors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist -- the inclusion test for an actor doesn't hinge on simply listing acting roles, it hinges on showing that she's had a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable source coverage about her performances: biographical coverage about her, film or television reviews which single out her performance for dedicated attention, properly sourced evidence that she has won or been nominated for a major acting award, and on and so forth.
But this is literally just "actress who has had roles", doesn't even say one word about her purported musical career at all after calling her a singer-songwriter in the lede, and is referenced entirely to a Twitter tweet and a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person on an unreliable blog, neither of which constitute support for notability.
Absolutely nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have much, much more and better referencing than this.
- Reason: WP:BLP of an actress and singer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for actresses or musicians. As always, actors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist -- the inclusion test for an actor doesn't hinge on simply listing acting roles, it hinges on showing that she's had a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable source coverage about her performances: biographical coverage about her, film or television reviews which single out her performance for dedicated attention, properly sourced evidence that she has won or been nominated for a major acting award, and on and so forth.
- Category:Civil servants from Winnipeg: nominated at CfD (CfM); merging to Category:Manitoba civil servants; notified HighlandFacts (talk · contribs) 20:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Small category for an overly narrow intersection of characteristics. There's no defining relationship between civil service and being from Winnipeg per se, so the only basis for this would be if the parent category needed diffusion on size grounds -- but with only three people here and only four in the parent, that hasn't been established. (Upmerging to Category:People from Winnipeg not needed, as all three people here are already in other subcategories of that as it is.)
- Category:Emigrants from British North America to the United States: nominated at CfD (CfM); merging to Category:Emigrants from the British Empire to the United States 01:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Unnecessary level of intermediary categorization between a category and its natural parent. As I've noted more than once in other past CFD discussions, "British North America" was never a polity in its own right -- it was just a collective geographic term for all of Britain's colonies in North America, but each of those colonies was its own standalone thing and there was never any overarching entity called "British North America" that they were all subordinate parts of. That is, it was not like "England + Scotland + Wales + Northern Ireland = United Kingdom" or "Massachusetts + New York + New Jersey + California + Wyoming + 44 other US states = United States it was like "Thailand + Vietnam + Laos + Cambodia + Burma = Indochina" or "Jamaica + Haiti + Montserrat + St. Kitts + the Bahamas + Puerto Rico + Cuba = Caribbean".
There is exactly no point in history at which it was ever incorrect in any way to refer to a resident of Toronto or Montreal as "Canadian", or correct in any way to refer to them as "British North American" instead, because that simply isn't how those terms worked: Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Jamaica, et al were always each their own things, and "British North America" was just an umbrella term, and was never the nationality of any Canadian, New Brunswicker, Nova Scotian, Newfoundlander or Jamaican in any sense.
Of about 80 people in here when I saw it, every last manjack one was directly recattable as Category:Pre-Confederation Canadian emigrants to the United States or one of its subcategories -- so that category can just directly stand as its own direct subcategory of the merge target, without needing this as an intermediary, because "British North America" never existed as an intermediary thing between "pre-Confederation Canada" and "British Empire".
- Reason: Unnecessary level of intermediary categorization between a category and its natural parent. As I've noted more than once in other past CFD discussions, "British North America" was never a polity in its own right -- it was just a collective geographic term for all of Britain's colonies in North America, but each of those colonies was its own standalone thing and there was never any overarching entity called "British North America" that they were all subordinate parts of. That is, it was not like "England + Scotland + Wales + Northern Ireland = United Kingdom" or "Massachusetts + New York + New Jersey + California + Wyoming + 44 other US states = United States it was like "Thailand + Vietnam + Laos + Cambodia + Burma = Indochina" or "Jamaica + Haiti + Montserrat + St. Kitts + the Bahamas + Puerto Rico + Cuba = Caribbean".
- Category:LGBT people from Alberta: nominated at CfD (CfD) 02:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Although these were previously deleted per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 27#Category:LGBT people from Canada by province or territory, that was a full decade ago, and thus I don't feel comfortable just speedying them without a new discussion.
This is, however, still a violation of WP:OCLOCATION -- there is no defining relationship between one's province of birth and their LGBT identity per se, but the parent category (which is already well-diffused on other criteria) doesn't need this for size control purposes either.
As always, just because the United States does something does not automatically mean Canada has to match it: the US is almost ten times larger than Canada by population, and thus has at least ten times as many articles to worry about, so the existence of an "X by state" scheme does not mean Canada automatically has to implement an "X by province" scheme to match. Many of the people so categorized, further, do not possess notability claims that are all that closely tied to their province of origin: Jann Arden and k.d. lang and Tegan and Sara are not notable as Albertans per se, they're notable as national or international pop stars whose birthplaces have almost nothing to do with their grounds for notability; Betty Baxter attained her notability in British Columbia, not in Alberta; Jeffrey Bowyer-Chapman is notable as a Hollywood actor, not as an Alberta actor; and on and so forth.
These, further, were created by an editor who has a history of being a serial overcategorizer who's had a lot of things taken to CFD, and does not have any established record of being any sort of expert in what categories Canada does or doesn't need.
These just don't pass the tests that would justify this scheme: the intersection of these people's province of birth with their LGBTness isn't defining in and of itself, but the parent category is already so well-diffused that it doesn't need this for size control either.
- Reason: Although these were previously deleted per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 27#Category:LGBT people from Canada by province or territory, that was a full decade ago, and thus I don't feel comfortable just speedying them without a new discussion.
- Category:Translators from Quebec: nominated at CfD (CfD) 14:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:OCLOCATION, not meeting either of the two criteria on which that would be allowed. The parent categories are not otherwise subdivided by province of origin at all, and are not large enough to need diffusion on size grounds -- but being from Quebec does not define a translator differently than being from anywhere else in Canada does, so Quebec doesn't need special treatment here that other provinces aren't also getting. (And no, it doesn't map neatly to whether the person is an English-to-French translator or a French-to-English translator, either -- Quebec anglophones and ROC francophones both still exist, so a person from anywhere in Canada can equally do either thing.)
- Sam Earle: nominated at AfD 16:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of an actor, not properly referenced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, actors are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the notability test isn't in listing acting roles, it's in the volume and depth of third-party coverage about them and their roles that can be shown to support the article with. But the references here aren't GNG-building coverage: it's referenced mainly to unreliable sources (gossip blogs, press releases from theatres self-announcing the casts of their own plays, etc.), and the only GNG-worthy citations in the mix (two cites to Now) both just briefly glance off Sam's existence while being about his father, and thus aren't helping to establish Sam's notability at all.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this.
- Reason: WP:BLP of an actor, not properly referenced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, actors are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the notability test isn't in listing acting roles, it's in the volume and depth of third-party coverage about them and their roles that can be shown to support the article with. But the references here aren't GNG-building coverage: it's referenced mainly to unreliable sources (gossip blogs, press releases from theatres self-announcing the casts of their own plays, etc.), and the only GNG-worthy citations in the mix (two cites to Now) both just briefly glance off Sam's existence while being about his father, and thus aren't helping to establish Sam's notability at all.
- List of unusual injuries or survived experiences: nominated at AfD; notified InilanNahklia (talk · contribs) 17:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Subjective list with unclear and potentially indiscriminate inclusion criteria.
Firstly, it's not clearly defined what constitutes "unusual" in this context. For example, there's an entry here for a person who survived a leopard attack by fighting off the leopard, and while the person in question does have a Wikipedia article, "survived a leopard attack" isn't the reason why he has a Wikipedia article -- he has a Wikipedia article because of his work as a biologist and conservationist and taxidermist, while surviving a leopard attack is just one sentence of trivia within it rather than his core notability claim, and is not important enough in the context of his overall biography to warrant being immortalized in a list of "unusual" incidents.
There are also many people listed here who don't have Wikipedia articles at all, many of whom would never get a Wikipedia article on the basis of what's described here in and of itself -- as well as several people who are included without any description whatsoever of what even happened, and many who are listed without sourcing.
And without a clear and objective definition of what constitutes "unusual", this could potentially attract an infinite number of unencylopedic entries for anybody who ever gets a hit or two of human-interest coverage in the context of surviving almost any potentially dangerous incident, which just renders it effectively open-ended and unmaintainable.
This just isn't the kind of thing that belongs in an encyclopedia.
- Reason: Subjective list with unclear and potentially indiscriminate inclusion criteria.
- List of Canadian Hot 100 top-ten singles: nominated at AfD; notified Adan104hpen (talk · contribs) 13:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Relaunch at new titles of a list scheme previously deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Canadian Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2020. Since top-tens are not normally discussed or analyzed collectively by reliable sources as a group, these are all referenced solely to the Billboard charts themselves, which is a primary source that does not establish notability.
While we've traditionally permitted lists of the number one singles on notable record charts, there has never been any established consensus that permanently tracking the entire top 10 was warranted -- and if we started to keep the top 10 now, then why not also the top 30, 40, 50 or 100? What's more special about peaking #9 than #11?
So, essentially, this is just a set of primary-sourced lists of trivia that can't be referenced to any outside analysis, and as noted we've previously deleted another attempt to initiate this same scheme.
- Reason: Relaunch at new titles of a list scheme previously deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Canadian Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2020. Since top-tens are not normally discussed or analyzed collectively by reliable sources as a group, these are all referenced solely to the Billboard charts themselves, which is a primary source that does not establish notability.
- Ajay Kumar (politician): nominated at AfD; notified Bohoindian (talk · contribs) 14:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a political figure, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL. The notability claim here is that he's general secretary of a political party's state-level chapter in one state, which is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees inclusion in Wikipedia in and of itself -- but with just two short blurbs announcing his appointment to the role and absolutely no ongoing career coverage about his work in the role, he has not been demonstrated to pass WP:GNG for it.
There are also some BLP sensitivities here, because the article otherwise hinged on an unproven allegation of involvement in a murder case -- but per WP:PERP, simply being accused of criminal activity is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself either. He would have to be found guilty in a court of law before we could even begin to consider the possibility of notability as a criminal, but this has failed to establish that he already has any notability as a politician.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a political figure, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL. The notability claim here is that he's general secretary of a political party's state-level chapter in one state, which is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees inclusion in Wikipedia in and of itself -- but with just two short blurbs announcing his appointment to the role and absolutely no ongoing career coverage about his work in the role, he has not been demonstrated to pass WP:GNG for it.
- The Clancy World Tour: nominated at AfD; notified Serggg.02 (talk · contribs) 14:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a concert tour, not properly referenced as passing WP:NTOUR. As always, concert tours are not automatically notable enough for their own standalone articles the moment it's possible to single-source that they've been announced as happening -- the notability of a concert tour doesn't vest in the ability to list a bunch of venues, it vests in the ability to properly source substantive content analyzing its "artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms", which is obviously impossible to locate for a tour that isn't even starting for another six months.
So no prejudice against recreation in the fall, if and when it actually becomes possible to write something that would actually meet NTOUR -- but just single-sourcing the fact that a future tour has been announced is not enough by itself.
- Reason: Article about a concert tour, not properly referenced as passing WP:NTOUR. As always, concert tours are not automatically notable enough for their own standalone articles the moment it's possible to single-source that they've been announced as happening -- the notability of a concert tour doesn't vest in the ability to list a bunch of venues, it vests in the ability to properly source substantive content analyzing its "artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms", which is obviously impossible to locate for a tour that isn't even starting for another six months.
- Category:Under 20 Rugby Championship: nominated at CfD (CfM); merging to Category:The Rugby Championship; notified Bcp67 (talk · contribs) 15:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Too-small category for a brand-new thing. This is a new level of competition just being introduced for the first time at this year's Rugby Championships, so the 2024 edition is not just the only article filed here now, but the only article that can be filed here at this time. So no prejudice against recreation in the future when there are enough other articles to justify a category, but it isn't necessary for just one thing, and can be catted as part of the parent entity in the interim.
- Category:Georgia at the UEFA European Championship: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified Sangjinhwa (talk · contribs) 15:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Single-entry category with no imminent prospect of expansion. 2024 is apparently the first time Georgia have ever qualified for the UEFA, so there isn't any significant volume of Georgia-UEFA content to file here yet -- the base article itself is the only thing there is, and the country does not yet have any of the spinoff content that populates other countries' subcategories of Category:Countries at the UEFA European Championship. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when there's more content for it, but it isn't needed just for one article -- the article can just be filed in the base countries category (where it already is) and Category:Georgia national football team in the meantime.
- Oona Garthwaite: nominated at AfD 15:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a musician, not properly referenced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The only claim of notability being attempted here is television soundtrack placements, which is the one criterion in NMUSIC that explicitly undermines itself with a "not enough if it's all they have" override -- but there's nothing else of note being stated here at all, and the only footnotes are primary or unreliable verification of the soundtrack placements and one Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person, none of which are support for notability in the absence of any WP:GNG-worthy third party coverage in real media.
- Josh Litman: nominated at AfD 16:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:AUTOBIO (see creator's username, as he didn't try very hard to hide) of a filmmaker not properly referenced as passing WP:CREATIVE. The attempted notability claim here is a long list of awards from small-fry film festivals -- but awards only clinch notability if they come from top-level film festivals (Cannes, Berlin, Toronto, Venice, Sundance, etc.) whose awards get reported by the media as news, and do not secure a filmmaker's notability if they come from small local, regional or fake-award-mill film festivals where media coverage is non-existent so you have to rely on primary sources such as IMDb or the festival's own self-published marketing materials to footnote the claim.
But even the rest of the article is still based mainly on primary sources (films metasourced to their own presence on streaming platforms, YouTube videos, the self-published catalogues of film festivals that his films were screened at, etc.) with little evidence of any WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about him or his films shown at all.
