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.
- Category:Mexican engineer stubs: nominated at CfD (CfM); merging to Category:Engineer stubs 19:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Underpopulated stub category with no evidence of approval by Category:WikiProject Stub sorting. As always, stub categories are not free for just anybody to create on a whim, and require a minimum of 60 articles for entry -- but even after deep-scanning the Category:Mexican people stubs parent for any missed engineers, this still only has 17 articles in it.
The stub template is fine, since it can always just sort articles into the target categories, but there would have to be at least 43 more articles before a dedicated category was warranted.
- Reason: Underpopulated stub category with no evidence of approval by Category:WikiProject Stub sorting. As always, stub categories are not free for just anybody to create on a whim, and require a minimum of 60 articles for entry -- but even after deep-scanning the Category:Mexican people stubs parent for any missed engineers, this still only has 17 articles in it.
- Numeer: nominated at AfD 13:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a musician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The main notability claim on offer here is that his music exists, which is not automatically enough in and of itself -- but the referencing is entirely to primary sources, such as his music metaverifying itself on streaming platforms or iTunes or Genius, and/or unreliable celebrity gossip blogs like Celebuzz, which are not support for notability.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this.
- Reason: Article about a musician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The main notability claim on offer here is that his music exists, which is not automatically enough in and of itself -- but the referencing is entirely to primary sources, such as his music metaverifying itself on streaming platforms or iTunes or Genius, and/or unreliable celebrity gossip blogs like Celebuzz, which are not support for notability.
- Michael Lodge: nominated at AfD; notified Uhooep (talk · contribs) 15:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP about the leader of an organization, not properly referenced as passing notability criteria for leaders of organizations. As always, just having a job is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt a person from having to pass WP:GNG on their sourcing -- but the content here is strictly on the level of "he is a person who has a job, the end", with absolutely no content about any specific things he did in the job, and the "referencing" consists entirely of his primary source staff profiles on the self-published websites of his own employers rather than any evidence of third-party reliable source coverage about his work in media or books.
- Ray Mueller (politician): nominated at AfD; notified 73.241.82.110 (talk · contribs) 15:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a political figure, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL. The notability claim here is as a city and county councillor, which is not a level of office that guarantees "inherent" notability to every holder of it -- politicians at the local levels of government have to pass NPOL #2, where the notability test hinges on writing and sourcing a substantive article about their political impact (specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their work had on the development of the city/county, etc.) rather than just verifying that they exist.
But as written, this effectively just states that he exists and verifies his local election results, while containing absolutely none of the type of content that is actually required to establish the notability of a local councillor, and is referenced to a mix of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and community hyperlocals within the county being cited only to verify his election status rather than analyzing his work in the job.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the article from having to be written and sourced more substantially than this.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a political figure, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL. The notability claim here is as a city and county councillor, which is not a level of office that guarantees "inherent" notability to every holder of it -- politicians at the local levels of government have to pass NPOL #2, where the notability test hinges on writing and sourcing a substantive article about their political impact (specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their work had on the development of the city/county, etc.) rather than just verifying that they exist.
- Category:Mayoralties of municipalities in the United States: nominated at CfD (CfR); renaming to Category:Individual mayoralties in the United States 16:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Category whose name is a bit confusing and not accurately descriptive of its contents. The contents here are spinoff pages where a political figure (usually a person who went on from the mayoralty to hold much more prominent national offices, and thus has a very, very long biographical article that needed to have stuff chunked out from it for size management) has had a "Mayoralty of [Person]" article created as a spinoff from their base biography -- but that means that the defining characteristic here is "mayoralties of individual people", not "mayoralties of municipalities" (which could be too easily confused with a redundant duplication of Category:Mayors of places in the United States, and thus potentially have stuff misfiled in it by editors who weren't paying attention to the actual contents of the categories.)
So it should likely be renamed to make its intentions clearer.
- Reason: Category whose name is a bit confusing and not accurately descriptive of its contents. The contents here are spinoff pages where a political figure (usually a person who went on from the mayoralty to hold much more prominent national offices, and thus has a very, very long biographical article that needed to have stuff chunked out from it for size management) has had a "Mayoralty of [Person]" article created as a spinoff from their base biography -- but that means that the defining characteristic here is "mayoralties of individual people", not "mayoralties of municipalities" (which could be too easily confused with a redundant duplication of Category:Mayors of places in the United States, and thus potentially have stuff misfiled in it by editors who weren't paying attention to the actual contents of the categories.)
- Claude Bédard: nominated at AfD 16:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a textbook translator, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for translators. The strongest notability claim here, that he won a private internal award from a trade association, is not an automatic notability freebie without WP:GNG-worthy sourcing -- but the only attempt at "referencing" here is one of his books metaverifying its own existence, which is not the kind of sourcing we need to see.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced better than this.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a textbook translator, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for translators. The strongest notability claim here, that he won a private internal award from a trade association, is not an automatic notability freebie without WP:GNG-worthy sourcing -- but the only attempt at "referencing" here is one of his books metaverifying its own existence, which is not the kind of sourcing we need to see.
- Marzieh Sotoudeh: nominated at AfD 17:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as passing WP:AUTHOR. The attempted notability claim here, that she won a literary award, would be fine if the article were sourced properly, but is not "inherently" notable without sourcing -- an award has to itself be a notable award in the first place before it can make its winners notable for winning it, so an award claim cannot clinch inclusion without sourcing for it, but I had to remove the citation that was present here as it led to a squatted page that tried to make me download a virus rather than anything that verified a literary award, and that left the article completely unsourced.
On a WP:BEFORE search, meanwhile, the closest thing to an acceptable source I found was one book review on a WordPress blog -- and even if I were to overlook the fact that it's WordPress, I just can't overlook the even bigger issue with it: this article was created in 2011 by an editor with the username "Mohammad Rajabpur", while that WordPress review was written in 2020 with a bylined author credit of...Mohammad Rajabpur, strongly implying the possibility of conflict of interest editing by a friend or colleague. And I can otherwise confirm that she's never had any WP:GNG-worthy coverage in Canada at all, as her name brings up absolutely nothing in either ProQuest or Newspapers.com.
Since I cannot read Farsi, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to Iranian media than I've got can find evidence that she's had GNG-worthy coverage in Iran, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have any sources.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as passing WP:AUTHOR. The attempted notability claim here, that she won a literary award, would be fine if the article were sourced properly, but is not "inherently" notable without sourcing -- an award has to itself be a notable award in the first place before it can make its winners notable for winning it, so an award claim cannot clinch inclusion without sourcing for it, but I had to remove the citation that was present here as it led to a squatted page that tried to make me download a virus rather than anything that verified a literary award, and that left the article completely unsourced.
- Category:Television series based on novels: nominated at CfD (CfM); merging to Category:Television shows based on novels 21:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Category without a clear point of distinction from its parent. In theory, a distinction could be drawn between television series and television films, but the parent category isn't actually doing that: there's no Category:Television films based on novels at all, and instead virtually everything in Category:Television shows based on novels or its "Television shows based on [Country] novels" subcategories is a series (sometimes even with this and one or more of those both sitting alongside each other), so in actual practice this is just duplicating the parent unnecessarily.
I'm willing to withdraw this if there's any kind of editorial will to start creating and populating "Television films based on novels" categories to sister this, but as things currently stand this isn't offering a meaningful point of distinction from its parent.
- Reason: Category without a clear point of distinction from its parent. In theory, a distinction could be drawn between television series and television films, but the parent category isn't actually doing that: there's no Category:Television films based on novels at all, and instead virtually everything in Category:Television shows based on novels or its "Television shows based on [Country] novels" subcategories is a series (sometimes even with this and one or more of those both sitting alongside each other), so in actual practice this is just duplicating the parent unnecessarily.
- Category:Digital-only stations on the AM band: nominated at CfD (CfM); merging to Category:Digital-only radio stations; notified Thomas H. White (talk · contribs) 15:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Wikipedia does not categorize radio stations for the matter of whether they're on the AM or FM bands, so we don't need to intersect digital-only status with a criterion that we don't otherwise categorize for.
- Category:Luarsab Sharashidze: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified WDS-Georgia (talk · contribs) 15:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Eponymous category for a person, with no content in it besides the eponym himself. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the subject to know whether there are other things that could be filed here to populate it, so I'm not prepared to just speedy-delete it as a categorization error myself without discussion and am willing to withdraw this if other content can be found, but people do not automatically get categories at their own names just to hold their own main biographies.