- Reason: WP:AUTOBIO (see creator's username, as he didn't try very hard to hide) of a filmmaker not properly referenced as passing WP:CREATIVE. The attempted notability claim here is a long list of awards from small-fry film festivals -- but awards only clinch notability if they come from top-level film festivals (Cannes, Berlin, Toronto, Venice, Sundance, etc.) whose awards get reported by the media as news, and do not secure a filmmaker's notability if they come from small local, regional or fake-award-mill film festivals where media coverage is non-existent so you have to rely on primary sources such as IMDb or the festival's own self-published marketing materials to footnote the claim.
- Brendan Uegama: nominated at AfD 17:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a cinematographer, not properly referenced as passing notability criteria for cinematographers.
The only notability claim being attempted here is that his work exists, which isn't enough in and of itself -- the notability test for a cinematographer doesn't vest in listing his film and television credits, it vests in showing third-party reliable source media coverage externally validating the significance of his work: coverage about him, evidence that he has won or been nominated for major awards for his work, and on and so forth.
But this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, like his IMDb profile and the self-published website of his own employer, with the closest thing to a reliable source being a specialty trade magazine that just links to his name being present on the cover without showing any evidence that he was the subject of any written content inside the magazine.
And even on his IMDb profile, the only awards in the conversation are regional (Leo) or specialty (Canadian Society of Cinematographers) awards that would be fine to add if the article were sourced properly, but are not prominent enough to hand him an instant notability freebie without proper sourcing.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better sourcing than this.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a cinematographer, not properly referenced as passing notability criteria for cinematographers.
- Fourth Down and Love: nominated at AfD; notified Digitalaudioworkstation (talk · contribs) 18:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a television film, not properly referenced as passing either WP:NFILM or WP:TVSHOW. As always, television films are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show evidence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them -- but this is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, with absolutely no evidence of third-party media coverage shown at all.
- Trent Cameron: nominated at AfD 18:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of an actor, not properly referenced as passing WP:NACTOR. As usual, actors are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the notability test doesn't vest in listing acting roles, it vests in showing that they've received WP:GNG-worthy coverage in real reliable source media outlets about them and their performances. But this is completely unreferenced, and even the roles posited in the intro as his "best known" performances were still supporting or bit parts rather than leading roles.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on the sourcing.
- Reason: WP:BLP of an actor, not properly referenced as passing WP:NACTOR. As usual, actors are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the notability test doesn't vest in listing acting roles, it vests in showing that they've received WP:GNG-worthy coverage in real reliable source media outlets about them and their performances. But this is completely unreferenced, and even the roles posited in the intro as his "best known" performances were still supporting or bit parts rather than leading roles.
- David Hurwitz (actor): nominated at AfD 19:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of an actor, not properly referenced as passing WP:NACTOR. As usual, actors are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the notability test doesn't vest in listing acting roles, it vests in showing that they've received WP:GNG-worthy coverage in real reliable source media outlets about them and their performances. But this is completely unreferenced, and even the roles posited in the intro as his "best known" performances were still supporting or bit parts rather than leading roles.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on the sourcing.
- Reason: WP:BLP of an actor, not properly referenced as passing WP:NACTOR. As usual, actors are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the notability test doesn't vest in listing acting roles, it vests in showing that they've received WP:GNG-worthy coverage in real reliable source media outlets about them and their performances. But this is completely unreferenced, and even the roles posited in the intro as his "best known" performances were still supporting or bit parts rather than leading roles.
- Category:Malawian music by city: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified Tumbuka Arch (talk · contribs) 15:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Unnecessary overcategorization of a small number of articles -- in both Blantyre and Lilongwe, the creator started "Musicians from [City]" categories that are fine on their own, but then vastly overdid everything else around them.
Firstly, they do not each require a separate "singers" subcategory: the musicians categories have just ten and seven articles in them, respectively, which is not large enough to require diffusion for different types of musicians -- and obviously if the singers categories aren't necessary, then neither is Category:Malawian singers by city.
Secondly, with just two categories they don't need a dedicated Category:Malawian musicians by city container either, and can just be filed directly in Category:Malawian musicians.
Thirdly, they also don't need "Music in (City)" parents that don't have anything else in them (and have nothing else in the "City" parents that can be refiled into them either), which also vitiates the need for Category:Malawian music by city.
Fourthly, neither Category:People from Blantyre nor Category:People from Lilongwe have enough occupational subcategories to require chunking them out into "People from X by occupation" containers, and if those aren't needed then Category:Malawian people by city and occupation also isn't needed either.
Again, the musicians subcategories themselves are fine, but they don't need any of these as parent or child categories -- they can both just be filed directly in Category:Malawian musicians and the appropriate "People from X", and don't need this many layers of redundancy added to their family trees.
- Reason: Unnecessary overcategorization of a small number of articles -- in both Blantyre and Lilongwe, the creator started "Musicians from [City]" categories that are fine on their own, but then vastly overdid everything else around them.
- Christopher John Fields: nominated at AfD 15:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a theatre director, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for theatre directors. The main notability claim on offer here is that his work exists, which isn't "inherently" notable without WP:GNG-worthy coverage about it, but the sole footnote here offers a blurb's worth of information about him in the process of being fundamentally about something else, which isn't enough to get him over GNG all by itself.
- William Radenhurst Richmond Lyon: nominated at AfD 20:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Unreferenced article about a political figure not shown as passing WP:NPOL. The attempted notability claim here is that he was mayor of a small town that has long since been eaten up as a city neighbourhood, which is not "inherently" notable in and of itself -- a mayor would have to pass WP:NPOL #2, which hinges on the depth of substance that can actually be written about his political impact and the volume of sourcing that can be shown to support it. But this is strictly on the level of "he is a mayor who existed, the end", and has been tagged as unsourced since 2009 without ever having any new references added to it.
- William McLean (Quebec politician): nominated at AfD 21:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Biography of a smalltown mayor not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As usual, mayors are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on a significant volume of reliable source coverage enabling us to write substantive content about their political impact (specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their mayoralty had on the development of the community, and on and so forth) -- but this is referenced entirely to primary source directory entries that are not support for notability, with absolutely no evidence of third-party coverage in media or books shown at all.
April 2024[edit]
- Akolisa Ufodike: nominated at AfD 02:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a bureaucrat and businessperson, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for either occupation. The attempted notability claims here are entirely of the "person who has had jobs" variety, but absolutely none of said jobs are "inherently" notable in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about his work in media -- but the article is referenced entirely to primary sources and blogs that are not support for notability, with not a single GNG-building source shown at all.
- Christoph Stocker: nominated at AfD; notified PuhwasfüreinName (talk · contribs) 15:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of an actor, not properly referenced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, actors are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- notabilitydoesn't reside in listing acting roles, it resides in the quality and depth and volume of media coverage about him and his performances that can be shown to support the article with.
But this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, such as theatre roles being sourced to the self-published websites of the theatre companies that staged the play -- and while there is one footnote that appears to actually be a reliable and WP:GNG-worthy source, one valid piece of media coverage isn't enough all by itself to pass GNG.
There's also a conflict of interest issue here, as the article has been directly edited by the subject himself -- and while he didn't create the article himself, he began editing it within a few hours of its creation, suggesting that he likely solicited somebody to write it for him as how else would he already know it was there so quickly?
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of a lot more than just one piece of media coverage.
- Reason: WP:BLP of an actor, not properly referenced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, actors are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- notabilitydoesn't reside in listing acting roles, it resides in the quality and depth and volume of media coverage about him and his performances that can be shown to support the article with.
- Kevan Moezzi: nominated at AfD 20:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a comedian, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for comedians. As always, comedians are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on reliable source media coverage about them -- but this is referenced predominantly to primary sources that are not support for notability, such as YouTube videos and event calendar listings -- and of the just three footnotes that represent any sort of media coverage, two of them come from university student newspapers, which would be acceptable for use if the other sourcing were better but can't carry passage of GNG all by themselves. Only one hit out of 11 represents a journalist writing about him in a real media outlet of record, and that isn't enough.
- Category:Mayors of populated places in the United States: nominated at CfD (CfR); renaming to Category:Mayors of places in the United States 18:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Page out of phase with its siblings in [{cl|Mayors by country}}. This was speedy-moved to its current name in November with a rationale that wasn't entirely applicable to it -- it cited the precedent of several "American X by city" containers having been moved to "American X by populated place", but this isn't subject to that same issue because it wasn't "Mayors by city".
All other countries across the board are at "Mayors of places" rather than "Mayors of populated places", with this as the only outlier -- and while there may be a case that they should be at "populated places" too, that would have to be done to all categories right across the board, because it's not just a special US-specific issue.
Further, all of the state-level subcategories here are also "mayors of places", not "mayors of populated places", but they would also all have to be moved on the same grounds too.
Accordingly, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody's willing to tackle a comprehensive batch move of all "Mayors of places" categories to "Mayors of populated places", but there's no convincing reason why this needs to stand alone as a unique divergence from all of the other categories.
- Reason: Page out of phase with its siblings in [{cl|Mayors by country}}. This was speedy-moved to its current name in November with a rationale that wasn't entirely applicable to it -- it cited the precedent of several "American X by city" containers having been moved to "American X by populated place", but this isn't subject to that same issue because it wasn't "Mayors by city".
- Vanessa Le Page: nominated at AfD; notified Raspberry Kool Aid (talk · contribs) 19:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a "cake artist", not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for artists or chefs. As always, people are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them in sources independent of themselves -- but this is referenced entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability, with not a single piece of third party media coverage shown at all, and even a Google News search just gets me hits for boxer Vanessa Lepage Joanisse rather than any "cake artist".
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this person from having to be referenced far, far better than this.
- Reason: Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a "cake artist", not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for artists or chefs. As always, people are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them in sources independent of themselves -- but this is referenced entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability, with not a single piece of third party media coverage shown at all, and even a Google News search just gets me hits for boxer Vanessa Lepage Joanisse rather than any "cake artist".
- Category:WikiProject Film banner templates with categories disabled: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified Cydebot (talk · contribs) 19:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Outdated maintenance tracking category no longer populated by the template that formerly used it. Previously, {{WikiProject Film}} had complex coding that created categories for whether each film met various individual class-rating criteria or not, and would populate this category if any or all of those were disabled -- but that's long since been deprecated and removed, so that the template no longer files anything in this category at all.
So it can always be recreated at a later date if it's ever needed again for some new purpose, but there's no real need for it to sit permanently empty if it isn't actually being used anymore.
- Reason: Outdated maintenance tracking category no longer populated by the template that formerly used it. Previously, {{WikiProject Film}} had complex coding that created categories for whether each film met various individual class-rating criteria or not, and would populate this category if any or all of those were disabled -- but that's long since been deprecated and removed, so that the template no longer files anything in this category at all.
- Alexis Gomez: nominated at AfD 21:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a musician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The attempted notability claim here is that she was a non-winning competitor on American Idol, which is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself -- obviously a person can lose an Idol series and still go on to accomplish other notable things in their music career anyway, but people don't get articles because they lost Idol per se -- but the only other thing here is that an independent album exists for sale on CDBaby, which isn't a notability clincher either. And for footnotes we've got one directly affiliated primary source, one directory entry, one glancing namecheck of her existence in an Idol episode recap in an article that isn't otherwise about her in any non-trivial sense, and one deadlinked piece of "local girl enjoyed reality show run" in her hometown local media, which isn't enough to get her over WP:GNG all by itself.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have more noteworthy achievements, and better sourcing for them, than just competing in a reality show.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a musician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The attempted notability claim here is that she was a non-winning competitor on American Idol, which is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself -- obviously a person can lose an Idol series and still go on to accomplish other notable things in their music career anyway, but people don't get articles because they lost Idol per se -- but the only other thing here is that an independent album exists for sale on CDBaby, which isn't a notability clincher either. And for footnotes we've got one directly affiliated primary source, one directory entry, one glancing namecheck of her existence in an Idol episode recap in an article that isn't otherwise about her in any non-trivial sense, and one deadlinked piece of "local girl enjoyed reality show run" in her hometown local media, which isn't enough to get her over WP:GNG all by itself.
- Category:Indo-Bangladesh joint production films: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified BadhonCR (talk · contribs) 04:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Recreation at a slightly different name of a category previously deleted per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 21#Category:American-Canadian joint production. Films that are joint productions of more than one country are certainly categorized for each relevant country on its own, but do not get special "X+Y joint production" categories -- since there are close to 200 countries in the world and all of their film industries engage in some degree of multinational coproduction with other countries' film industries, scaling this out to its logical endpoint would require the creation of between 30 to 40 thousand categories for every possible combination of two countries.
- Evil Empire: A Talk by Chalmers Johnson: nominated at AfD 20:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a documentary film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFILM. The main notability claim on offer here is that it exists, which isn't automatically enough in and of itself without evidence of WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about it -- but the only references here are a directory entry and a book review which fails to mention this film at all for the purposes of helping to support the notability of the film. The film's subject was certainly notable enough that his article isn't going anywhere, so a redirect to his biographical article would be reasonable, but this article as written isn't properly establishing the film as independently notable enough for its own separate article at all.
- Monsters (2004 film): nominated at AfD 20:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Completely unsourced article about a short film. The attempted notability claim here is that it won an award at a minor film festival, but WP:NFILM does not just indiscriminately accept every film festival on earth as a notability-locking award -- that only goes to major internationally prominent film festivals such as Cannes, Berlin, Venice, Toronto or Sundance whose awards get broadly reported by the media as news, because even the award itself has to meet the notability criteria for awards before it can make its winners notable for winning it. But the award claim here is unsourced, and the article isn't citing any other sources for anything else either.
- Duo (1996 film): nominated at AfD 00:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Articles about a film and its director, not properly sourced as having strong claims to passing WP:NFILM. The attempted notability claim is that it was one of the first films (according to the film article) and/or the very first film (according to the BLP) to feature a lead actor with Down syndrome, but this isn't properly sourced, and isn't "inherently" notable without sourcing -- but the film article otherwise stacks a bunch of student film awards, while the BLP doesn't actually make any other notability claims at all besides the existence of this film. Meanwhile, the film's article is "referenced" entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, while the BLP is entirely unsourced -- and there are conflict of interest issues, as the director has edited the film's article in the past and was the creator of his own BLP in defiance of WP:AUTOBIO.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt either the film or the director from having to pass WP:GNG on their sourcing.
- Reason: Articles about a film and its director, not properly sourced as having strong claims to passing WP:NFILM. The attempted notability claim is that it was one of the first films (according to the film article) and/or the very first film (according to the BLP) to feature a lead actor with Down syndrome, but this isn't properly sourced, and isn't "inherently" notable without sourcing -- but the film article otherwise stacks a bunch of student film awards, while the BLP doesn't actually make any other notability claims at all besides the existence of this film. Meanwhile, the film's article is "referenced" entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, while the BLP is entirely unsourced -- and there are conflict of interest issues, as the director has edited the film's article in the past and was the creator of his own BLP in defiance of WP:AUTOBIO.
- Doug Storer: nominated at AfD 18:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Biography of a writer and radio producer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for writers or radio producers. The only claim of notability being attempted here is that he existed, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about his work in sources independent of himself -- but the only "reference" cited here is an archival fond of his own personal papers, which is not independent of himself, and the article has existed in this state since 2008 without ever having even one other source added to it.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the article from having to say more than just "he existed", or having to cite more sourcing than this.
- Reason: Biography of a writer and radio producer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for writers or radio producers. The only claim of notability being attempted here is that he existed, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about his work in sources independent of himself -- but the only "reference" cited here is an archival fond of his own personal papers, which is not independent of himself, and the article has existed in this state since 2008 without ever having even one other source added to it.
- Viveka Adelswärd: nominated at AfD; notified Arthistorian1977 (talk · contribs) 14:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a writer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for writers. The attempted notability claim here is a language conservation award, which would be fine if the article were properly sourced but is in no way "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass WP:GNG, but the article as written is completely unsourced.
As I can't read Swedish, I'm perfectly willing to withdraw this if somebody who can read Swedish can find enough sourcing to salvage it, but she isn't exempted from having to have any sourcing just because the article has the word "award" in it.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a writer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for writers. The attempted notability claim here is a language conservation award, which would be fine if the article were properly sourced but is in no way "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass WP:GNG, but the article as written is completely unsourced.
- Davidson Centre: nominated at AfD 15:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Completely unsourced article about a smalltown sports facility. As always, sports venues are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about them, but this cites no sources at all and has been tagged as such since 2012.
- Save Max Sports Centre: nominated at AfD 15:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Semi-advertorialized article about a local sports facility, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for sports facilities. As always, sports facilities are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about them, but this is "referenced" entirely to primary source content self-published by the city council, with absolutely no evidence of media coverage shown at all -- and while it was only just recently tagged for notability issues, it has existed in this state since 2008 without seeing any better referencing added.
- Cordula Kropp: nominated at AfD; notified Julialz-intcdc (talk · contribs) 15:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of an academic, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for academics. As always, academics are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show sourcing that properly verifies that they meet certain specific criteria for inclusion -- but this has no footnotes at all, and just contextlessly lists a couple of primary sources (i.e. her own staff profiles on the self-published websites of her own employers and a directory entry) that aren't support for notability.
This was, further, created in draftspace by a brand new user and then immediately moved into mainspace by the same user without WP:AFC review practically the moment they had accumulated 10 edits for the purposes of gaining autoconfirmed privileges -- which is not the proper process for article creation either.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have any proper sourcing.
- Reason: WP:BLP of an academic, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for academics. As always, academics are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show sourcing that properly verifies that they meet certain specific criteria for inclusion -- but this has no footnotes at all, and just contextlessly lists a couple of primary sources (i.e. her own staff profiles on the self-published websites of her own employers and a directory entry) that aren't support for notability.
- Category:2023 farm sims: nominated at CfD (CfM); merging to Category:Farming video games; notified JuniperChill (talk · contribs) 16:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Overcategorization by intersection of unrelated characteristics. Category:Farming video games does not have any scheme of subcategorizing its contents by individual year of release, and the Category:Video games by year tree doesn't have any established scheme of subcategorizing games for the intersection of genre with year of release either -- so this is the only category of this type that exists at all, but special treatment isn't necessary for just four games.
All four games have been left in the 2023 video games parent alongside this, so no upmerging is necessary in that direction.
- Reason: Overcategorization by intersection of unrelated characteristics. Category:Farming video games does not have any scheme of subcategorizing its contents by individual year of release, and the Category:Video games by year tree doesn't have any established scheme of subcategorizing games for the intersection of genre with year of release either -- so this is the only category of this type that exists at all, but special treatment isn't necessary for just four games.
- Draft:Existence operating systems: nominated at MfD 17:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: "Draft template" created by an anonymous IP, with no obvious explanation of what it would be used for. The text of it is "If i better operating system is needed, please add, copy and paste your template source page", but it's rather unclear what operating systems and template code have to do with each other, so it's not clear what purpose pasting your template source page anywhere would serve, and the template fails to explain where your template source page is to be pasted.
If this kind of thing were necessary at all, it would need to be created by established Wikipedians who knew what they were doing.
- Reason: "Draft template" created by an anonymous IP, with no obvious explanation of what it would be used for. The text of it is "If i better operating system is needed, please add, copy and paste your template source page", but it's rather unclear what operating systems and template code have to do with each other, so it's not clear what purpose pasting your template source page anywhere would serve, and the template fails to explain where your template source page is to be pasted.
- Category:Original programming: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified Störm (talk · contribs) 18:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Redundant category. Although we do use the "original programming" wording in for "television programs by network" categories, that's only because we want television programs to be categorized only for the service they were actually original to, and not for services that picked up rebroadcast rights -- for instance, a show that is original to NBC in the United States would be catted as NBC original programming, but would not get categorized for its rebroadcast by CTV in Canada, ITV in the UK or Seven in Australia.
But literally by definition, every television program is "original" to some television service or other -- a television program can't exist at all without being "original" to some television channel, network or streaming platform -- which just makes this functionally indistinguishable from Category:Television programming.
- Reason: Redundant category. Although we do use the "original programming" wording in for "television programs by network" categories, that's only because we want television programs to be categorized only for the service they were actually original to, and not for services that picked up rebroadcast rights -- for instance, a show that is original to NBC in the United States would be catted as NBC original programming, but would not get categorized for its rebroadcast by CTV in Canada, ITV in the UK or Seven in Australia.
- Arshad Adnan: nominated at AfD; notified Crampcomes (talk · contribs) 17:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of an actor and film producer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for actors or film producers. This was speedy deleted in March for not properly sourcing a strong notability claim, and was then recreated just over a week ago -- but the notability claim isn't stronger or better-sourced than the first time.
Two of the eight footnotes are just redundant reduplication of one of the others, so there are really only six distinct sources here -- but four of them are just here to verify his family relationships to other notable people, rather than to demonstrate his notability, and one of the other two just briefly namechecks his existence without being about him in any non-trivial sense. Which leaves just one source that's actually contributing any WP:GNG points, but that's not enough.
As always, neither actors nor film producers get automatic notability freebies just because their work exists -- and notability is not inherited, so he isn't automatically entitled to an article just because of who his parents are, either -- but the article claims nothing about him that would be "inherently" notable at all, and isn't sourced anywhere near well enough to get him over GNG.
- Reason: WP:BLP of an actor and film producer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for actors or film producers. This was speedy deleted in March for not properly sourcing a strong notability claim, and was then recreated just over a week ago -- but the notability claim isn't stronger or better-sourced than the first time.
- Howard Gentry Jr.: nominated at AfD; notified James E. Scholz (talk · contribs) 14:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a local political officeholder, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. The attempted notability claim here is that he's a clerk of the county courts, which is not an "inherently" notable office -- it's one where he could get an article if he were shown to clear WP:GNG, but not one where he would be automatically eligible for a Wikipedia article just because he exists. But five of the eight footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all (stuff self-published by his employer, his own LinkedIn, etc.), and another is just a glancing namecheck of his existence in a biography of his father -- which leaves just two footnotes that actually represent reliable source media coverage about him, which is not nearly enough to clinch the notability of a purely local political figure.
- Shauna Vollmer King: nominated at AfD; notified Larvatiled (talk · contribs) 15:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a writer and organizational founder, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria. As always, neither writers nor founders of organizations are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source media coverage about their work -- but this is referenced entirely to glancing namechecks of her existence as a provider of soundbite in articles about other things or people, which is not what it takes: we're not looking for sources in which she speaks about someone or something else, we're looking for sources that are about her.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to show much, much better sourcing than this.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a writer and organizational founder, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria. As always, neither writers nor founders of organizations are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source media coverage about their work -- but this is referenced entirely to glancing namechecks of her existence as a provider of soundbite in articles about other things or people, which is not what it takes: we're not looking for sources in which she speaks about someone or something else, we're looking for sources that are about her.
- Category:Public high schools in Chicago suburbs: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified JoJoHall902 (talk · contribs) 13:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Recreation at a new name of a category previously deleted last year per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 25#Category:Public high schools in suburbs of Chicago. Again, the same issue remains as last time: we categorize schools by the places that they're in, but we do not categorize schools by the places that the places they're in happen to be near.
- Category:Lists of ambassadors to Northern Cyprus: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified Randam (talk · contribs) 13:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Category created just to hold one list. This would be fine if there were multiple lists to file here, but is not necessary for just one -- but given that Northern Cyprus is a disputed territory which is diplomatically recognized only by Turkey, there aren't going to be multiple lists filed here. The list is already in Category:Ambassadors of Turkey to Northern Cyprus, which is adequate categorization in context -- but this category isn't necessary if it will only ever contain one list.
- Category:Canadian military personnel from Kelowna: nominated at CfD (CfM); merging to Category:Canadian military personnel from British Columbia; notified Bri (talk · contribs) 14:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Overcategorization by location, not meeting either of the conditions under which this would be permitted. There's no particularly defining relationship between military service and individual city of origin per se, so Canada does not have any established scheme of "Canadian military personnel from Specific-City" categories for this to be part of -- apart from this new creation, Canadian military personnel are otherwise subbed only by province, and no other city in the entire country has its own dedicated city-level category at all -- but neither of the parent categories are large enough to need this for diffusability either. There's no special relationship between military service and being from Kelowna per se, and there are only three people in the category, so this doesn't need special treatment that even much larger cities like Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver or Calgary aren't getting.
- The Summer Obsession: nominated at AfD 15:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a band, not properly referenced as having a strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The attempted notability claims here are (a) being booked to play a major festival tour but then not doing it because their stage was cancelled, which is not a free pass over the touring criterion; (b) releasing one album on a major label, where NMUSIC requires two; and (c) placing songs in video games and compilation albums, which is the one criterion in NMUSIC that explicitly undermines itself with a "not enough if it's the only criterion they pass" barrier.
But this is referenced solely to an AllMusic profile, which is a valid starter source but not enough all by itself, and since all of this happened 15-20 years ago a Google search is only landing me directory entries and primary sources rather than WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage.
So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much better access than I've got to archived US music media coverage can find enough proper sourcing to salvage it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have a lot more than just one footnote.
- Reason: Article about a band, not properly referenced as having a strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The attempted notability claims here are (a) being booked to play a major festival tour but then not doing it because their stage was cancelled, which is not a free pass over the touring criterion; (b) releasing one album on a major label, where NMUSIC requires two; and (c) placing songs in video games and compilation albums, which is the one criterion in NMUSIC that explicitly undermines itself with a "not enough if it's the only criterion they pass" barrier.
- Jobbykrust: nominated at AfD; notified A2RK (talk · contribs) 20:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a band, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The main claim of notability on offer here is that they existed, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about them -- but the article is referenced entirely to primary source directory entries that aren't support for notability, with absolutely no evidence of any reliable or GNG-building coverage shown at all. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have better referencing than this.
- Colleen Brown (artist): nominated at AfD; notified Pusheen56 (talk · contribs) 21:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of an artist and writer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for artists or writers. As always, creative professionals are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their work exists -- the notability test doesn't hinge on sourcing their work to itself as proof that it exists, it hinges on sourcing their work to external validatation of its significance, through independent third-party reliable source coverage and analysis about them and their work in media and/or books.
But this is referenced almost entirely to directly affiliated primary sources -- the self-published websites of galleries that have exhibited her work, "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of organizations she's associated with, etc. -- and the only footnotes that represent any kind of third-party coverage are a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person and a single article in the local newspaper of her own hometown, which doesn't represent enough coverage to get her over the bar all by itself.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced better than this.
- Reason: WP:BLP of an artist and writer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for artists or writers. As always, creative professionals are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their work exists -- the notability test doesn't hinge on sourcing their work to itself as proof that it exists, it hinges on sourcing their work to external validatation of its significance, through independent third-party reliable source coverage and analysis about them and their work in media and/or books.
- Edward P. Romaine: nominated at AfD; notified Ivan Milenin (talk · contribs) 21:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The main notability claim here is that he's county executive of a county, but that's not a role that automatically guarantees a Wikipedia article -- it's a role where he would have to pass WP:NPOL #2, which hinges on the quality and depth of his sourcing. But of the five footnotes here, two are just redundant repetitions of two of the three others, so there are really only three sources -- and of those, one is a primary source (the county government's own self-published website about itself) that isn't support for notability at all, one is his "voter information" blurb in the local newspaper's "voter information blurbs about every candidate on the ballot" section, and one is just simple verification that he won the election -- which doesn't add up to enough to satisfy NPOL #2.
- Patti Garamendi: nominated at AfD; notified Proxmire2000 (talk · contribs) 21:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Notability is not inherited, so she isn't automatically entitled to an article just because her husband has one -- but this article is neither making nor reliably sourcing any credible claim that she would pass WP:NPOL in her own right.