- Category:Television series about microbes: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified ArranIsAwesome (talk · contribs) 16:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: "[Form of media] about X" category with only one thing in it and little prospect of expansion. As always, we do not automatically need an "about" category for every single possible thing that one television series has been "about" -- this would need to be common enough of a subject for television series to have at least five entries in it before it was justifiable.
- Category:Albert Henry Krehbiel: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified GobsPint (talk · contribs) 16:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Eponymous category for a person, without the volume of spinoff content needed to justify an eponymous category. Other than the eponymous biography itself, the only other things filed here are an alternate version of his name that elides the middle "Henry", and the title of a book about him, both of which are just redirects to the eponymous biography rather than separate articles.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can actually find evidence that there are enough other related articles that could be filed here, but we do not need a category just to hold three different ways of getting to the same place.
- Reason: Eponymous category for a person, without the volume of spinoff content needed to justify an eponymous category. Other than the eponymous biography itself, the only other things filed here are an alternate version of his name that elides the middle "Henry", and the title of a book about him, both of which are just redirects to the eponymous biography rather than separate articles.
- Category:Films set in Velankanni: nominated at CfD (CfM); merging to Category:Films set in Tamil Nadu; notified MS2P (talk · contribs) 16:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: "Films set in [Place]" category for a small town, without enough films filed in it to need a dedicated category. As always, every town that exists does not automatically get one of these the moment a couple of films have been set there -- it would be fine if there were five or ten films to file here, but if there are less than five then the state level is sufficient.
- Category:Crater Lake: nominated at CfD (CfR); renaming to Category:Crater Lake (Oregon); notified Aboutmovies (talk · contribs) 16:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Ambiguity problem. This category is for one specific lake-slash-national-park in the United States whose name is Crater Lake, but I just had to clean it up for the misfiling of several generic crater lakes in Uganda. As always, the mere presence of a usage note on the category itself is not necessarily sufficient to control the problem, as people frequently file things in categories that sound right and then walk away without checking the category to see if they're doing it wrong -- so the category itself should be named as precisely as possible to quash any ambiguity.
- James Clark (Politician): nominated at AfD; notified SalvatorePagdades (talk · contribs) 17:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a political figure, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. As usual, unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates -- the notability test at NPOL is winning the election and thereby holding the office, while a candidate gets to have an article in advance of the election only if he can credibly claim to have notability for other reasons besides the mere fact of being a candidate per se. But this makes no such claim, and is not referenced anywhere near well enough to claim that he would somehow pass WP:GNG in lieu of having to win the seat first.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation after July 4 if he wins the seat, but nothing here is grounds for him to already have an article now.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a political figure, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. As usual, unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates -- the notability test at NPOL is winning the election and thereby holding the office, while a candidate gets to have an article in advance of the election only if he can credibly claim to have notability for other reasons besides the mere fact of being a candidate per se. But this makes no such claim, and is not referenced anywhere near well enough to claim that he would somehow pass WP:GNG in lieu of having to win the seat first.
- Template:CartoonNetwork-stub: nominated at CfD (SfD) 13:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Template no longer needed. After the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 1#Category:Cartoon Network stubs resulted in its dedicated category being deleted as underpopulated, the uses of this template were purged for whether they needed to be filed directly in Category:Animation stubs or not, and it turned out that every article with this on it either didn't belong in that category at all or was simply redundant to the page already being in the Category:Animated television series stubs subcategory, meaning it's now been completely stripped from articlespace and is now in use only on a single ten-year-old user sandbox page.
Essentially, without a dedicated category this is just redundant to other templates, because any possible use of it would now just result in duplicate categorization of the page in both Category:Animation stubs and one of its subcategories at the same time.
- Reason: Template no longer needed. After the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 1#Category:Cartoon Network stubs resulted in its dedicated category being deleted as underpopulated, the uses of this template were purged for whether they needed to be filed directly in Category:Animation stubs or not, and it turned out that every article with this on it either didn't belong in that category at all or was simply redundant to the page already being in the Category:Animated television series stubs subcategory, meaning it's now been completely stripped from articlespace and is now in use only on a single ten-year-old user sandbox page.
- Joseph Cloud: nominated at AfD 13:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Biography of a person not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria. The attempted notability claim here, "melter and refiner at the U.S. Mint", could get him an article if he were well-sourced as passing WP:GNG on coverage about his work, but is not "inherently" notable enough to guarantee him an article without proper sourcing for it -- but the only two footnotes here are a primary source directory entry that isn't support for notability at all and a glancing namecheck of his existence on one page of a book about the history of the county where he lived, which is not enough to get him over GNG all by itself if it's all he actually has for coverage.
- Category:Sophie, Duchess of Edinburgh: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified Ivanhardybirt (talk · contribs) 17:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Eponymous category for a person, without the spinoff content needed to justify an eponymous category. Other than the eponym herself, the only other thing filed here is her husband -- but he's a member of the royal family by birth and she's only a member of the royal family by marriage, so her status derives from being married to him rather than vice versa, and he has an eponymous category because there's a lot of other stuff to file in it besides just their BLPs.
So this would be fine if there were at least four or five other things to file here besides just Edward and Sophie, but she doesn't automatically get one of these just because he has one, if their BLPs are the only things in it.
- Reason: Eponymous category for a person, without the spinoff content needed to justify an eponymous category. Other than the eponym herself, the only other thing filed here is her husband -- but he's a member of the royal family by birth and she's only a member of the royal family by marriage, so her status derives from being married to him rather than vice versa, and he has an eponymous category because there's a lot of other stuff to file in it besides just their BLPs.
- Category:Acid Jazz singles: nominated at CfD (CfR); renaming to Category:Acid Jazz Records singles; notified Karl Twist (talk · contribs) 18:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Rename for clarity. This was created to hold singles released on a record label named Acid Jazz Records, but since acid jazz is also the name of a genre of music it's liable to be misunderstood if not named with the utmost clarity.
- Category:President of the Tanzania Episcopal Conference: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified Xystus fx (talk · contribs) 18:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Badly named categories for the presidency of organizations. If kept, "president" would need to be pluralized in the case of the Tanzania Episcopal Conference and changed to chairmen in the case of the Association of Member Episcopal Conferences in Eastern Africa (whose article ascribes its leaders with chairmancy, not presidency) -- but every organization that exists does not automatically get one of these as a matter of course the moment one or two former leaders of it happen to have Wikipedia articles, so it's not clear that either of these categories are needed.
- Felipe Leal (influencer): nominated at AfD; notified TheNuggeteer (talk · contribs) 16:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of an "influencer", not properly sourced as meeting inclusion criteria for internet personalities. The only attempted claim of notability here is that he exists, which is not automatically enough in and of itself, and the article is referenced entirely to unreliable sources that are not support for notability, with not one bit of reliable source coverage about him shown at all. Simply existing as a self-appointed "influencer" is not inherently notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced properly.
July 2024
[edit]- Peter Wall (entrepreneur): nominated at AfD; notified LynnEditor.Nam (talk · contribs) 12:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a crypto entrepreneur, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for businesspeople. As always, CEOs of companies are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to establish that they pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage and analysis about them and their work -- but five of the eight footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability, such as his own company's press releases and his own self-created YouTube videos and a "staff" profile on the self-published website of an organization he's directly affiliated with, and one more is an unreliable source crypto-news forum. And what's left for reliable sources is one Forbes article that just briefly namechecks him as a provider of soundbite and one Forbes article that completely fails to contain even a glancing namecheck of Peter Wall at all.
As always, Wikipedia is not a free LinkedIn alternative for tech entrepreneurs, so nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a crypto entrepreneur, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for businesspeople. As always, CEOs of companies are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to establish that they pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage and analysis about them and their work -- but five of the eight footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability, such as his own company's press releases and his own self-created YouTube videos and a "staff" profile on the self-published website of an organization he's directly affiliated with, and one more is an unreliable source crypto-news forum. And what's left for reliable sources is one Forbes article that just briefly namechecks him as a provider of soundbite and one Forbes article that completely fails to contain even a glancing namecheck of Peter Wall at all.
- Nonhlanhla Joye: nominated at AfD; notified Durbaneditor (talk · contribs) 16:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a social entrepreneur, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for entrepreneurs. The attempted notability claim here, that she founded an organization, would be fine if the article were reliably sourced to WP:GNG-worthy coverage about her in real media of record, but this as written is referenced far, far too heavily to primary source content self-published by organizations she's directly affiliated with, and shows very little evidence of third-party coverage about her in independent GNG-worthy sources.
- Nico Schoof: nominated at AfD; notified Dede2008 (talk · contribs) 16:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a political figure, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. Firstly, notability is not inherited, so he isn't automatically notable just because of who his brother is -- but in terms of establishing his own standalone notability, the only claim even being attempted here is that he's been a chair of political committees, with absolutely no indication that he's ever held a noteworthy political office, and there's only one footnote being cited to support the article, which is not enough to get him over WP:GNG all by itself.
As I'm not particularly knowledgeable about Dutch politics, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with more expertise in the area can expand the article with a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it, but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to show a lot more than just "brother of somebody else".
- Reason: WP:BLP of a political figure, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. Firstly, notability is not inherited, so he isn't automatically notable just because of who his brother is -- but in terms of establishing his own standalone notability, the only claim even being attempted here is that he's been a chair of political committees, with absolutely no indication that he's ever held a noteworthy political office, and there's only one footnote being cited to support the article, which is not enough to get him over WP:GNG all by itself.
- List of Canadian women government ministers: nominated at AfD 18:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Poorly maintained and deeply-context deficient list with significant maintainability problems. For starters, it just indiscriminately lists women in one common omnibus list, regardless of whether they served in a federal or provincial/territorial cabinet, which isn't particularly helpful -- if there's any value to this, it would be far better served by either splitting the list up into separate subsections for each individual government, or actually creating full standalone spinoff lists for each individual government, for clarity of context.
For another thing, it's actually missing far more names than it's including -- a quick WP:AWB comparison between this list and Category:Women government ministers of Canada found 326 women in the category who are not in this list, compared to just 135 women who are in both places.
This list hasn't been updated with any new names since 2017, so no woman who joined a Canadian government cabinet in the past seven years has ever been added here at all, and even in 2017 it already wasn't particularly complete, because the creator basically aimed for at-the-time comprehensiveness only for the federal and Ontario cabinets, and bunked off the entire rest of the country.
In other words, this list is deeply incomplete, and isn't organized in a way that would actually be helpful or valuable to a reader -- and since we already have Category:Women government ministers of Canada as it is, it's not entirely clear that it would be worth the time investment to actually fix this list. I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody actually is willing to put in that time, but there's no value in holding onto it in this state.
- Reason: Poorly maintained and deeply-context deficient list with significant maintainability problems. For starters, it just indiscriminately lists women in one common omnibus list, regardless of whether they served in a federal or provincial/territorial cabinet, which isn't particularly helpful -- if there's any value to this, it would be far better served by either splitting the list up into separate subsections for each individual government, or actually creating full standalone spinoff lists for each individual government, for clarity of context.
- Template:Sex-documentary-film-stub: nominated at CfD (SfD) 14:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Stub template of unclear utility. It's only used on three articles total, which obviously isn't enough to give it its own dedicated category -- so instead it just sorts the three articles directly into Category:Documentary film stubs, where it just represents duplicate categorization because all three films are also in the Category:1960s documentary film stubs subcategory alongside it, and Category:Sexuality stubs, which is too broad and overgeneralized to be a useful place to look for films. So all this is really adding is superfluous stub categories that the three films don't really need to be in.
- Category:Independent film stubs: nominated at CfD (CfD) 15:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Stub category and template that have likely outlived their usefulness. As always, the core purpose of stub categories is to facilitate expanding and improving them so that the contents can ultimately be pulled out of the stub categories -- so the most useful stub categories are ones that correspond to a community of editors with some expertise in the subject area, who can therefore collaborate on expanding the articles. But there isn't any particular community of independent film experts -- editors' areas of expertise are going to centre around countries and/or genres rather than indie status per se.
That is, there are editors who work on American films regardless of their major vs indie status, and editors who work on Japanese films regardless of their major vs indie status, and editors who specialize in science fiction films regardless of their major vs indie status, and on and so forth, but there aren't really editors whose area of expertise is "independent films of any country and genre".
This was certainly a good faith creation at the time, when we had far fewer articles about films and far fewer stub categories to group them in -- but the stub category tree is now so much more deeply granularized that this just doesn't represent a particularly useful characteristic to group stubs on anymore, because we have many more stub categories for much more specific and collaborative country and genre and time period groupings than we had in 2006.
I've already gone through the category to ensure that each article also has genre and/or nationality film stub templates on it as well, so nothing will be stranded if it goes, but it's just not at all clear that indie status is nearly as useful a basis for collaboration as the country and genre tags are.
- Reason: Stub category and template that have likely outlived their usefulness. As always, the core purpose of stub categories is to facilitate expanding and improving them so that the contents can ultimately be pulled out of the stub categories -- so the most useful stub categories are ones that correspond to a community of editors with some expertise in the subject area, who can therefore collaborate on expanding the articles. But there isn't any particular community of independent film experts -- editors' areas of expertise are going to centre around countries and/or genres rather than indie status per se.
- Category:Named roads: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified Tmanthara (talk · contribs) 20:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Overcategorization on a non-defining characteristic. The category's name itself is obviously silly, because nearly all roads that exist at all have names and the few roads without names are profoundly unlikely to be notable at all -- but the usage note on the category is far more specific, identifying the category as "about the roads that are named after famous personalities", which is just a straight-up violation of WP:SHAREDNAME.
- Category:Film series characters originally introduced in a film: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified Micsik Krisztián (talk · contribs) 21:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Category of dubious utility, created just to hold a single article. I have to assume that the intended distinction here was "film series characters originally introduced in a film vs. film series characters originally introduced in other source material that a film series was adapted from", because that's the only way this makes a lick of sense -- but that isn't a useful or defining distinction, and would be an utter nightmare to try to maintain since every film character who has an article at all would have to be in either this category or an "adapted medium" sibling. We have no other "film series characters originally introduced in [type of medium]" categories that I can find.
- Category:EBU stubs: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified JoBoGamer (talk · contribs) 21:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Underpopulated stub category and template, newly created to hold just one article. As always, stub categories are not free for just any user to create on a whim for just one article of interest -- the minimum bar for the creation of a stub category is 60 articles, and for that very reason stub categories should normally be proposed for creation by Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting rather than just getting created willy-nilly.
But the parent category Category:European Broadcasting Union has just 14 articles in it of which only two are short enough that tagging them as stubs would be justifiable -- so really the only possible source of any content for this is the Category:Eurovision events subcategory, but Category:Eurovision Song Contest stubs and {{Eurovision-stub}} both already exist to cover that off, and the one article that's been filed here already had that on it, thus making this entirely redundant to another stub template and category that we already have.
- Reason: Underpopulated stub category and template, newly created to hold just one article. As always, stub categories are not free for just any user to create on a whim for just one article of interest -- the minimum bar for the creation of a stub category is 60 articles, and for that very reason stub categories should normally be proposed for creation by Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting rather than just getting created willy-nilly.
- Jerry Munson: nominated at AfD; notified Julius Barclay (talk · contribs) 12:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Biography of a mayor, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for mayors. As always, mayors are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and the inclusion test for a mayor is the ability to write and source a substantive article about their political impact -- specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth.
But this essentially just glancingly mentions that he served as mayor while primarily concentrating on background trivia about his childhood and educational background that has no bearing on notability at all, and it's referenced more than 50 per cent to the self-published website of the funeral home that held his funeral, which is not a notability-building source -- and what's left for media coverage is entirely run of the mill short blurbs about his death itself, with absolutely no evidence shown of any at-the-time coverage of his work in politics.
Again, just minimally verifying that a mayor existed is not how you establish him as notable enough for a Wikipedia article: we need to see coverage and analysis about the impact of his work in politics, not just background biographical trivia about where he went to high school.
- Reason: Biography of a mayor, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for mayors. As always, mayors are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and the inclusion test for a mayor is the ability to write and source a substantive article about their political impact -- specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth.
- Abigail Bassett: nominated at AfD; notified Comintell (talk · contribs) 18:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a journalist, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for journalists. As always, journalists are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because their work exists, and have to pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage -- analysis about the significance of their work, evidence of winning a notable journalism award, and on and so forth.
You don't establish a journalist as notable by referencing the article to sources where she's the bylined author of content about other things, you establish a journalist as notable by referencing the article to sources where she's the written-about subject of content written by other people. But this is referenced entirely to the self-published websites of her employers or other organizations that she's been directly affiliated with, and shows absolutely no evidence of GNG-worthy coverage about her or her work at all.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a journalist, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for journalists. As always, journalists are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because their work exists, and have to pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage -- analysis about the significance of their work, evidence of winning a notable journalism award, and on and so forth.