The strongest notability claim here is that she's been an appointed bureaucrat in a state government department, which is not an automatic notability freebie in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy sourcing about her work -- and otherwise she's been an unsuccessful candidate in state legislature elections, which is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself, and recently won a "local woman of the year" award that is not prominent enough to make its winners "inherently" notable for winning it.
And all of this is referenced entirely to primary sources, like her staff profile on the government department's self-published website and raw tables of election results and the self-published website of the presenter of the local award, with not even one piece of WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage shown whatsoever.
This all reaches far enough back into the past that I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to archived Sacramento-area media coverage than I've got can find enough proper media coverage about her work to get her over the bar, but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced a lot better than this.
- Reason: Notability is not inherited, so she isn't automatically entitled to an article just because her husband has one -- but this article is neither making nor reliably sourcing any credible claim that she would pass WP:NPOL in her own right.
- Ian Ferrier: nominated at AfD; notified Jmanlucas (talk · contribs) 16:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a writer and musician, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for writers or musicians. This was previously deleted in 2019 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Ferrier and then got recreated in fall 2023 after his death, but this version is still referenced entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all -- even the one footnote that's citing a newspaper is still really his paid-inclusion death notice rather than a journalist-written news story about his death, and everything else is blogs and/or content self-published by companies or organizations he was directly affiliated with. And for notability claims, there are statements that might count if they were sourced properly, but there's absolutely nothing that would be "inherently" notable enough to hand him an automatic notability freebie in the absence of proper GNG-worthy sourcing.
- Category:794 short stories: nominated at CfD (CfM); merging to Category:794 works; notified Brusquedandelion (talk · contribs) 22:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Category newly created to hold just one thing, with virtually no potential for growth. "YYYY short stories" categories do not otherwise exist for any year prior to the 17th century -- it's a literary form that largely didn't exist to any significant degree much earlier than the 1600s, or at the very least has seen almost no works published much earlier than the 1600s survive for us to know about, with the result that categories in the Category:Short stories by year tree don't otherwise exist for any year earlier than 1613.
Accordingly, this doesn't need to exist for just one story, and Category:794 works is more than sufficient.
- Reason: Category newly created to hold just one thing, with virtually no potential for growth. "YYYY short stories" categories do not otherwise exist for any year prior to the 17th century -- it's a literary form that largely didn't exist to any significant degree much earlier than the 1600s, or at the very least has seen almost no works published much earlier than the 1600s survive for us to know about, with the result that categories in the Category:Short stories by year tree don't otherwise exist for any year earlier than 1613.
- Michael Connely: nominated at AfD; notified Sadustu Tau (talk · contribs) 14:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a politician not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. As always, unelected candidates for political office do not get articles on that basis per se -- the notability test at NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while candidates qualify for articles only if either (a) they already had some other basis for notability that would already have gotten them an article anyway, or (b) they can show credible grounds for why their candidacy should be seen as a special case of significantly greater and more enduring notability than most other people's candidacies. But this is written more like a campaign brochure than an encyclopedia article, and is referenced to two primary sources that aren't support for notability at all and two hits of purely run of the mill campaign coverage, which is not enough to demonstrate that he would pass either of the conditions for the permanent notability of an unelected candidate.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat, but nothing here is already grounds for an article now.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a politician not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. As always, unelected candidates for political office do not get articles on that basis per se -- the notability test at NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while candidates qualify for articles only if either (a) they already had some other basis for notability that would already have gotten them an article anyway, or (b) they can show credible grounds for why their candidacy should be seen as a special case of significantly greater and more enduring notability than most other people's candidacies. But this is written more like a campaign brochure than an encyclopedia article, and is referenced to two primary sources that aren't support for notability at all and two hits of purely run of the mill campaign coverage, which is not enough to demonstrate that he would pass either of the conditions for the permanent notability of an unelected candidate.
- Elena Dahl: nominated at AfD; notified Philologick (talk · contribs) 14:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as passing WP:AUTHOR. The main notability claim on offer here is that her work exists, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of sufficient coverage and analysis about her work to get her over WP:GNG -- but the only reference cited here at all is a primary source that isn't support for notability at all.
As I don't read Swedish, I'm perfectly willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to archived Swedish media coverage than I've got can find enough to salvage it -- but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have better referencing than this.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as passing WP:AUTHOR. The main notability claim on offer here is that her work exists, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of sufficient coverage and analysis about her work to get her over WP:GNG -- but the only reference cited here at all is a primary source that isn't support for notability at all.
- Pujan Malvankar: nominated at AfD; notified Unknowncrypto (talk · contribs) 14:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Semi-advertorialized ("Malvankar's unwavering commitment and strategic vision have positioned him as a catalyst for positive transformation in Goa's political landscape") WP:BLP of a political figure, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL. The main notability claim here is that he's the leader of the youth chapter of a state-level political party, which is not an "inherently" notable role -- it could get him into Wikipedia if he were shown to pass WP:GNG, but does not automatically entitle him to a guaranteed inclusion freebie just because he exists.
But the referencing here is not getting him over GNG: it's referenced to one primary source, one glancing namecheck of his existence as a provider of soundbite in an article about something else, and one article that doesn't even mention his name at all, and appears to be here just to tangentially verify that the political party he works for exists, none of which is support for his standalone notability as an individual at all.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this.
- Reason: Semi-advertorialized ("Malvankar's unwavering commitment and strategic vision have positioned him as a catalyst for positive transformation in Goa's political landscape") WP:BLP of a political figure, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL. The main notability claim here is that he's the leader of the youth chapter of a state-level political party, which is not an "inherently" notable role -- it could get him into Wikipedia if he were shown to pass WP:GNG, but does not automatically entitle him to a guaranteed inclusion freebie just because he exists.
- Category:Fashion in India: nominated at CfD (CfR); renaming to Category:Indian fashion 16:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Categories out of phase with their siblings in Category:Fashion by country.
These were both speedy-moved from the target names to their current names two weeks ago on C2D grounds because the head articles are at "fashion in country" -- but that should never have happened without wider discussion, because C2D and C2C are in conflict with each other here: with the isolated exception of Georgia, which has an established consensus to diverge from normal standards because of the Georgia-as-in-Tbilisi vs. Georgia-as-in-Atlanta problem, every other sibling category is at "Demonym fashion" rather than "Fashion in Country".
But it's an important principle of category trees that they need to be as consistent as possible so that the location of a category is predictable, so these need to be named in the same format as their siblings. There may be a valid argument that they should all be moved to "Fashion in Country" across the board, so I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody is willing to tackle a comprehensive batch nomination, but there's no legitimate case to be made that these two countries alone should be pushed out of sync with their siblings.
- Reason: Categories out of phase with their siblings in Category:Fashion by country.
- (Hey there) Little Miss Mary: nominated at AfD; notified This has to be edited (talk · contribs) 17:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a song, not properly referenced as having any serious claim to passing WP:NSONGS. As always, songs are not automatically entitled to have their own standalone articles just because they exist, and have to show and reliably source some claim of significance -- but the main attempt at a notability claim here is that versions of the song appeared on albums that had gold certification as albums, which is not evidence that the song has its own notability independently of those albums, and the article is referenced entirely to primary and unreliable sources that are not support for notability, with not a whit of GNG-worthy reliable source coverage of the song shown at all. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the song from having to be the subject of reliable source coverage.
- Gilles Beaudoin: nominated at AfD 17:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Biography of a former mayor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to pass conditional notability standards based on the depth of substance that can be written about their careers and the volume of sourcing that can be shown to support it -- but this, as written, is basically "mayor who existed" apart from a section that advertorially bulletpoints a generic list of "achievements" without really saying or sourcing anything whatsoever about what he personally had to do with any of them, and minimally cites the whole thing to one primary source self-published by the city government, one unreliable source, and just one hit of run of the mill local coverage upon his death, which is not enough to get him over GNG all by itself if it's the only GNG-worthy source in the mix.
Trois-Rivières is a significant enough city that a mayor would certainly be eligible to keep an article that was written substantially and sourced properly, so I'd be happy to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to the necessary resources than I've got can find enough GNG-worthy sourcing to salvage it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more substance and sourcing than this.
- Reason: Biography of a former mayor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to pass conditional notability standards based on the depth of substance that can be written about their careers and the volume of sourcing that can be shown to support it -- but this, as written, is basically "mayor who existed" apart from a section that advertorially bulletpoints a generic list of "achievements" without really saying or sourcing anything whatsoever about what he personally had to do with any of them, and minimally cites the whole thing to one primary source self-published by the city government, one unreliable source, and just one hit of run of the mill local coverage upon his death, which is not enough to get him over GNG all by itself if it's the only GNG-worthy source in the mix.
- Northern Traders Company: nominated at AfD; notified Ryansilke (talk · contribs) 02:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a company, not properly sourced as passing WP:NCORP. As always, companies are not "inherently" entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they existed, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH -- but the only source cited here is a single book in which this company gets mentioned but is not the principal subject, which is not enough all by itself, and the article has existed in this state since 2013, and been tagged as single-sourced since 2018, without ever having a second source added. And on a WP:BEFORE search, I found a few brief glancing namechecks of its existence in The Globe, but nothing substantive or detailed enough to make up the difference.
- Khadija Mbowe: nominated at AfD; notified NoonIcarus (talk · contribs) 03:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a YouTuber, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for YouTubers. As usual, YouTubers are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them and their work -- but three of the seven footnotes here are the subject's own self-published content about themself on YouTube or their own website, and one more is a "staff" profile on the self-published website of an organization they've been directly affiliated with, all of which are primary sources that are not support for notability at all.
Meanwhile, the other three footnotes are a Q&A interview in which they're talking about themself in the first person (which would be acceptable as verification of additional facts after GNG had already been covered off by stronger sourcing, but is not itself contributing to passage of GNG in the first place); one brief glancing namecheck of their existence as a provider of soundbite in an article about something other than themself, which isn't support for notability; and just one source that's actually represents third-party analysis about Khadija Mbowe in any meaningful sense, but is too short to singlehandedly clinch passage of GNG all by itself if it's the only strong source in the mix.
Obviously this is without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when an article can be sourced better than this, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to be better than this.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a YouTuber, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for YouTubers. As usual, YouTubers are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them and their work -- but three of the seven footnotes here are the subject's own self-published content about themself on YouTube or their own website, and one more is a "staff" profile on the self-published website of an organization they've been directly affiliated with, all of which are primary sources that are not support for notability at all.
- Tyler Lawlor: nominated at AfD 19:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a sports figure, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for sportspeople. To be fair, at the time this was first created, Wikipedia had a consensus that simple presence at the Olympics was an automatic inclusion lock regardless of medal placement or sourcing issues -- but that's long since been deprecated, and a non-medalist now has to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability.
But a WP:BEFORE search turned up very little that could be used to salvage the article: apart from Olympic results reporting itself, I largely just get glancing namechecks of his existence rather than coverage that's substantively about him in any notability-building sense.
Finishing ninth in an Olympic event just isn't "inherently" notable enough anymore to exempt him from ever having to have more reliable source coverage than I've been able to find.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a sports figure, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for sportspeople. To be fair, at the time this was first created, Wikipedia had a consensus that simple presence at the Olympics was an automatic inclusion lock regardless of medal placement or sourcing issues -- but that's long since been deprecated, and a non-medalist now has to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability.
- Wretha Hanson: nominated at AfD 21:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a politician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL. The attempted notability claim here is that she was an alternate vice-presidential candidate in one state for a minor fringe party's presidential campaign, which is not an automatic notability freebie -- it could get her an article if she were shown to actually pass WP:GNG for it, but it is in no way "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from GNG. But there are just three improperly-formatted footnotes here, all of which are to primary or unreliable sources that are not support for notability at all, so she hasn't been shown to satisfy GNG.
- Daniel M. Thomas: nominated at AfD 21:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Biography of a politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The attempted notability claim here is that he served on a county board of supervisors, which is not an "inherently" notable role -- it's a local office that has to satisfy NPOL #2, where the notability test is contingent on the amount of substance that can be written, and the amount of sourcing that can be shown to support it. But this is literally just "he is a person who existed, the end", and is completely unsourced.
- Category:Lists of films by year: nominated at CfD (CfS); splitting to Category:Lists of films by year and country, Category:Lists of films by year and language; notified Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 14:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: A prior discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 11#Lists of films by country or language split the "Lists of YYYY films by country or language" subcategories here into separate country and language categories, which is fine and I'm not disputing that result -- but now this category is a bit confusing and difficult to navigate, because of its mixture of two categories (one by country and one by language) per year for virtually every year after 1920, so the by-country and by-language categories should actually be split up to their own separate categories, rather than being mixed together in the same place.
This can certainly still be kept as a parent for those two new subcategories, if desired, but the by-country and by-language categories really should be split up into separate subcategories.
- Reason: A prior discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 11#Lists of films by country or language split the "Lists of YYYY films by country or language" subcategories here into separate country and language categories, which is fine and I'm not disputing that result -- but now this category is a bit confusing and difficult to navigate, because of its mixture of two categories (one by country and one by language) per year for virtually every year after 1920, so the by-country and by-language categories should actually be split up to their own separate categories, rather than being mixed together in the same place.
- Dayytona Fox: nominated at AfD; notified Bobaey19 (talk · contribs) 17:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The strongest notability claim here is a guest appearance on one album track from another musician's album, which is not an automatic notability clinch in and of itself -- and the article further states that it hasn't proven possible to verify that he's even signed to a record label at all, so the number of titles in the discography section does not fulfill NMUSIC #5 if the music waas released principally on SoundCloud.
But except for one article in The Fader which is too short to get him over WP:GNG all by itself if it's all he has, this is otherwise referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as directory entries and Reddit discussion threads and a podcast interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person -- and even on a WP:BEFORE search for other sources, I just get glancing namechecks of his existence rather than GNG-building reliable source coverage about him.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation if and when he attains a stronger notability claim that has better referencing for it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to already qualify him for an article now.