- List of French films of 2026: nominated at AfD; notified Happy Evil Dude (talk · contribs) 14:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Two WP:TOOSOON lists of entirely redlinked films by presumed future release dates, referenced entirely to subscriber-locked directory entries in an internal industry "films in the production pipeline" database rather than reliable sources. To be fair, the United States does already have lists for both of these years, so I can't argue that we never let lists of films exist this far into the future -- but the US lists comprise films that (a) already have Wikipedia articles to link to under WP:NFF provisions, and (b) already have WP:GNG-worthy sources present to support the presumed release dates, neither of which are on offer here.
These can both be recreated in 2025 or 2026 when there's reliable sourcing to support listing bluelinked films, but we don't already need either of them now if they're only using primary sources to support red links.
- Reason: Two WP:TOOSOON lists of entirely redlinked films by presumed future release dates, referenced entirely to subscriber-locked directory entries in an internal industry "films in the production pipeline" database rather than reliable sources. To be fair, the United States does already have lists for both of these years, so I can't argue that we never let lists of films exist this far into the future -- but the US lists comprise films that (a) already have Wikipedia articles to link to under WP:NFF provisions, and (b) already have WP:GNG-worthy sources present to support the presumed release dates, neither of which are on offer here.
- Pablo Lopez Luz: nominated at AfD 14:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a photographer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for photographers.
This is trying for "notability because awards", but that doesn't just indiscriminately hand an automatic notability freebie to every winner of just any award that exists: an award has to itself be notable as an award before it can make its winners notable for winning it. So notability can only derive from awards that can be shown to pass WP:GNG -- that is, the source for the award claim has to be evidence that the media consider said award to be significant enough to report its winners as news, and cannot just be the award's own self-published primary source content about itself. But the award claims here are referenced to a primary source rather than a reliable one, and that's the only source in the entire article, to boot.
Since I can't read Spanish and don't have access to the kind of archived Mexican media coverage that it would take to improve this, I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if somebody with better access to such tools can find enough to salvage it, but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better sourcing than this.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a photographer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for photographers.
- Category:Parks and lakes in Jakarta: nominated at CfD (CfS); splitting to Category:Parks in Jakarta, Category:Lakes in Jakarta 17:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Badly-named category that crosses two different types of things. No other category for either parks or lakes anywhere else in the world merges the two things into one place, and there's no reason why Jakarta's parks and lakes would have a uniquely Jakarta-specific need for different handling from everywhere else.
- Alyy Patel: nominated at AfD; notified Spate183 (talk · contribs) 15:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of an activist and writer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for activists or writers. As always, people are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage about their work in reliable sources independent of themselves.
That is, you do not make a writer notable by sourcing her writing to itself as proof that it exists, you make a writer notable by sourcing her writing to coverage and analysis about her writing, such as news articles about her, reviews of her writing in newspapers or magazines or academic journals, and on and so forth -- and you don't make an activist notable by sourcing her activism to the self-published websites of the organizations she has been directly affiliated with, you make an activist notable by sourcing her activism to third-party coverage about it, such as news articles about her, book content about her, and on and so forth.
But this is supported entirely by primary sources with absolutely no evidence of GNG-worthy coverage shown at all: 11 of the footnotes are just the publication details of her own writing, and a 12th is just the publication details of an anthology that one of her pieces was in; one is a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person, which would be acceptable for use if the other sourcing around it were better but does not help to get her over GNG in and of itself per WP:INTERVIEWS; another is just a YouTube video clip of her speaking; and all of the rest is content self-published by non-media organizations -- which means absolutely none of the footnotes are GNG-compliant at all.
Again, the notability test doesn't reside in the things she did, it resides in the amount of GNG-worthy coverage she has or hasn't received about the things she did, and nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced better than this.
Also note that normally I would just have sandboxed this in draftspace as improperly sourced, but another editor has already done that and the creator just immediately unyeeted it right back into mainspace without actually improving the sourcing.
- Reason: WP:BLP of an activist and writer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for activists or writers. As always, people are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage about their work in reliable sources independent of themselves.
- Layne Harper: nominated at AfD 23:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Highly advertorialized (to the point that I strongly suspect WP:AUTOBIO even though I can't prove it) BLP of an actor and musician, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for actors or musicians. As always, actors and musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence that they would pass WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them -- but this is referenced almost entirely to directory entries that are not support for notability at all, with the only semi-reliable source being a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person (which would be acceptable for use if the other sourcing around it were better, but does not get him over GNG in and of itself if it's the strongest source in the mix). And further, the claimed "breakthrough" is a bit part as an unnamed character in a film that's still about a year away from release, which is obviously not the kind of role that can clinch an automatic free pass over NACTOR without adequate sourcing.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this article from having to cite much better sourcing, or from having to have a much more neutral and objective writing tone, than this.
- Reason: Highly advertorialized (to the point that I strongly suspect WP:AUTOBIO even though I can't prove it) BLP of an actor and musician, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for actors or musicians. As always, actors and musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence that they would pass WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them -- but this is referenced almost entirely to directory entries that are not support for notability at all, with the only semi-reliable source being a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person (which would be acceptable for use if the other sourcing around it were better, but does not get him over GNG in and of itself if it's the strongest source in the mix). And further, the claimed "breakthrough" is a bit part as an unnamed character in a film that's still about a year away from release, which is obviously not the kind of role that can clinch an automatic free pass over NACTOR without adequate sourcing.
- Draft:Battle of Height 383: nominated at MfD 00:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: "Draft" consisting solely of an infobox with no text, which an editor just persistently keeps trying to file in mainspace categories, even after having been told that drafts can't be in mainspace categories, despite having made absolutely no effort to actually add any body content. It's simply becoming disruptive to have to keep removing this from categories day after day.
- Category:First Nations: nominated at CfD (CfR); renaming to Category:First Nations in Canada 15:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: With the increasing use of "First Nations" as a synonym or replacement for "aboriginal" or "indigenous" in Australia, this category is starting to drift into ambiguous territory, and I've already had to clean it up at least once for the misfiling of several Australia-related topics. So we should probably now rename this to be more Canada-specific, and repurpose the plain "First Nations" as either a container for that and Australian indigenous categories, or a disambiguation category.
- Category:Sport in Norwood, Massachusetts: nominated at CfD (CfM); merging to Category:Sports competitions in Massachusetts; notified Bgsu98 (talk · contribs) 16:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: "Sport in X" category for a small town without enough noteworthy sporting events to need one. As always, every town that exists does not automatically get one of these the moment one sporting event with an article has been held there -- there would need to be at least five sporting events with articles to file in here before a dedicated "Sports in Norwood" category was needed, and otherwise we only need the state-level sports category and Norwood's eponymous base category rather than an intersected crosscategory for just one or two events.
- Category:Gold graduation stoles: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified WikiObjectivity (talk · contribs) 16:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Category for university and college honor societies on a non-defining characteristic. Honor societies are not defined by the colour of the finery that they present to their graduates.
- Category:Commercial Bank CEOs in Nigeria: nominated at CfD (CfM); merging to Category:Nigerian business executives; notified Pshegs (talk · contribs) 16:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Overcategorization at a bad name that doesn't comply with naming conventions for categories. We don't have any other categories that group bank executives separately from other-type-of-company executives -- i.e. no Category:Bank executives tree exists at all -- and Nigeria doesn't have any special need to categorize bank executives separately from other business executives if no other country has that.
- Category:Volunteer security group In Nigeria: nominated at CfD (CfM); merging to Category:Law enforcement in Nigeria; notified Salihu Aliyu (talk · contribs) 16:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Badly-named (it would need to be pluralized as groups and have the I in "in" lowercased if it's to exist at all) category newly created to hold just one thing. A renamed version would be fine if there were five things to file here, but is not needed for just one, so the base "Law enforcement" category is all that's needed at this time.
- Draft:Neuto Network: nominated at MfD 12:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Cluster of likely WP:HOAX articles about television stations in Kenya (sometimes, but not always, persistently misspelled as "Kenia"), all completely unsupported by any proper verification of their existence in any sources of either the reliable or primary varieties.
The "main" website in Neuto Network does appear to exist, but leads to the website of a resort hotel chain in Southeast Asia, not a television network in Kenya, and virtually all other offsite links in any of these articles (whether used as references or external links) either 404 out or don't appear to contain any content about Kenyan television (e.g. pedriatics journal articles), and searching Google for any of these names also fails across the board to locate any verification of their existence whatsoever. Related pages at some of the same names were also created at simple: (right in mainspace as it doesn't have the same "anon IPs cannot create pages in mainspace restriction that we do here), but have already been deleted as hoaxes.
- Reason: Cluster of likely WP:HOAX articles about television stations in Kenya (sometimes, but not always, persistently misspelled as "Kenia"), all completely unsupported by any proper verification of their existence in any sources of either the reliable or primary varieties.
- Carla Guevara Laforteza: nominated at AfD; notified Jhenie1326 (talk · contribs) 13:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Very highly advertorialized ("known for being one of the most fearless and versatile Premiere Leading Ladies") WP:BLP of an actress and musician not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for actresses or musicians. There are statements here that would be valid notability claims if they were referenced properly, but nothing so "inherently" notable as to exempt her from having to cite proper sources just because of what the article claims -- but this was "sourced" almost entirely to IMDB pages, Wikidata items and other Wikipedia articles, none of which are acceptable or notability-supporting sources, and after stripping those out all that's left is three short blurbs that aren't substantive enough to get her over WP:GNG all by themselves if they're all she's got for proper third party coverage.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much more knowledge about Philippine musical theatre than I've got can rewrite it neutrally and source it better, but it can't be kept in this state of writing tone and sourcing.
- Reason: Very highly advertorialized ("known for being one of the most fearless and versatile Premiere Leading Ladies") WP:BLP of an actress and musician not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for actresses or musicians. There are statements here that would be valid notability claims if they were referenced properly, but nothing so "inherently" notable as to exempt her from having to cite proper sources just because of what the article claims -- but this was "sourced" almost entirely to IMDB pages, Wikidata items and other Wikipedia articles, none of which are acceptable or notability-supporting sources, and after stripping those out all that's left is three short blurbs that aren't substantive enough to get her over WP:GNG all by themselves if they're all she's got for proper third party coverage.
- Category:People from Siemiatycze: nominated at CfD (CfM); merging to Category:People from Siemiatycze County; notified Rakoon (talk · contribs) 15:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Small categories (only one person in the people category and only two in the politicians category) for a small (pop. 14K) town. As always, this would be fine if there were a lot more people from Siemiatycze to file in it than this, but every town does not automatically need or get one of these the moment just a couple of people with Wikipedia articles have been from there -- and since we already have the county-level category, which only has eight people in it and thus isn't in any desperate need of diffusion, there's no significant loss of context in just using that instead.
- Michael Thomson (judge): nominated at AfD 22:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a judge, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for judges. As always, judges are not all "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on coverage and analysis about them and their work -- but the sole "source" shown here is a (deadlinked) press release self-published by his own employer, which is not a notability-clinching source, and absolutely no GNG-building sourcing has been shown at all.
- Category:1920s Mexican film stubs: nominated at CfD (CfM); merging to Category:Mexican film stubs; notified Οἶδα (talk · contribs) 22:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Underpopulated stub category. As always, stub categories are not free for just anybody to create willy-nilly, and have to have around 60 articles before they can be created -- but there are just six articles here, and a full AWB comparison between Category:Mexican films and {[cl|1920s films}} failed to find 54 more.
- Uxbridge Arena and Recreation Centre: nominated at AfD; notified Jp3333 (talk · contribs) 17:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a small-town municipal recreation centre, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for local buildings. As always, arenas are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show passage of WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them in media -- but this is referenced entirely to the self-published websites of entities directly affiliated with the venue -- the town government, the local minor hockey league, the local junior hockey team and a local real estate agent -- with not a shred of GNG-worthy coverage shown at all.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to be referenced better than this.
- Reason: Article about a small-town municipal recreation centre, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for local buildings. As always, arenas are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show passage of WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them in media -- but this is referenced entirely to the self-published websites of entities directly affiliated with the venue -- the town government, the local minor hockey league, the local junior hockey team and a local real estate agent -- with not a shred of GNG-worthy coverage shown at all.
- Town Hall 1873 Centre for the Performing Arts: nominated at AfD; notified Jp3333 (talk · contribs) 13:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a smalltown performing arts theatre, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for theatres. As always, theatres are not all automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them in media and books -- but this is referenced entirely to the theatre's own self-published content about itself on its own primary source website, which is not support for notability, and cites absolutely no evidence of GNG-worthy sourcing at all.
August 2024
[edit]- Category:Dalit artists: nominated at CfD (CfD) 20:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Misconceived category that's trying to cross a bunch of different things into one wrong name. As always, "artists" categories on Wikipedia are for visual artists, but almost everybody here is a musician or an actor or a writer or a filmmaker, and only one person in the category is actually an artist in the correct sense of the term.
- Draft:Sli45: nominated at MfD 12:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Probable WP:HOAX about a German web series not properly verified as actually existing. The introduction claims that this was created by an Austrian actor who's far, far too famous to be mucking around with YouTube animation; the sole footnoted "reference" here leads to content about Nine Perfect Strangers, not this; and even the "official website" in the External links section leads to a "server not found" error. Googling for "Sli45 YouTube" or "Sli45 Christoph Waltz" all utterly failed to locate any outside verification of this either.
And while this isn't a deletion rationale per se, it needs to be noted that this page has been repeatedly readded to categories in defiance of WP:DRAFTNOCAT no matter how many times they've been disabled or removed by me or other editors.
- Reason: Probable WP:HOAX about a German web series not properly verified as actually existing. The introduction claims that this was created by an Austrian actor who's far, far too famous to be mucking around with YouTube animation; the sole footnoted "reference" here leads to content about Nine Perfect Strangers, not this; and even the "official website" in the External links section leads to a "server not found" error. Googling for "Sli45 YouTube" or "Sli45 Christoph Waltz" all utterly failed to locate any outside verification of this either.
- Muhammad Noer (Pacitan): nominated at AfD; notified Gamalim (talk · contribs) 15:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Biography of a person, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing a Wikipedia inclusion criterion. The attempted notability claim is that he was involved in the creation of mosques in a village, which is in no way an automatic notability freebie without WP:GNG-worthy sourcing to support it, but the only "source" here just tangentially verifies the existence of the region the subject lived in without ever once mentioning his name at all, and thus clearly isn't about him for the purposes of helping to get him over GNG.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have any coverage in reliable sources.
- Reason: Biography of a person, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing a Wikipedia inclusion criterion. The attempted notability claim is that he was involved in the creation of mosques in a village, which is in no way an automatic notability freebie without WP:GNG-worthy sourcing to support it, but the only "source" here just tangentially verifies the existence of the region the subject lived in without ever once mentioning his name at all, and thus clearly isn't about him for the purposes of helping to get him over GNG.
- Category:Former subpostmasters: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified Mewhen123 (talk · contribs) 16:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Overcategorization of just two people on a non-defining intersection of characteristics. Wikipedia does not use the category system to segregate people by their "former" vs. "current" status within the same occupation -- we would categorize former subpostmasters and current subpostmasters in the same place, not in separate categories for the question of whether they were still in that job right now or not -- but there is no Category:Subpostmasters to move these two people to, and with only two people here I can't justify moving this either.
- Draft:Corret TV: nominated at MfD 15:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:HOAX article subject to all of the same problems as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Neuto Network. I had in fact tagged it for inclusion in that discussion, but forgot to actually list it in that discussion and nobody caught it in time before that discussion closed -- so it can't just be deleted on the basis of that discussion, and has to go through a new one. But it's basically the same problem: a completely unverifiable television service in "Kenia" whose "website" doesn't exist, and whose "references" are unrelated things (academic journal articles, etc.) that don't mention this thing at all.
- Jay Hunter (actor): nominated at AfD; notified TheAkio (talk · contribs) 14:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of an actor, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, the notability test for actors is not satisfied just because the article lists acting roles, and requires the reception of WP:GNG-worthy third-party coverage about him and his roles in reliable sources -- but the referencing here is almost entirely to unreliable sources such as blogs, YouTube videos and IMDb. The only source that counts as reliable at all is a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person on an individual television station's local newscast, which is not enough to get him over GNG all by itself if all of the rest of the sourcing is junk.
Simply having had acting roles is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt a person from having to have proper GNG-worthy coverage.
- Reason: WP:BLP of an actor, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, the notability test for actors is not satisfied just because the article lists acting roles, and requires the reception of WP:GNG-worthy third-party coverage about him and his roles in reliable sources -- but the referencing here is almost entirely to unreliable sources such as blogs, YouTube videos and IMDb. The only source that counts as reliable at all is a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person on an individual television station's local newscast, which is not enough to get him over GNG all by itself if all of the rest of the sourcing is junk.