- Reason: Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The strongest notability claim here is a guest appearance on one album track from another musician's album, which is not an automatic notability clinch in and of itself -- and the article further states that it hasn't proven possible to verify that he's even signed to a record label at all, so the number of titles in the discography section does not fulfill NMUSIC #5 if the music waas released principally on SoundCloud.
May 2024[edit]
- Category:Russo-Turkish War (1672-1681): nominated at CfD (CfR); renaming to Category:Russo-Turkish War (1676-1681); notified Галай Артём (talk · contribs) 14:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Recently created new category with an error in its name. The two articles filed here both say that the Russo-Turkish war that they were part of began in 1676, not 1672 -- and indeed, we have an article titled Russo-Turkish War (1676–1681), but none titled Russo-Turkish War (1672–1681). Meanwhile, there's a completely separate article about a Polish–Ottoman War (1672–1676), but the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was not part of Russia in that era, so they aren't the same thing and wouldn't belong in one merged category.
I'm not sure whether the creator just made a typo or actually merged two separate wars together, but this category should be renamed and have Russo-Turkish War (1676–1681) added to it as its head article.
- Reason: Recently created new category with an error in its name. The two articles filed here both say that the Russo-Turkish war that they were part of began in 1676, not 1672 -- and indeed, we have an article titled Russo-Turkish War (1676–1681), but none titled Russo-Turkish War (1672–1681). Meanwhile, there's a completely separate article about a Polish–Ottoman War (1672–1676), but the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was not part of Russia in that era, so they aren't the same thing and wouldn't belong in one merged category.
- Hemang Raval: nominated at RfD; Target: Gujarat Pradesh Congress Committee (notified) 18:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Person-to-employer redirect, for a person not named in the employer's article to provide any context for why the person redirects there. To be fair, they were named in the article at the time this was created, as the party's social media coordinator -- but that isn't a notable role that would be expected to get people into an encyclopedia in and of itself, so the role has been entirely removed from the section where it appeared. I have no way of knowing if they're still in that role today or not, but if they are there'd be no great value in readding their name, and if they're not there'd be even less value in adding their name as part of a complete list of all the party's past and present social media staff either -- but there's no value in retaining the redirect at all if the name isn't present in the target article.
- Category:WikiProject Film task force usage: nominated at CfD (CfD) 19:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Outdated WikiProject tracking categories, no longer applied or used by the template that formerly used them. {{WikiProject Film}} used to feature code that would count how many of the project's task forces any given film had been assigned to, and automatically sort the page into one of these categories accordingly -- but it no longer does, so none of these categories are still in any use because the template isn't populating them anymore.
They can of course be recreated in the future if they're ever actually needed again, but there's no need to hold onto them if they're not actually being used.
- Reason: Outdated WikiProject tracking categories, no longer applied or used by the template that formerly used them. {{WikiProject Film}} used to feature code that would count how many of the project's task forces any given film had been assigned to, and automatically sort the page into one of these categories accordingly -- but it no longer does, so none of these categories are still in any use because the template isn't populating them anymore.
- Category:Deputy Heads of state: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified AlexExpensive (talk · contribs) 14:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Category of unclear utility, whose name isn't really an accurate reflection of its contents. This was created within the past month solely as a parent for Category:Vice presidential residences -- but that's already a subcategory of Category:Vice presidencies, and the name of this implies that its contents should be people rather than inanimate things related to job titles. There really aren't other types of "deputy head of state" besides vice-presidents anyway, so this functionally just duplicates another category that already exists.
- That girl is so dangerous: nominated at RfD; Target: Dangerous (Michael Jackson song) (notified); notified TheTechie (talk · contribs) 14:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Redirect from an internal song lyric to a song title, which is (a) not even accurate, and (b) ambiguous even if it were. MJ's song features the line ''The girl is so dangerous", but never once says "That girl is so dangerous", while that girl being dangerous is Kardinal Offishall's thing in his otherwise unrelated "Dangerous". Song-lyric to song-title redirects are not generally useful in most instances -- but even when they are warranted, they need to actually be accurate and exclusive to that song, where this is neither of those things.
- Category:Egyptian films by year: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified أحمد محمد بسيوني (talk · contribs) 15:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Misconceived category scheme without precedent or siblings. Despite the name of the parent category here, the contents are not actually "by year" -- Wikipedia does not categorize films for the intersection of country with individual year of release anyway, so that wouldn't even be supportable. Instead, what's actually here is two subcategories for Egyptian films by century -- but that's not a thing we do either, because that's far too wide a classification to be useful when it comes to film, and no other country has anything like this.
And for added bonus, by far the majority of Egyptian films haven't even actually been filed under here at all: Category:Egyptian films by genre has around 500 films under it, while this has just 37.
We can and do cross-categorize films on the intersection of country with decade, so no prejudice against the creation of that scheme here if desired, but by-century is too broad to be a useful grouping when it comes to films.
- Reason: Misconceived category scheme without precedent or siblings. Despite the name of the parent category here, the contents are not actually "by year" -- Wikipedia does not categorize films for the intersection of country with individual year of release anyway, so that wouldn't even be supportable. Instead, what's actually here is two subcategories for Egyptian films by century -- but that's not a thing we do either, because that's far too wide a classification to be useful when it comes to film, and no other country has anything like this.
- Category:Films by country and year: nominated at CfD (CfD) 20:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Unnecessary category. We don't categorize films for the intersection of their home country with individual year, so there's no prospect of this being filled out -- the only contents here are the Egyptian category listed for discussion below (which isn't actually catting the films by year, but by century, and thus wouldn't belong here even if it were kept), and Category:Lists of films by country and year, which is already filed in other subcategories of the parents and thus doesn't need this.
- Category:Film templates parameter issues: nominated at CfD (CfS); splitting to Category:Film templates parameter issues, Category:WikiProject Film tracking categories; notified Andrybak (talk · contribs) 22:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: This is a valid Wikiproject category that exists principally as a container for other Wikiproject tracking categories, but it's straying a bit from its stated purpose: not every category that's been filed here is tracking issues in the "something wrong here" sense, and instead some of them are just tracking usages without regard to any "issues". So genuine "issues" categories can be left here, but "usage" categories should be upmerged to the parent instead of being here.
- Ashkan Karbasfrooshan: nominated at AfD; notified 76.65.180.104 (talk · contribs) 20:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of an internet entrepreneur, not reliably sourced as passing inclusion criteria for businesspeople. As always, CEOs are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their third-party coverage in reliable sources (media, books) independent of themselves -- but this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, such as YouTube videos and press releases and Amazon sales pages for his books and "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of organizations or companies he's been directly affiliated with -- and the only acceptably reliable sources, Deadline Hollywood and the Montreal Gazette, both just feature him as a provider of soundbite, but not as the subject of the coverage, which means they aren't enough to get him over GNG all by themselves if all the rest of the sourcing is junk.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better referencing than this.
- Reason: Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of an internet entrepreneur, not reliably sourced as passing inclusion criteria for businesspeople. As always, CEOs are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their third-party coverage in reliable sources (media, books) independent of themselves -- but this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, such as YouTube videos and press releases and Amazon sales pages for his books and "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of organizations or companies he's been directly affiliated with -- and the only acceptably reliable sources, Deadline Hollywood and the Montreal Gazette, both just feature him as a provider of soundbite, but not as the subject of the coverage, which means they aren't enough to get him over GNG all by themselves if all the rest of the sourcing is junk.
- Caroline Tran: nominated at AfD 13:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a radio broadcaster, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for radio broadcasters. The notability claim here, that she's been an announcer for national radio networks in Australia, would be fine if the article were demonstrating that she passes WP:GNG -- but notability doesn't vest in doing stuff, it vests in the amount of third-party journalistic coverage she did or didn't receive about the stuff she did to establish that it's been externally validated as significant, so just existing as a radio host is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt the article from having to cite any references. But this is completely unsourced, and has an overall writing tone strongly suggestive of somebody just doing a thinly veiled rewrite of her staff profile on the self-published website of her own employer.
As the content here hinges entirely on stuff that happened between 1999 and 2010, with no further updates in the past 14 years, I'm willing to withdraw this if someone with much better access to archived Australian media coverage from the naughts can find enough proper coverage to salvage it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass GNG ont he sourcing.
- Reason: Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a radio broadcaster, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for radio broadcasters. The notability claim here, that she's been an announcer for national radio networks in Australia, would be fine if the article were demonstrating that she passes WP:GNG -- but notability doesn't vest in doing stuff, it vests in the amount of third-party journalistic coverage she did or didn't receive about the stuff she did to establish that it's been externally validated as significant, so just existing as a radio host is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt the article from having to cite any references. But this is completely unsourced, and has an overall writing tone strongly suggestive of somebody just doing a thinly veiled rewrite of her staff profile on the self-published website of her own employer.
- Jesse Beason: nominated at AfD; notified PortlandSaint (talk · contribs) 13:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a politician, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The notability claim here is that he's a county commissioner, which is not an office that confers an automatic inclusion freebie -- county commissioners would have to pass NPOL #2, where the notability test hinges on having a depth and range and volume of reliable source coverage and analysis about their work to mark them out as special cases of significantly greater notability than the norm for that level of office, and simply being verifiable as existing is not enough.
But two of the five footnotes here are primary sources (his own LinkedIn, his own "staff" profile on the self-published website of the county government) that are not support for notability at all, and two (actually the same source, reduplicated as two separate footnotes for no obvious reason) are just a glancing namecheck of his existence in a news blurb about his predecessor -- and the only source that's both third-party and about him is also a short blurb, and thus isn't enough to get him over any notability humps all by itself.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced a lot better than this.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a politician, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The notability claim here is that he's a county commissioner, which is not an office that confers an automatic inclusion freebie -- county commissioners would have to pass NPOL #2, where the notability test hinges on having a depth and range and volume of reliable source coverage and analysis about their work to mark them out as special cases of significantly greater notability than the norm for that level of office, and simply being verifiable as existing is not enough.
- Atefeh Khademolreza: nominated at AfD; notified Amyps (talk · contribs) 19:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a filmmaker, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing notability criteria for filmmakers. The strongest notability claim here is awards from minor regional film festivals that aren't prominent enough to confer instant notability freebies on their winners -- that only attaches to a narrow tier of internationally prominent film festivals whose awards get reported by the media as news, such as Cannes, Berlin, Venice, Toronto or Sundance, and not to just any film festival on earth whose awards you have to source to the festival's own self-published content about itself because media reportage treating the award as news doesn't exist. But the awards here are the latter, not the former.
It also attempted to claim a "nomination" for a more notable award, but I had to strip that as inaccurate marketing torque -- TIFF's awards simply adjudicate and consider every film present in the entire festival lineup, and do not release any special shortlists of finalists before announcing the winner. So being a "nominee" for a TIFF award that the film didn't actually win is not a noteworthy distinction, because there isn't a functional distinction between being a "nominee" for a TIFF award and simply being present at TIFF.
As for the sourcing, there is one solid and GNG-worthy source here (#1), but that isn't enough all by itself -- everything else is cited to primary sources that are not support for notability, such as the self-published websites of directly affiliated companies or organizations, pieces of her own first-person writing, and interviews in which she's talking about herself in the first-person.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have a lot more than just one GNG-worthy source.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a filmmaker, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing notability criteria for filmmakers. The strongest notability claim here is awards from minor regional film festivals that aren't prominent enough to confer instant notability freebies on their winners -- that only attaches to a narrow tier of internationally prominent film festivals whose awards get reported by the media as news, such as Cannes, Berlin, Venice, Toronto or Sundance, and not to just any film festival on earth whose awards you have to source to the festival's own self-published content about itself because media reportage treating the award as news doesn't exist. But the awards here are the latter, not the former.
- Category:Coaches Kerala Cricket Team 2023: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified Venkataramana66 (talk · contribs) 19:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: One-entry category for a non-defining characteristic. We do not exhaustively subcategorize cricket coaches for the individual year they worked, particularly given that sports teams normally only have one coach at any given time, and thus each category would have only one entry (or perhaps two if a coach got fired and replaced partway through the season, but never, ever enough to actually surpass minimum size requirements for categories). And even if this category were justified, this wouldn't be its correct name anyway.
- Draft:TPT: nominated at RfD; Target: The Powder Toy; notified 172.59.33.122 (talk · contribs) 20:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Draft-to-mainspace redirect with no clear reason to exist. This isn't a leftover of any page-moving history, but was just created a couple of days ago as a redirect right from the jump for no obvious reason -- but redirects don't need to be created in draftspace as an interim step toward anything, and we already have a disambiguation page at the mainspace title TPT with no evidence that the specific target chosen here would get to claim primary topic rights over all the other things listed in the dab page, so there's just no purpose to this.
- Reign in Slumber: nominated at AfD; notified JammyKH (talk · contribs) 20:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a band, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The main notability claim being attempted here is that one of its members was previously associated with a different band, which is not "inherently" notable without WP:GNG-worthy sourcing -- but seven of the 16 footnotes here (close to half) are the band's own self-published content about itself on their own website or Bandcamp, which is not notability-supporting sourcing as it isn't independent of them, and the other nine aren't coverage about this band, but either glancingly mention this band in the process of being about something else, or are completely tangential sourcing about people associated with this band doing other unrelated things that have nothing to do with this band, none of which helps to support this band's notability either.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have much, much better sourcing than this.
- Reason: Article about a band, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The main notability claim being attempted here is that one of its members was previously associated with a different band, which is not "inherently" notable without WP:GNG-worthy sourcing -- but seven of the 16 footnotes here (close to half) are the band's own self-published content about itself on their own website or Bandcamp, which is not notability-supporting sourcing as it isn't independent of them, and the other nine aren't coverage about this band, but either glancingly mention this band in the process of being about something else, or are completely tangential sourcing about people associated with this band doing other unrelated things that have nothing to do with this band, none of which helps to support this band's notability either.
- Property Shop: nominated at AfD 20:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a television show, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:TVSHOW. This was created in good faith in 2009, a time when we essentially extended an automatic presumption of notability to any television series that was verifiable as existing regardless of the quality of its sources -- but that's long since been deprecated, and a television series now has to be shown to pass WP:GNG.
I've found very little sourcing of value on a WP:BEFORE search, however: I was able to replace the primary sourcing that this was formerly based on with one newspaper article about the show, but other than that one source I only found glancing namechecks of its existence in coverage of other things, such as other similar TV shows about other people and Tatiana Londono's later career ups and downs after this show ended, which might support a BLP of her as a person but doesn't establish the notability of this show as a show.
- Reason: Article about a television show, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:TVSHOW. This was created in good faith in 2009, a time when we essentially extended an automatic presumption of notability to any television series that was verifiable as existing regardless of the quality of its sources -- but that's long since been deprecated, and a television series now has to be shown to pass WP:GNG.
- Godswill Obinna Ejianya: nominated at AfD; notified Sayvhior (talk · contribs) 12:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a businessperson, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for businesspeople. As always, businesspeople are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourcing -- but of the six footnotes here, two of them (actually one, reduplicated as two distinct footnotes for no obvious reason) are just "covering" him in the context of turning 50, which is not a notability claim in and of itself, and the other four are all covering him in the context of receiving a local "man of the year" award that isn't highly prominent enough to be a notability-making award. And even more interestingly, those four sources are all virtually identical in wording despite seemingly coming from four different media outlets, meaning that it's really either a wire service article or a self-published press release from the subject. But four media outlets reprinting the same article adds up to one GNG point, not four, which means he hasn't actually been shown to pass GNG.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more sourcing than this.
- Reason: Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a businessperson, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for businesspeople. As always, businesspeople are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourcing -- but of the six footnotes here, two of them (actually one, reduplicated as two distinct footnotes for no obvious reason) are just "covering" him in the context of turning 50, which is not a notability claim in and of itself, and the other four are all covering him in the context of receiving a local "man of the year" award that isn't highly prominent enough to be a notability-making award. And even more interestingly, those four sources are all virtually identical in wording despite seemingly coming from four different media outlets, meaning that it's really either a wire service article or a self-published press release from the subject. But four media outlets reprinting the same article adds up to one GNG point, not four, which means he hasn't actually been shown to pass GNG.
- Emji Spero: nominated at AfD 12:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for writers. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis about them and their work in third-party media -- but this is referenced entirely to sources directly affiliated with the claims, such as the promotional pages of the subject's books on the self-published websites of their own publishers, with not even one hit of proper GNG-building media coverage shown at all.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this person from having to have better sourcing than this.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for writers. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis about them and their work in third-party media -- but this is referenced entirely to sources directly affiliated with the claims, such as the promotional pages of the subject's books on the self-published websites of their own publishers, with not even one hit of proper GNG-building media coverage shown at all.
- Kailash Sirohiya: nominated at AfD 13:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a publisher, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for publishers. The main claim of notability stated here is that he exists, which isn't "automatically" notable in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him and his work, but two of the four footnotes here are a directory entry and his company's own contact information on its own self-published website, neither of which are support for notability -- and the other two are both dead links whose former content is unverifiable for the purposes of figuring out whether they supported notability or not, and even those were just jengastacked onto a statement of his existence rather than being used to actually expand the article with content.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the article from having to say more than "he exists", or having to cite more and better sourcing than this.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a publisher, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for publishers. The main claim of notability stated here is that he exists, which isn't "automatically" notable in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him and his work, but two of the four footnotes here are a directory entry and his company's own contact information on its own self-published website, neither of which are support for notability -- and the other two are both dead links whose former content is unverifiable for the purposes of figuring out whether they supported notability or not, and even those were just jengastacked onto a statement of his existence rather than being used to actually expand the article with content.
- Obinna Sunday Ejianya: nominated at AfD; notified Sayvhior (talk · contribs) 13:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Note that this same article existed at the title Godswill Obinna Ejianya, but was moved back to draftspace by the creator within minutes of my initiating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godswill Obinna Ejianya, but was created at this new title almost simultaneously with all of that. So it isn't eligible for immediate speedy deletion as a recreation of deleted content, but the actual issues here haven't changed at all: it's still a semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a businessperson, still not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for businesspeople.
As always, businesspeople are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourcing -- but of the six footnotes here, two of them (actually one, reduplicated as two distinct footnotes for no obvious reason) are just "covering" him in the context of turning 50, which is not a notability claim in and of itself, and the other four are all covering him in the context of receiving a local "man of the year" award that isn't highly prominent enough to be a notability-making award. And even more interestingly, those four sources are all virtually identical in wording despite seemingly coming from four different media outlets, meaning that it's really either a wire service article or a self-published press release from the subject. But four media outlets reprinting the same article adds up to one GNG point, not four — we're counting the number of distinct articles, not the number of newspapers that reprint the same article — which means he hasn't actually been shown to pass GNG.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more sourcing than this.
- Reason: Note that this same article existed at the title Godswill Obinna Ejianya, but was moved back to draftspace by the creator within minutes of my initiating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godswill Obinna Ejianya, but was created at this new title almost simultaneously with all of that. So it isn't eligible for immediate speedy deletion as a recreation of deleted content, but the actual issues here haven't changed at all: it's still a semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a businessperson, still not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for businesspeople.
- Draft:British North America Revolution of 1844: nominated at MfD 02:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Draft with a very strong whiff of the WP:HOAX. It covers off the obvious quibble that nobody's ever heard of this with a claim that it was suppressed until recently, but even the sourcing isn't bearing that out.
To begin with, had the Canadian government so recently declassified any documents revealing such events, that would have been reported as news, but I've done extensive WP:BEFORE searches and absolutely no such reportage can be found.
But even the idea that such a thing could have been covered up for so long in the first place is also deeply suspect: Canada already had newspapers like The Globe and The Banner in 1844, and they would absolutely have found out about and reported on events like the ones described here. A "Battle of North York", only a few miles north of Toronto, and you think George Brown never caught wind of it? A "Battle of Scugog", basically smack dab in Port Perry, yet somehow nobody ever knew about it? I don't think so.
Even more importantly, however, one of the two "sources" cited here is definitely falsified: it's a book that really exists, but was published 108 years earlier than the footnote claims -- and it's a book that's in the public domain and thus fully readable on the Internet Archive and HathiTrust, so I and another editor at WikiProject Canada have both already grepped through it looking for any evidence of this, and both came up dry.
Admittedly I haven't been able to access the other book cited here at all, but it's profoundly unlikely that it "reveals" anything that every other historian and every other media outlet in Canada has completely overlooked.
- Reason: Draft with a very strong whiff of the WP:HOAX. It covers off the obvious quibble that nobody's ever heard of this with a claim that it was suppressed until recently, but even the sourcing isn't bearing that out.
- Brian Plummer (musician): nominated at AfD 19:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a musician, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The only properly verifiable claim of notability here is that he existed -- it asserts that he had hit singles, but fails to provide any verification of where they were "hits" (spoiler alert, not in RPM). And for "referencing", it just contextlessly bulletpoints a list of mostly primary source websites that aren't support for notability, without footnoting anything in the article body to any of them.
On a WP:BEFORE search, further, I didn't find enough coverage to salvage this -- apart from one concert review in The Globe and Mail from 1980, I otherwise only get local coverage in Saskatoon, glancing namechecks of his existence in sources that aren't about him in any sense, and tangential hits for other unrelated Brian Plummers (such as Bill Pullman's character in The Equalizer).
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more and better sourcing than he has.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a musician, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The only properly verifiable claim of notability here is that he existed -- it asserts that he had hit singles, but fails to provide any verification of where they were "hits" (spoiler alert, not in RPM). And for "referencing", it just contextlessly bulletpoints a list of mostly primary source websites that aren't support for notability, without footnoting anything in the article body to any of them.
- Marilyn Faye Parney: nominated at AfD 19:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a musician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The strongest claim of notability here is that she won and/or was nominated for minor regional music awards that don't fulfill NMUSIC #8 (that's looking for top-level national awards on the level of the Junos or the Canadian Country Music Awards, not just the Saskatchewan Country Music Awards) -- and otherwise, this is written more like her self-published marketing materials on a primary source than a proper encyclopedia article, making it unsurprising that the only footnote present here is to her own self-published marketing materials on a primary source.
And on a WP:BEFORE search of proper media archives, I'm not finding much to salvage it with -- I found a few hits of "local woman does stuff" in Saskatoon's local media, but nothing that would support a meaningful notability claim under NMUSIC, and mainly I just found concert listings.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to get over GNG on the sourcing.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a musician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The strongest claim of notability here is that she won and/or was nominated for minor regional music awards that don't fulfill NMUSIC #8 (that's looking for top-level national awards on the level of the Junos or the Canadian Country Music Awards, not just the Saskatchewan Country Music Awards) -- and otherwise, this is written more like her self-published marketing materials on a primary source than a proper encyclopedia article, making it unsurprising that the only footnote present here is to her own self-published marketing materials on a primary source.
- Sudbury Downtown Master Plan: nominated at AfD 00:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a downtown redevelopment proposal, not properly referenced as passing Wikipedia inclusion criteria. Things like this might be valid article topics if they're well-referenced, but are not "inherently" notable just because they exist -- but except for one "article" (really just a reprint of a press release) in Canadian Architect magazine, this is otherwise referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as content self-published by the city and content self-published by the Ontario Association of Architects.
- Category:Cartoon Network stubs: nominated at CfD (CfD) 01:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Stub category no longer populated enough to warrant retention. As always, stub categories need to have a minimum of 60 articles, but after I detagged a handful of articles that were too long to be tagged as stubs at all this now only has 20. It has existed in its current form since 2011, after being deleted as underpopulated in 2007 -- but was then tagged as underpopulated again in 2018, until that template was deleted at TFD, so it's not entirely clear that it was ever really adequately populated at all.
Even the 21 pages that are here are a bit of a random grab bag, as it's populated mainly by video game or album tie-ins to Cartoon Network programming and/or foreign channels that franchised Cartoon Network or Boomerang branding, rather than things that actually have much to do with the Category:United States television stubs parent -- so it's not at all clear that there are actually very many things that could be added here to get it back over 60 articles again. It's not generally standard practice, at any rate, to stub-tag things for overly specific associations like particular TV networks; WikiProject Cartoon Network already has project templates on the talk pages anyway, so this isn't serving any important purpose that isn't already being served elsewhere.
- Reason: Stub category no longer populated enough to warrant retention. As always, stub categories need to have a minimum of 60 articles, but after I detagged a handful of articles that were too long to be tagged as stubs at all this now only has 20. It has existed in its current form since 2011, after being deleted as underpopulated in 2007 -- but was then tagged as underpopulated again in 2018, until that template was deleted at TFD, so it's not entirely clear that it was ever really adequately populated at all.
- Capital City Connection: nominated at AfD 02:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Completely unsourced, and tagged as such since 2012 without ever having any sources added, article about a minor local public access television program. As always, television shows are not automatically notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability, so nothing here is "inherently" notable without sourcing for it.
- Kevin Baugh (politician): nominated at AfD; notified AdmiralGeneralAladeen1 (talk · contribs) 13:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP about the self-appointed head of a micronation, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria. As always, micronationalists do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #1 as national "heads of state" just because they exist, but this is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG: two of the four footnotes are primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and the other two are short blurbs that aren't substantive enough to clear the bar if they're all he's got.
In addition, we've already been around this maypole before, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Baugh -- and it also warrants note that this version got quarantined in draftspace a few hours after its creation on the grounds of being inadequately sourced, but was then arbitrarily moved back into mainspace by its creator on the grounds that its title was "misspelled". And since we already have a redirect representing the same person at the plain, undisambiguated title anyway, I don't see any pressing need to retain this as a second redirect.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much better sourcing than this.
- Reason: WP:BLP about the self-appointed head of a micronation, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria. As always, micronationalists do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #1 as national "heads of state" just because they exist, but this is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG: two of the four footnotes are primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and the other two are short blurbs that aren't substantive enough to clear the bar if they're all he's got.
- One Spoon of Chocolate: nominated at AfD; notified KingArti (talk · contribs) 17:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a not-yet-released film, not yet reliably sourced as the subject of enough production coverage to exempt it from the primary notability criteria for films.
There's a common, but erroneous, belief thatthe WP:NFF section of WP:NFILM grants an automatic presumption of notability to every film that can source the start of shooting, even if that's basically the only notability claim the article contains -- but what NFF actually says is that "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines."
That is, "notable once principal photography has commenced" is a special criterion that applies to very high-profile films (such as Marvel or Star Wars films) that get such a depth and range production coverage that they'd probably still remain notable even if they failed to ever see release at all, while the bar that most normal films actually have to clear is that they've actually been released and reviewed by film critics.
But what we have for referencing here is one casting announcement and one glancing mention that the idea was in the works 12 years ago in an article about the director's prior film, which isn't nearly enough coverage to get the NFF treatment.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation if and when the film finally sees release, but simply single-sourcing that production has commenced isn't "inherently" notable in and of itself.
- Reason: Article about a not-yet-released film, not yet reliably sourced as the subject of enough production coverage to exempt it from the primary notability criteria for films.
- Template:Short Film Golden Bear Winners: nominated at TfD 18:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Navigation box that isn't providing much navigation. Of the 67 films that have won this award since it was first introduced in 1956, just six of them currently have articles linked to in Short Film Golden Bear -- if there are others that have articles but have been overlooked for linking, I don't have the depth of knowledge to find most of them -- and only two of them even had their articles properly linked in this template prior to me finding it just now, so that I had to wikilink them myself. I additionally caught one instance where a film that won this award in the 1980s was being erroneously dual-listed as also winning it in the 1970s instead of the film that actually won it in the earlier year -- and even that, I only caught because it was one of the titles I had to link, and thus had a "hey, wait, didn't I already link that one?" moment when I got to the second appearance, so there may still be other errors in here that I failed to notice.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when a larger number of films listed here have articles to link -- but with very few films in this template actually having articles at present, and short films being much harder to write properly sourced articles about at the best of times due to receiving much less WP:GNG-worthy coverage as a rule, for the time being the article is sufficient and a navigation box isn't helpful.