- Waterloo Co‑operative Residence Inc.: nominated at AfD; notified Dw861 (talk · contribs) 13:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a student housing cooperative, not properly referenced as passing WP:ORGDEPTH. As always, organizations are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to have WP:GNG-worthy coverage in third-party reliable sources from a geographic range beyond the purely local -- but five of the nine footnotes here are directly affiliated primary sources that aren't support for notability (its self-published content about itself from either its own website or its pre-web newsletter, and a directory entry on the website of an umbrella organization that it's a member of) and a sixth comes from the university student newspaper of the university whose students this co-op serves, which still isn't independent of the topic for the purposes of helping to build GNG.
And while the three remaining footnotes are proper media coverage, they still aren't building a particular strong case for inclusion: they're all just going "Newspaper, Date" without providing the title of any specific content in that newspaper on that date, and two of them are from the local daily newspaper and thus aren't counting for anything toward the ORGDEPTH test.
So there's only one footnote here ("National" Post 1967, which is really the Financial Post since the National Post didn't exist under that name until the 1990s) that's starting to build a proper case for notability, but just one hit of extralocal coverage isn't enough to get this over ORGDEPTH all by itself.
This just doesn't state anything about the co-op that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to be referenced better than this.
- Reason: Article about a student housing cooperative, not properly referenced as passing WP:ORGDEPTH. As always, organizations are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to have WP:GNG-worthy coverage in third-party reliable sources from a geographic range beyond the purely local -- but five of the nine footnotes here are directly affiliated primary sources that aren't support for notability (its self-published content about itself from either its own website or its pre-web newsletter, and a directory entry on the website of an umbrella organization that it's a member of) and a sixth comes from the university student newspaper of the university whose students this co-op serves, which still isn't independent of the topic for the purposes of helping to build GNG.
- Category:People from Heqing County: nominated at CfD (CfM); merging to Category:People from Dali; notified Huangdan2060 (talk · contribs) 13:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Four categories recently created just to hold a single person each. As always, "People from [Geographic Entity]" categories do not need to immediately exist the moment one person from that particular place has an article to file in it -- these would all be fine if there were five people in each of them, but are not needed for just one, and the larger prefecture-level category is all that's needed in the meantime.
- Category:Suicide attempt: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 15:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Newly created and badly-named category of unclear necessity. Apart from the head article about the concept, there's only one article about an individual suicide attempt here, and even that is actually about an academic's theory that a notable person made an unpublicized suicide attempt rather than about a fully verified event.
We do not have any other standalone articles about unsuccessful suicide attempts to file here, however -- and while we do have a limited number articles about successful suicides that have achieved notability as events, even Category:Suicides mainly comprises the suiciders' main biographical articles themselves rather than spinoff articles about their suicides as independent topics.
So this isn't needed just to hold two articles, but the lack of any other standalone articles about unsuccessful suicide attempts means the only way to expand this would be to start adding biographical articles to it, which would be both (a) unmaintainable, and (b) an extreme WP:BLP minefield.
And even if there were a reason to keep this, it would have to be renamed to the plural Category:Suicide attempts anyway.
- Reason: Newly created and badly-named category of unclear necessity. Apart from the head article about the concept, there's only one article about an individual suicide attempt here, and even that is actually about an academic's theory that a notable person made an unpublicized suicide attempt rather than about a fully verified event.
- Category:Beijing Municipal Committee of the Chinese Communist Party: nominated at CfD (CfM); merging to Category:Province-level committees of the Chinese Communist Party; notified TinaLees-Jones (talk · contribs) 11:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Three eponymous categories for political committees, each only containing the eponym with no other content at all. As always, everything that exists does not automatically get its own eponymous category just to recursively contain itself -- these would be fine if there were at least four or five spinoff articles to file in any of them besides the eponyms, but are not needed for just one thing.
- Category:Mirai (band): nominated at CfD (CfD) 12:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Eponymous category for a band, with no other content but the eponym. As always, bands can have a dedicated category if they have a significant volume of spinoff content besides just their main article, but do not automatically get one just to hold their main article and nothing else -- but there's absolutely nothing else that can be filed here, as even their albums don't have separate articles at all.
- Magandang Tanghali: nominated at AfD; notified Rayhelm wiki (talk · contribs) 12:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a television show, completely unsourced for the purposes of establishing that it would pass WP:TVSHOW. As at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stop, Look, & Listen (same creator), this was sandboxed in draftspace for lack of referencing and then almost immediately unsandboxed by the creator again without any effort to address the reasons why it got sandboxed in the first place. Obviously no prejudice against recreation if somebody can find proper reliable source coverage about it to establish that it would pass inclusion criteria, but television shows are not entitled to keep unsourced articles.
- Category:Defunct LGBT-related magazines published in Toronto: nominated at CfD (CfM); merging to Category:Defunct magazines published in Toronto; notified ForsythiaJo (talk · contribs) 05:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Overcategorization by intersection of unrelated traits. There's no established tree of "Defunct LGBT-related magazines published in [Individual City]" for this to be part of, and none of the parent categories are large enough to need diffusion for this particular combination of traits.
- Checkerspot (magazine): nominated at AfD 05:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a shortlived (2007-09) magazine, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for media. The only notability claim on offer here is that it existed, which is not an automatic inclusion freebie in and of itself -- the magazine would have to be shown to have received third-party coverage about it in sources other than itself to pass WP:GNG, but the only "reference" here is its own self-published content about itself rather than independent validation of its significance.
- Category:1783 in Hong Kong: nominated at CfD (CfM); merging to Category:1783 in China; notified OpalYosutebito (talk · contribs) 16:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Anachronistic category. Hong Kong was not its own thing yet in 1783; it was just straight-up part of China at that time, not its own polity, and did not become a separate entity until 1841. So a thing established in 1783 was not established in "Hong Kong", it was established in China -- and no other year prior to 1841 has "YYYY in Hong Kong" categories at all, so this isn't needed just to anachronistically overcategorize one thing.
- Category:Sunar: nominated at CfD (CfD) 18:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Eponymous category with no content but the eponym. There was one other thing here, but it got draftified for lacking sources, so now the eponym itself is all that's left -- and even if the draft got restored to mainspace, this category would still need more than just two things in it to be justifiable anyway.
- List of mayors of Littleton, Colorado: nominated at AfD 19:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Completely unreferenced list of entirely redlinked or unlinked people. As always, the core purpose of a Wikipedia list is to help readers find Wikipedia articles, so a list of mayors has to have at least some blue links in it -- it appears from the edit history that a couple of the most recent mayors had articles in the past, but they've all been deleted so that this is now entirely a list of unlinked names. As well, lists still have to be properly referenced just the same as any other article, but this features no referencing at all.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with more knowledge of the subject area, and better access to sources that would verify the mayors' names and terms, but it can't be retained as an unreferenced list with no bluelinks in it.
- Reason: Completely unreferenced list of entirely redlinked or unlinked people. As always, the core purpose of a Wikipedia list is to help readers find Wikipedia articles, so a list of mayors has to have at least some blue links in it -- it appears from the edit history that a couple of the most recent mayors had articles in the past, but they've all been deleted so that this is now entirely a list of unlinked names. As well, lists still have to be properly referenced just the same as any other article, but this features no referencing at all.
- Category:SNVI Vehicles: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified Seniorjackfr (talk · contribs) 12:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Improperly named category newly created for just one thing. A category for this would be fine if there were several types of SNVI vehicles with articles to file in it, although it would have to be renamed to decapitalize the word "vehicles" -- but none do, so this isn't already necessary for just one thing.
- MTS (group): nominated at AfD 13:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a dance music band, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The attempted notability claim here is that they had a single chart in specialty charts, like RPM Dance and Billboard Bubbling Under, that are not the primary national hits charts for the purposes of NMUSIC #2, and thus do not constitute an instant notability freebie in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about the band -- but the only other source here is an unreliable source that contradicts some of the facts in this article (compare our "MTS was a Eurodance project formed in Canada" to ""MTS was an American eurodance project created in Miami, Florida"), and a WP:BEFORE search found absolutely nothing else: apart from more unreliable sources, the only thing I found was a brief glancing namecheck of its existence as a song getting played on a radio station in an article about that radio station.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to be better than it is, especially given the conflict about whether they were Canadian or American in the first place.
- Reason: Article about a dance music band, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The attempted notability claim here is that they had a single chart in specialty charts, like RPM Dance and Billboard Bubbling Under, that are not the primary national hits charts for the purposes of NMUSIC #2, and thus do not constitute an instant notability freebie in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about the band -- but the only other source here is an unreliable source that contradicts some of the facts in this article (compare our "MTS was a Eurodance project formed in Canada" to ""MTS was an American eurodance project created in Miami, Florida"), and a WP:BEFORE search found absolutely nothing else: apart from more unreliable sources, the only thing I found was a brief glancing namecheck of its existence as a song getting played on a radio station in an article about that radio station.
- Jia Rizivi: nominated at AfD 18:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Semi-advertorialized article about a filmmaker, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for filmmakers.
The attempted notability claim here is an unreferenced list of minor awards from small-fry film festivals whose awards are not instant notability clinchers -- that's looking for things like Oscars, Canadian Screen Awards, BAFTAs or major film festivals on the order of Cannes, Berlin or TIFF whose awards get broadly reported by the media as news, not just any film festival award that exists -- but apart from two hits of "local woman does stuff" in her own hometown media (and a New York Times hit that tangentially verifies the existence of a podcast that she was not involved in creating, and thus is not about her), this is otherwise referenced entirely to primary and unreliable sources that are not support for notability.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have a stronger notability claim, and better sourcing for it, than this.
- Reason: Semi-advertorialized article about a filmmaker, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for filmmakers.
- Category:Cricketers who have acted in films: nominated at CfD (CfD) 16:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:OCAT by intersection of unrelated characteristics. We do not have a comprehensive scheme of categorizing people for every possible intersection of two unrelated types of work that they might have done over the course of their lives; this is permitted in a few specific situations (usually having to do with politics if anything) where the intersection is itself a notable concept, but not across the board for every possible combination, and sports/acting is one of the combinations we don't categorize for.
As well, there's an apparent conflict between the category's name and its contents, because the usage note says "This page consists of cricket players acted in Serials, Reality shows and Films", but reality shows and serials are not films, and appearing in reality shows doesn't constitute acting in the first place. So even if there were a good reason to keep this, it would still have to be either renamed or purged.
- Reason: WP:OCAT by intersection of unrelated characteristics. We do not have a comprehensive scheme of categorizing people for every possible intersection of two unrelated types of work that they might have done over the course of their lives; this is permitted in a few specific situations (usually having to do with politics if anything) where the intersection is itself a notable concept, but not across the board for every possible combination, and sports/acting is one of the combinations we don't categorize for.
- Eric Pascarelli: nominated at AfD; notified Victoriasuen (talk · contribs) 16:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a film producer and visual effects supervisor, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for film industry personnel. The attempted notability claim here is that he's been nominated for awards, which is not an automatic inclusion freebie in and of itself -- an award has to itself be notable in its own right before it can make its winners or nominees notable for winning it, so the source for an award claim has to be reliably sourced evidence that the award is a notable one, but the statement here is referenced to the subject's IMDB profile rather than any evidence that the awards he was nominated for were notable ones. And nothing else here is referenced any better, either: it's all referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, with no evidence of WP:GNG-worthy reliable sourcing shown whatsoever.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced considerably better than this.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a film producer and visual effects supervisor, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for film industry personnel. The attempted notability claim here is that he's been nominated for awards, which is not an automatic inclusion freebie in and of itself -- an award has to itself be notable in its own right before it can make its winners or nominees notable for winning it, so the source for an award claim has to be reliably sourced evidence that the award is a notable one, but the statement here is referenced to the subject's IMDB profile rather than any evidence that the awards he was nominated for were notable ones. And nothing else here is referenced any better, either: it's all referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, with no evidence of WP:GNG-worthy reliable sourcing shown whatsoever.
- KnowledgeFlow Cybersafety Foundation: nominated at AfD 00:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Semi-advertorialized article about an organization, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for organizations. As always, every organization on earth is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- we need to see evidence that the organization would pass WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH on third-party coverage and analysis about the organization. But this is referenced mainly to primary sources, such as its own self-published content about itself, the self-published websites of partner organizations and directory entries, that are not support for notability -- and meanwhile, the very few GNG-worthy media hits here just glancingly namecheck the organization's founder as a provider of a short soundbite in an article about something else, which is not about this organization and thus does not support its notability.
We're looking for reliable sources (not just any web page that exists) in which this organization is the subject of the coverage (not just a name that happens to get mentioned within coverage about something else), but none of the sources here footnotes here meet that standard at all.
- Reason: Semi-advertorialized article about an organization, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for organizations. As always, every organization on earth is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- we need to see evidence that the organization would pass WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH on third-party coverage and analysis about the organization. But this is referenced mainly to primary sources, such as its own self-published content about itself, the self-published websites of partner organizations and directory entries, that are not support for notability -- and meanwhile, the very few GNG-worthy media hits here just glancingly namecheck the organization's founder as a provider of a short soundbite in an article about something else, which is not about this organization and thus does not support its notability.
- Category:Football clubs in Obala: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified Mo Amine M (talk · contribs) 14:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Categories newly created for just one thing, in a small town whose "what links here" offers up no other things to file in them. As always, we do not need to obsessively funnel everything down into the narrowest possible microcategories of just one thing -- this would be fine if there were four or five football clubs in this town, but is not needed for just one, and the country level is all that's required in the meantime.
- Michael Alan Dixon: nominated at AfD; notified Iupwarrior2 (talk · contribs) 18:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a smalltown mayor, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, the notability test for mayors is not automatically passed just because the person exists, and requires significant press coverage supporting a substantive article about his political impact: specific things he did as mayor, specific projects he spearheaded as mayor, specific effects his mayoralty had on the development of the town, and on and so forth.
But there's virtually nothing like that here: this consists mainly of unsourced biographical background about his childhood and educational and premayoral career credentials, before dispatching his mayoralty with a short section stating that he was elected but saying nothing of any substance about his work in the office. And the sole reference in the entire article is a primary source table of the election results themselves on the self-published website of the county elections office, with not a single hit of WP:GNG-worthy media coverage in any reliable sources shown at all.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced better than this, and it also warrants mention that this was created by an WP:SPA whose edit history has revolved exclusively around this page and the virtually identical duplicate Draft:Michael A. Dixon.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a smalltown mayor, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, the notability test for mayors is not automatically passed just because the person exists, and requires significant press coverage supporting a substantive article about his political impact: specific things he did as mayor, specific projects he spearheaded as mayor, specific effects his mayoralty had on the development of the town, and on and so forth.
- Sara Ghulam: nominated at AfD 20:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a beauty pageant contestant, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for beauty pageant contestants. The attempted notability claim here, that she won Miss World Canada (but not the international final), would be fine if the article were properly sourced, but is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass WP:GNG -- but the referencing here is entirely to primary and unreliable sources that are not support for notability, such as her own self-published website and a photo of her in a stock photo repository and a short promotional blurb on Zimbio, with absolutely no GNG-worthy sourcing shown at all.
- Category:1811 establishments in Oklahoma: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified Roastedbeanz1 (talk · contribs) 16:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Anachronistic category for a state that didn't exist yet in 1811, newly created just to overcategorize one thing. As always, we structure "establishments in X" categories by the name the place had at the time, not the name it has now, and Oklahoma was not called "Oklahoma" in 1811.
- User:Cool828/sandbox: nominated at MfD 15:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Copy of Jimmy Carter, which remains functionally identical to the mainspace article except for the insertion of WP:HOAX content falsely claiming that he died in July. As always, sandbox is for working on content that's meant to be returned to mainspace eventually, which false death dates obviously can't -- and even when he does die (which will obviously be sooner rather than later), that will be resolvable with simple edits to the mainspace article rather than needing a major copy-paste from a duplicate sandbox copy. And, in fact, the article is currently under extended-confirmed semiprotection precisely because of a prior spate of false death dates being added to it, so this is clearly just an attempt to bypass that.
There's no need for this, at all, and I don't understand why anybody would be this determined to portray a man who's still alive as of today as having died already.
- Reason: Copy of Jimmy Carter, which remains functionally identical to the mainspace article except for the insertion of WP:HOAX content falsely claiming that he died in July. As always, sandbox is for working on content that's meant to be returned to mainspace eventually, which false death dates obviously can't -- and even when he does die (which will obviously be sooner rather than later), that will be resolvable with simple edits to the mainspace article rather than needing a major copy-paste from a duplicate sandbox copy. And, in fact, the article is currently under extended-confirmed semiprotection precisely because of a prior spate of false death dates being added to it, so this is clearly just an attempt to bypass that.