- Reason: Navigation box that isn't providing much navigation. Of the 67 films that have won this award since it was first introduced in 1956, just six of them currently have articles linked to in Short Film Golden Bear -- if there are others that have articles but have been overlooked for linking, I don't have the depth of knowledge to find most of them -- and only two of them even had their articles properly linked in this template prior to me finding it just now, so that I had to wikilink them myself. I additionally caught one instance where a film that won this award in the 1980s was being erroneously dual-listed as also winning it in the 1970s instead of the film that actually won it in the earlier year -- and even that, I only caught because it was one of the titles I had to link, and thus had a "hey, wait, didn't I already link that one?" moment when I got to the second appearance, so there may still be other errors in here that I failed to notice.
- Jennifer M. Adams: nominated at AfD; notified Losipov (talk · contribs) 21:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a diplomat, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for diplomats. As always, ambassadors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis about their work in independent third-party sources such as media or books -- but this is referenced entirely to primary source content self-published by the government (i.e. her own employer), with absolutely no evidence of WP:GNG-worthy sourcing shown at all.
Further, this was draftspaced last year per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer M. Adams, before being arbitrarily moved back into mainspace earlier this month on the grounds that her nomination had finally been confirmed by the Senate -- but since the notability bar for ambassadors hinges on GNG-worthy coverage, that should never have happened without the draft being significantly improved with stronger sourcing first.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable in the absence of significantly better sourcing than this.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a diplomat, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for diplomats. As always, ambassadors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis about their work in independent third-party sources such as media or books -- but this is referenced entirely to primary source content self-published by the government (i.e. her own employer), with absolutely no evidence of WP:GNG-worthy sourcing shown at all.
- Template:Tentative title: nominated at TfD; notified PoisonHK (talk · contribs) 15:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Template of dubious necessity. The requested moves process, through which any discussions about page titles would be handled, already sticks a banner template announcing that a page move discussion is under way at the top of the article, so any page that has an RM discussion underway would already be tagged for that without needing this. And if you can't be bothered to initiate an RM discussion, then this template has no value on pages at all if there's no explanation provided of what the tagger's issue with the existing page title is -- which was exactly the case on the only page that this template was actually being used on (which I should also note that I found because this template was transcluding non-existent redlinked categories onto the page.)
So there's no need for this, because other templates already cover off the same purpose if the issue is properly addressed through standard processes, and the template has no value at all if the tagger can't be arsed to follow standard processes.
- Reason: Template of dubious necessity. The requested moves process, through which any discussions about page titles would be handled, already sticks a banner template announcing that a page move discussion is under way at the top of the article, so any page that has an RM discussion underway would already be tagged for that without needing this. And if you can't be bothered to initiate an RM discussion, then this template has no value on pages at all if there's no explanation provided of what the tagger's issue with the existing page title is -- which was exactly the case on the only page that this template was actually being used on (which I should also note that I found because this template was transcluding non-existent redlinked categories onto the page.)
- Template:Turkmenistan-women-footy-bio-stub: nominated at CfD (SfD); notified Lunar Spectrum96 (talk · contribs) 15:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Unnecessary stub template. Wikipedia does not have any standard practice of segregating male and female footballers with separate stub templates or categories -- stub is a temporary maintenance state, not a core characteristic of the topic, so the stub category system does not always need to be as precisely trait-sorted as main permanent content categories are. (See e.g. actors and actresses, who are gender-sorted in content categories but not in stub cats.) So we just tag women and men with the same "Country-footy-bio-stub" tag, and I can't find any other country where male and female footballers have separate stub tags or categories from each other.
Yet this was newly created within the past week, for just one person whose article wasn't even a stub in the first place and thus wouldn't even have needed {{Turkmenistan-footy-bio-stub}} anyway, and tried to file her in a redlinked stub category that doesn't exist to have people filed in it either.
- Reason: Unnecessary stub template. Wikipedia does not have any standard practice of segregating male and female footballers with separate stub templates or categories -- stub is a temporary maintenance state, not a core characteristic of the topic, so the stub category system does not always need to be as precisely trait-sorted as main permanent content categories are. (See e.g. actors and actresses, who are gender-sorted in content categories but not in stub cats.) So we just tag women and men with the same "Country-footy-bio-stub" tag, and I can't find any other country where male and female footballers have separate stub tags or categories from each other.
- Category:Chicago and North Western Railroad municipalities: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified CyberTheTiger (talk · contribs) 16:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Single-entry category for a non-defining characteristic. Wikipedia does not have any established scheme of categorizing populated places for the railway lines that happen to pass through them, and one small village of just 1,500 people does not need special treatment over and above all the other towns and cities in the world that are located on railway lines but not categorized for that.
- Category:South Park episodes featuring video game consoles: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified MKsLifeInANutshell (talk · contribs) 17:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Category for a non-defining characteristic. We do not have any scheme of "[Series] episodes featuring [minor plot point]" categories for this to be a part of, and the episodes are not defined by having video game consoles in them as plot points.
- Category:Natural death while driving: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified Statesongs (talk · contribs) 17:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Category for a non-defining characteristic. We certainly have some categories for the cause of people's deaths, but we do not have any scheme of categorizing people for tangential circumstances around their deaths, such as what they happened to be doing at the time. So if driving a car wasn't the cause of their death (e.g. in a car accident), then the relationship between death and driving is not a category-worthy characteristic.
- Category:Manufacturing companies based in West Fargo, North Dakota: nominated at CfD (CfM); merging to Category:Manufacturing companies based in North Dakota; notified Billybob2002 (talk · contribs) 17:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Overly narrow intersection of characteristics, resulting in categories with just one entry each. While some "Manufacturing companies based in Specific-City" categories do exist for major US cities with a lot of articles to be filed there, like Los Angeles or Chicago or NYC, they do not need to exist right across the board the moment a smaller city or town has one manufacturing company with an article.
No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when there are five or six articles that can be filed in each of them, but it does not aid navigation to funnel everything down into microcategories of one.
- Reason: Overly narrow intersection of characteristics, resulting in categories with just one entry each. While some "Manufacturing companies based in Specific-City" categories do exist for major US cities with a lot of articles to be filed there, like Los Angeles or Chicago or NYC, they do not need to exist right across the board the moment a smaller city or town has one manufacturing company with an article.
- Category:Companies based in Williston: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified Alpinerelic (talk · contribs) 17:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Single-entry microcategory for a small town. Categories like this do not automatically need to exist for every place that has one company based there, and should wait until there are five or six companies to file in it. For added bonus, the article filed here was left duplicate-filed in both the Category:Companies based in North Dakota and Category:Williston, North Dakota parents alongside this, so no upmerging is even needed because it's already in both of the potential upmerge targets.
- Hamich: nominated at RfD; Target: Said Hamich Benlarbi (notified); notified Miracle Pen (talk · contribs) 21:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Disputed speedy deletion that I'm consquently taking here even though it clearly passes the WP:SNOW test. This is a "surname to individual person with it" redirect, except that (a) it isn't even his actual surname, but instead the article was created at Said Hamich despite the subject being more usually credited as Said Hamich Benlarbi, such that every single article about the film he just dropped at Cannes a few years ago completely missed that an article existed until I found and moved it, and (b) he isn't even the sole or primary topic for "Hamich" anyway, because every single inbound link that's actually coming here is expecting a German village just outside Aachen that was bombed in World War II. So using this as a surname-redirect isn't appropriate if the incoming links are actually expecting something completely different.
- Sokpoly Voeun: nominated at AfD 14:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Semi-advertorialized article about a filmmaker and photographer, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for filmmakers or photographers. The strongest attempted notability claim here is a table of "nominations" for awards at various film festivals, except there aren't actually awards in the mix here: three of the listed festivals are just ones where the film was screened in the program, with no evidence of any actual award nominations or wins shown at all, and most of them are "to be announced" because the festival is still in the future and hasn't even released its program announcements yet, so it still isn't even confirmed that the film will even screen there at all, let alone win any awards.
All of them, further, are "sourced" to the self-published websites of the film festivals themselves, rather than media coverage, and the rest of the footnotes are also a mix of primary and unreliable sources that aren't support for notability, rather than WP:GNG-building coverage in media or books.
There's also a possible conflict of interest here, as the creator and primary other editor have been blocked as sockpuppets in an WP:SPI check following their behaviour in the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reign in Slumber discussion.
- Reason: Semi-advertorialized article about a filmmaker and photographer, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for filmmakers or photographers. The strongest attempted notability claim here is a table of "nominations" for awards at various film festivals, except there aren't actually awards in the mix here: three of the listed festivals are just ones where the film was screened in the program, with no evidence of any actual award nominations or wins shown at all, and most of them are "to be announced" because the festival is still in the future and hasn't even released its program announcements yet, so it still isn't even confirmed that the film will even screen there at all, let alone win any awards.
- Ledo Hotel: nominated at AfD 17:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a demolished hotel, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria. The referencing here is more than 50 per cent reference bombed to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, such as photographs and directory entries and the self-published websites or Twitter feeds of entities named in the article.
And even what there is for proper media coverage isn't building a particularly strong case for notability, as it's entirely local coverage either (a) focusing specifically on the site's place in the city's perennially changing arena-block redevelopment project rather than anything that would establish that it was ever actually noteworthy as a hotel, or (b) tangentially verifying other facts that have nothing whatsoever to do with the hotel, like the existence of the McEwen Architecture School and the farmer's market.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this hotel from having to have a stronger notability claim than just having existed, or from having to have more than just a redevelopment proposal for coverage.
- Reason: Article about a demolished hotel, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria. The referencing here is more than 50 per cent reference bombed to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, such as photographs and directory entries and the self-published websites or Twitter feeds of entities named in the article.
- Category:Art awards by country: nominated at CfD (CfR); renaming to Category:Visual arts awards by country; notified Sionk (talk · contribs) 21:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: There's a bit of an inconsistency issue in this category tree that's causing some confusion. All of the subcategories here are named "X art awards" except the American one, which is "American visual arts awards" -- but the parent category is Category:Visual arts awards rather than "Art awards", which resulted in me having to do a major cleanup run to move a whole lot of articles that had been left in the parent instead of being moved to any of these subcategories, potentially because these are named differently than the parent and thus people didn't notice them.
- Meritt North: nominated at AfD; notified Mooresklm2016 (talk · contribs) 13:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of an actress and writer, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for actresses or writers. The main notability claim on the table here is that her work exists, which is not automatic grounds for an article -- the notability test doesn't hinge on doing stuff per se, it hinges on the amount of third-party coverage and analysis that has or hasn't been paid to the stuff she did in WP:GNG-worthy sources like media or books.
But this is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all -- audiobook narration and writing credits sourced to the works' presence on online bookstores, acting credits sourced to her own self-published acting résumé, volunteer work sourced to the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations, and I've already stripped a good half-dozen citations to IMDb on the grounds of IMDb not being a reliable source -- with not a whit of GNG-building coverage about her in reliable sources shown at all.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have better referencing than this.
- Reason: Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of an actress and writer, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for actresses or writers. The main notability claim on the table here is that her work exists, which is not automatic grounds for an article -- the notability test doesn't hinge on doing stuff per se, it hinges on the amount of third-party coverage and analysis that has or hasn't been paid to the stuff she did in WP:GNG-worthy sources like media or books.
- Category:1890 establishments in Malawi: nominated at CfD (CfR); renaming to Category:1890 establishments in the British Central Africa Protectorate; notified Tumbuka Arch (talk · contribs) 14:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: "YYYY establishments" categories are supposed to follow the name the place had at the time, not the name it has now, so "Malawi" is an anachronism in these years. (In addition to these, I also found a couple of siblings where "YYYY in Nyasaland" already existed, so I've simply redirected those accordingly -- but in the cases batched here, the appropriate "British Central Africa Protectorate" or "Nyasaland" category doesn't already exist yet.)
- Surprise! (film): nominated at AfD; notified Jmabel (talk · contribs) 14:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Unsourced article about a short film. The notability claim here, that it won an award at a regional film festival, would be fine if the article were properly sourced -- but the "awards" criterion in NFILM is looking for top internationally-prominent film festivals on the order of Cannes, Berlin, Venice, Toronto or Sundance, not just any film festival that exists, so winning an award at the Seattle film festival isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt the film from actually having to have sources.
- KayvonTV: nominated at AfD 04:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Semi-advertorialized article about a YouTube series, not properly sourced as passing WP:NWEB. (It's also shooting for "has been featured on major television networks" in the lede, but I've been completely unable to verify that claim at all.)
As always, web content is not "inherently" notable just because it exists, and has to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source media coverage about it -- but this is referenced almost entirely to primary and unreliable sources that are not support for notability, such as his own self-published website and Blogspot blogs and dead TV listings and content self-published by his own past employers.
Out of 21 footnotes, just two are to nominally reliable sources at all: a deadlinked (but waybackable) Sports Illustrated piece that briefly glances off Kayvon's existence without being about him in any non-trivial sense, and a deadlinked (but proquestable) Toronto Sun article that's just about him hanging out at TIFF to collect celebrity autographs rather than doing anything noteworthy, which isn't enough to get him over GNG all by itself. But that Toronto Sun hit is also the only remotely useful source that turns up at ProQuest at all: otherwise, I'm only finding glancing namechecks of Kayvon Zahedi attending Toronto Argonauts Grey Cup victory parades as a spectator and a press release self-published by Aux, not anything remotely notability-building.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced properly.
- Reason: Semi-advertorialized article about a YouTube series, not properly sourced as passing WP:NWEB. (It's also shooting for "has been featured on major television networks" in the lede, but I've been completely unable to verify that claim at all.)
- Draft:Orison TV: nominated at MfD 15:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Likely WP:HOAX article about a purported television station. If this does exist at all, it certainly isn't as a broadcast television station in Toronto, as this article claims -- spoiler alert, I live in Toronto, and since the Canadian Screen Awards are happening this week I've literally been hitting up Playback and Broadcast Dialogue and TV eh and the Toronto Star and The Globe and Mail 10 to 15 times a day all week, so I would know of any announcements about new television stations that launched just yesterday.
And while there is a website provided as an EL, it looks for all the world like just a bunch of AI-generated images arrayed on a page to resemble a television schedule, while absolutely nothing on it actually verifies anything whatsoever about it broadcasting over the air or being based in Toronto. (Also, if it's based in Toronto, then why did the creator add the Montreal TV navbox at the bottom of the page?)
And even a Google search completely failed to turn up any other coverage in other publications besides the ones I've already been looking at, either, so I can't even verify that this is just an inaccurate article about a real thing that exists somewhere other than Toronto (or Montreal) either.
- Reason: Likely WP:HOAX article about a purported television station. If this does exist at all, it certainly isn't as a broadcast television station in Toronto, as this article claims -- spoiler alert, I live in Toronto, and since the Canadian Screen Awards are happening this week I've literally been hitting up Playback and Broadcast Dialogue and TV eh and the Toronto Star and The Globe and Mail 10 to 15 times a day all week, so I would know of any announcements about new television stations that launched just yesterday.
- Sekolah Kebangsaan Bukit Tinggi, Kedah: nominated at AfD; notified Harukkaaario (talk · contribs) 15:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Semi-advertorialized article about a primary school, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for schools. As always, schools (especially at the primary level) are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about them in media or books -- but this is "referenced" entirely to the school's own self-published website about itself, and written in a tone that resembles the school writing about itself ("in the center, you'll find an open book and a scroll, representing the thirst for knowledge and the quest to uncover it") rather than objective third-party analysis.
- XIX International Chopin Piano Competition: nominated at AfD; notified Intforce (talk · contribs) 15:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:TOOSOON article about a thing there's absolutely nothing of any significance to say yet. This is still about a year and a half away, so we obviously don't know who the prize winners or even the competitors are -- literally the only thing we can say about it at this point is competiton rules sourced to the competition's own self-published website about itself, which is not a notability-building source.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation next year if and when there's actually reliably sourceable stuff to say about it, but we don't already need a boilerplate placeholder article to exist now.
- Reason: WP:TOOSOON article about a thing there's absolutely nothing of any significance to say yet. This is still about a year and a half away, so we obviously don't know who the prize winners or even the competitors are -- literally the only thing we can say about it at this point is competiton rules sourced to the competition's own self-published website about itself, which is not a notability-building source.
- Griffin Burns: nominated at AfD; notified Minmarion (talk · contribs) 17:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a voice actor and singer, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for actors or singers. As always, neither actors nor singers are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them and their work -- but this is very heavily reference bombed to primary sources that are not support for notability (songs sourced to Spotify or YouTube or their own lyrics on Genius, acting credits sourced to IMDb, YouTube "interviews" where he's talking about himself, etc.), with virtually no evidence of GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about him shown at all.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced better than this.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a voice actor and singer, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for actors or singers. As always, neither actors nor singers are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them and their work -- but this is very heavily reference bombed to primary sources that are not support for notability (songs sourced to Spotify or YouTube or their own lyrics on Genius, acting credits sourced to IMDb, YouTube "interviews" where he's talking about himself, etc.), with virtually no evidence of GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about him shown at all.
- The Bombsters: nominated at AfD 20:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a band, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The notability claim on offer here is that they exist (or existed, because a lot of the information here is very outdated), and the referencing is entirely to primary sources (music sourced to its own presence on iTunes or YouTube, etc.) that are not support for notability.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have better referencing than this.
- Reason: Article about a band, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The notability claim on offer here is that they exist (or existed, because a lot of the information here is very outdated), and the referencing is entirely to primary sources (music sourced to its own presence on iTunes or YouTube, etc.) that are not support for notability.
June 2024[edit]
- Cold Driven: nominated at AfD 00:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a band, not reliably sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The attempted notability claim, that they had a single peak #51 in the charts, is unsourced and has proven entirely unverifiable, and #51 is in no way a high enough chart position to constitute and instant notability freebie without adequate sourcing -- but the only source cited here at all is a (pporly written) directory entry, and on a WP:BEFORE search for other sources all I'm finding is their own hometown local paper and an alt-weekly, which isn't enough to get them over WP:GNG if it's all they've got.
- Template:Pop-band-stub: nominated at CfD (SfD) 00:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Stub template of unclear utility. It's only used on a grand total of ten articles, so it doesn't have its own dedicated stub category and instead just sorts those articles into the generic Category:Musical group stubs -- but because every last one of those ten articles features this template alongside a "Nationality-band-stub" template that sorts its articles into a more specific national or continental subcategory of Category:Musical group stubs, that means this template is adding nothing but unnecessary parent-and-child duplicate categorization.
- Joshua Michael McConkey: nominated at AfD; notified Sidneylululol (talk · contribs) 17:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of an as yet unelected political candidate, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se -- the notability test at NPOL is winning the election and thereby holding office, while unelected candidates must either (a) have preexisting notability for other reasons independently of their candidacy, or (b) show credible reasons why their candidacy is a special case of much greater significance than most other people's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test. But this demonstrates neither of those things, and is referenced 50 per cent to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and 50 per cent to a tiny blip of coverage in the context of him tangentially winning a tidy but not massive sum of money in the lottery, which is not in and of itself a reason why his candidacy would be special.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat, but nothing here is grounds for an article to already exist now.
- Reason: WP:BLP of an as yet unelected political candidate, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se -- the notability test at NPOL is winning the election and thereby holding office, while unelected candidates must either (a) have preexisting notability for other reasons independently of their candidacy, or (b) show credible reasons why their candidacy is a special case of much greater significance than most other people's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test. But this demonstrates neither of those things, and is referenced 50 per cent to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and 50 per cent to a tiny blip of coverage in the context of him tangentially winning a tidy but not massive sum of money in the lottery, which is not in and of itself a reason why his candidacy would be special.
- Template:No Infobox: nominated at TfD; notified MAL MALDIVE (talk · contribs) 13:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Newly-created (within the past two weeks) that's simply redundant to other processes. We already have a way to flag an article as needing an infobox, but it's done on the talk page, whereas this was designed to go at the top of one article that the creator was interested in -- except that it likely took the creator more time to create this than it would have taken them to just add the desired infobox themselves. For added bonus, it's designed to file articles in a dated monthly "Wikipedia articles with an infobox request from Month Year" category scheme that doesn't exist to have articles filed in it, and there's been no obvious consensus that anybody wants Category:Wikipedia articles with an infobox request (where, again, note that the contents are talk pages, not articles) to start being subbed out by date.
So, essentially, this is just reduplicating a process we already have, badly and in the wrong place for it.
- Reason: Newly-created (within the past two weeks) that's simply redundant to other processes. We already have a way to flag an article as needing an infobox, but it's done on the talk page, whereas this was designed to go at the top of one article that the creator was interested in -- except that it likely took the creator more time to create this than it would have taken them to just add the desired infobox themselves. For added bonus, it's designed to file articles in a dated monthly "Wikipedia articles with an infobox request from Month Year" category scheme that doesn't exist to have articles filed in it, and there's been no obvious consensus that anybody wants Category:Wikipedia articles with an infobox request (where, again, note that the contents are talk pages, not articles) to start being subbed out by date.
- Neal Potter: nominated at AfD 11:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Biography of a politician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL. The notability claim here is that he was a county executive, which is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees a Wikipedia article -- it's a role where he would have to pass the second clause of NPOL ("local political figures"), where the inclusion test hinges on the depth and volume of reliable source coverage about him that can be shown to support an article with. But except for one obituary upon his death, this is otherwise referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, with no other reliable or GNG-building sources shown.
As his career was several decades ago and thus might not Google well, I'd be perfectly happy to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to archived Arlington-area media coverage from the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s than I've got can find enough to salvage it -- but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better referencing than this.
- Reason: Biography of a politician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL. The notability claim here is that he was a county executive, which is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees a Wikipedia article -- it's a role where he would have to pass the second clause of NPOL ("local political figures"), where the inclusion test hinges on the depth and volume of reliable source coverage about him that can be shown to support an article with. But except for one obituary upon his death, this is otherwise referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, with no other reliable or GNG-building sources shown.
- Samantha Squalia: nominated at AfD; notified Ilikesmallphones (talk · contribs) 16:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a mayor, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for mayors. As always, mayors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to pass WP:NPOL #2 -- where the inclusion test hinges not on simple verification of her existence, but on the ability to show a depth and range and volume of reliable source coverage that enables us to write a substantive article about her political impact: specific things she did, specific projects she spearheaded, specific effects her mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth.
But this is of the "she is a mayor who exists, so here's some unsourced background information about her educational and pre-political career credentials" variety, and is "referenced" solely to her primary source profile on the self-published website of the city council, which is not a notability-building source.
No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source something more substantive and better-sourced than this, but just using the city government's own website to prove that she exists is not how you get a mayor over the wikibar.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a mayor, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for mayors. As always, mayors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to pass WP:NPOL #2 -- where the inclusion test hinges not on simple verification of her existence, but on the ability to show a depth and range and volume of reliable source coverage that enables us to write a substantive article about her political impact: specific things she did, specific projects she spearheaded, specific effects her mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth.
- Ayyalur Subhan Ali: nominated at AfD; notified Dragisdr (talk · contribs) 16:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a smalltown local politician, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for local politicians. As always, politicians at the local level of office are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the inclusion test for a local politician hinges on showing a significant depth and volume of reliable source coverage about their work -- specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, significant effects their leadership had on the development of the town or city, and on and so forth -- but this is basically just "he is a politician who exists", referenced mainly to primary sources that are not support for notability, while the closest thing to reliable source coverage about him is covering him in the context of undergoing surgery rather than in the context of anything related to making him notable as a politician.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much more and better sourcing than this.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a smalltown local politician, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for local politicians. As always, politicians at the local level of office are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the inclusion test for a local politician hinges on showing a significant depth and volume of reliable source coverage about their work -- specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, significant effects their leadership had on the development of the town or city, and on and so forth -- but this is basically just "he is a politician who exists", referenced mainly to primary sources that are not support for notability, while the closest thing to reliable source coverage about him is covering him in the context of undergoing surgery rather than in the context of anything related to making him notable as a politician.
- Beverley Lyons: nominated at AfD 16:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a journalist, not properly referenced as passing notability criteria for journalists. As always, journalists are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to have third-party coverage and analysis about them and the impact of their work in reliable sources other than their own employers -- but the sole reference cited here is from her own employer at the time, and thus isn't independent of her for the purposes of building notability, and the article has been tagged for needing more sourcing since 2010 without improvement.
In addition, the whole thing is written very much like somebody did a thinly veiled rewrite of her own staff profile from an employer rather than a proper encyclopedia.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have more than just her own former employer for sourcing.
- Reason: Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a journalist, not properly referenced as passing notability criteria for journalists. As always, journalists are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to have third-party coverage and analysis about them and the impact of their work in reliable sources other than their own employers -- but the sole reference cited here is from her own employer at the time, and thus isn't independent of her for the purposes of building notability, and the article has been tagged for needing more sourcing since 2010 without improvement.
- Salazar Awards: nominated at AfD 20:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Semi-advertorialized article about a regional graphic design award, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for events. As always, events are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party media coverage about them -- but this is "referenced" entirely to the organization's own self-published content about itself, with absolutely no evidence of third-party attention shown at all.
It also warrants note that this was a conflict of interest from the start, as the article creator's username of "Gdcbc" corresponds letter-for-letter to the name of the organization that presents this award.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to pass GNG on its sourceability.
- Reason: Semi-advertorialized article about a regional graphic design award, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for events. As always, events are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party media coverage about them -- but this is "referenced" entirely to the organization's own self-published content about itself, with absolutely no evidence of third-party attention shown at all.
- Category:Lists of film festivals in Oceania: nominated at CfD (CfD) 15:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Category which exists solely to hold a list with the exact same name. This would be fine if one or more Oceanian countries had their own separate standalone lists independently of the continent-wide list, but none do, so the list does not need an "eponymous" category just to recursively contain itself if there are no sublists to file along with it.
The list, further, was left double-filed in all of the parent categories alongside this, so no upmerging is needed.
- Reason: Category which exists solely to hold a list with the exact same name. This would be fine if one or more Oceanian countries had their own separate standalone lists independently of the continent-wide list, but none do, so the list does not need an "eponymous" category just to recursively contain itself if there are no sublists to file along with it.
- Film festivals in Pristina: nominated at AfD 15:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Omnibus article that's merging a bunch of unrelated events into a single "topic" in an attempt to bypass around the fact that most of them likely wouldn't meet notability standards on their own. Essentially, this is a compilation of mini-articles about six different film festivals, one of which does also have its own separate article but the other five do not, and none of which have any obvious connection with each other beyond happening to be held in the same city -- and most of the article's content is referenced to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as tourist information guides and content self-published by the festivals themselves.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation of standalone articles about individual film festivals in Pristina if they can be properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria, but collating a bunch of unrelated film festivals together into a single omnibus article isn't a way around having to use properly reliable sources to establish each festival's own standalone notability.
- Reason: Omnibus article that's merging a bunch of unrelated events into a single "topic" in an attempt to bypass around the fact that most of them likely wouldn't meet notability standards on their own. Essentially, this is a compilation of mini-articles about six different film festivals, one of which does also have its own separate article but the other five do not, and none of which have any obvious connection with each other beyond happening to be held in the same city -- and most of the article's content is referenced to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as tourist information guides and content self-published by the festivals themselves.