- Category:Films about First Nations people: nominated at CfD (CfM); merging to Category:First Nations films; notified Guavabutter (talk · contribs) 16:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Newly created category not offering a particularly obvious distinction from its parent. Since every film in Category:First Nations films is about First Nations people by definition, it's not fully clear what would distinguish a First Nations film that belonged here from a First Nations film that didn't. Note as well that Category:Films about Native Americans, the most seemingly equivalent category to this as word order goes, is not a subcategory of a broader "Native American films" parent, but is itself the base category for films with Native American themes, and thus a sibling to Category:First Nations films rather than an uncle.
Also, Category:First Nations films is one of the categories that will likely need renaming per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 26#Category:First Nations, but as the issue has to do with ambiguity arising from the term's increasing usage in Australia, its new name will need to have the words "Canada" or "Canadian" in it somewhere, so reverse merging this the other way isn't the answer to that. But even if and when that does get renamed, this still won't be necessary as a separate subcategory of it.
- Reason: Newly created category not offering a particularly obvious distinction from its parent. Since every film in Category:First Nations films is about First Nations people by definition, it's not fully clear what would distinguish a First Nations film that belonged here from a First Nations film that didn't. Note as well that Category:Films about Native Americans, the most seemingly equivalent category to this as word order goes, is not a subcategory of a broader "Native American films" parent, but is itself the base category for films with Native American themes, and thus a sibling to Category:First Nations films rather than an uncle.
- Naresh Sharma: nominated at AfD; notified Kyoshins (talk · contribs) 13:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Semi-advertorialized article about a martial artist, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for martial artists. As always, martial artists are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about them in media and/or books -- but this is referenced entirely to directly affiliated primary sources that are not support for notability, with no evidence of GNG-worthy reliable source coverage shown at all.
- Sweetness (upcoming film): nominated at AfD; notified MBV2023 (talk · contribs) 15:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:TOOSOON article about an as yet unreleased film, not reliably sourced as the subject of sufficient production coverage to be exempted from the main notability criteria for films at WP:NFILM.
There are just six footnotes here, of which two are the self-published Instagram posts of one of the producers, one is a press release self-published by a funding body, and one is a glancing namecheck of the film's existence in a "submitted" (i.e. another press release) article about the overall film and television industry in the region where this film was shot, none of which are support for notability.
That leaves just two hits that actually represent reliable and GNG-building coverage about this film, which is not enough coverage to exempt a film from the standard film notability criteria -- the special WP:NFF criteria require a lot of production coverage, not just one or two hits.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when this gets released and starts generating reviews by professional film critics, but two hits of production coverage is not enough to already justify an article now.
- Reason: WP:TOOSOON article about an as yet unreleased film, not reliably sourced as the subject of sufficient production coverage to be exempted from the main notability criteria for films at WP:NFILM.
- Mystic Mountain (film): nominated at AfD 16:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a film, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NFILM. As always, every film is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists, and instead films must show WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them in third-party reliable sources -- but this is referenced entirely to the filmmaker's own self-published content about it, and makes absolutely no notability claim (awards, etc.) above and beyond "film that exists". And even on a WP:BEFORE search for other sources, I mostly found more primary sources -- all I found for GNG-worthy reliable source coverage was two hits in the local media of the city where the director was living at the time of the "local man tries to make film" and "local man screens film locally" varieties, which is not enough by itself in the absence of any wider attention.
- Tanglewood Music and Arts Festival: nominated at AfD 19:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a defunct music festival, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for events. As always, festivals are not "inherently" notable just because they existed, and have to show reliable source coverage about them to pass WP:GNG -- but the only "reference" cited here at all is a Facebook post, not a reliable source, and a WP:BEFORE search only turned up unrelated coverage of other similarly-named events in Massachusetts or Australia rather than any sourcing about this.
Since the event apparently went defunct a decade ago and thus might not Google well, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to archived British and Irish media reportage from the early 2010s than I've got can find enough to salvage it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to be referenced much better than this.
- Reason: Article about a defunct music festival, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for events. As always, festivals are not "inherently" notable just because they existed, and have to show reliable source coverage about them to pass WP:GNG -- but the only "reference" cited here at all is a Facebook post, not a reliable source, and a WP:BEFORE search only turned up unrelated coverage of other similarly-named events in Massachusetts or Australia rather than any sourcing about this.
September 2024
[edit]- Exitsect: nominated at AfD 20:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a band, not reliably sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. This was created in 2016 based entirely on a single unreliable source dated 2008, but has never had even one word added to it in the entire eight years since about them doing anything -- and they can't possibly still exist in the exact form described here, as one of the four stated members (whose standalone article incidentally fails to mention this band at all) died in 2015 (i.e. nine years ago, and one full year before this article even existed.)
The intended notability claim was clearly NMUSIC #6, "multiple independently notable members", but it's falling into the circular notability-loop trap that NMUSIC explicitly says to watch out for: two of the four members are also shooting for NMUSIC #6 with this as one of their "notable" bands and no other obvious standalone notability claim besides being in two bands, one has a poorly sourced article that isn't really stating anything "inherently" notable about him independently of his other band either, and the one who has the strongest claim to standalone notability as an individual is the dead guy, whose notability hinges on two other bands rather than leaning on this one.
So clearly this is a band that existed at some point, but there's no properly sourced evidence that they ever actually did anything besides exist.
- Reason: Article about a band, not reliably sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. This was created in 2016 based entirely on a single unreliable source dated 2008, but has never had even one word added to it in the entire eight years since about them doing anything -- and they can't possibly still exist in the exact form described here, as one of the four stated members (whose standalone article incidentally fails to mention this band at all) died in 2015 (i.e. nine years ago, and one full year before this article even existed.)
- Joe Kiser (musician): nominated at AfD 21:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a musician, with no properly sourced claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. This is a followup to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exitsect: the attempted notability claim here is NMUSIC #6, "musician who has been in two independently notable bands", except Exitsect is one of the two bands despite there being no discernible evidence that they ever did anything more than briefly exist, and the only footnote here is the same unreliable source that's the only footnote in Exitsect's article too.
- Greg Gall: nominated at AfD 21:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a musician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC as an individual. As always, members of bands are not "inherently" notable enough for their own standalone articles just because they exist, and have to show WP:GNG-worthy coverage in reliable sources that focuses specifically on them (as opposed to just being glancingly namechecked in coverage of the band) -- but the sole footnote here is the band's own self-published website about itself, which is not support for notability.
- Paul Pavlovich: nominated at AfD 22:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a musician and artist, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing either WP:NMUSIC or WP:NARTIST.
The attempted notability claim as a musician is that he was formerly lead singer of a band, but band members are not "inherently" notable enough for their own standalone articles as separate topics from their bands just because they exist, and have to show WP:GNG-worthy coverage that focuses specifically on them (as opposed to just glancingly namechecking them in coverage of the band) -- however, the only music-related footnote here is a "10 best death metal singers" listicle in an unreliable source.
And the attempted notability claim as a visual artist is that he's had local art shows in the region where he lives, referenced to one short blurb and a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article about somebody else, which is not sufficient to get him over the notability bar for visual artists either.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more and better coverage in reliable sources than this.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a musician and artist, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing either WP:NMUSIC or WP:NARTIST.
- Category:American writers about The Holocaust: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified Anomalous+0 (talk · contribs) 14:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: "Writers about subject" category, newly created for just one person. There's no "Writers about the Holocaust" tree for this to be part of, and while there are obviously a lot of people (from throughout the world, not just the US) who could be added to such a category, it would have to encompass such an incredibly wide variety of different types of writing -- personal Holocaust memoirs, historical analysis, novels, poetry, and unfortunately even denialism -- as to not actually represent a unified group because they weren't all writing about the Holocaust in the same way, which is precisely why such an obvious "you would think it would already exist" category doesn't actually already exist. So the United States doesn't have any special need of this for just one person.
- Category:Singers from Vijayawada, India: nominated at CfD (CfM); merging to Category:Musicians from Vijayawada; notified Voglam (talk · contribs) 14:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Category newly created for just one article. This isn't necessary for just one article, and while the target has a few other singers in it, with only eight articles (including the one article here having been left there as unncessary duplicate categorization alongside this) it doesn't need to be subdivided. (Additionally it warrants note that the creator also created a whole mess of other new "X from Vijayawada, India" categories to parent this, despite the fact that all of them duplicated "X from Vijayawada" categories that we already have. I've redirected all of those to the existing categories, but this is the only one that didn't already exist at the "Vijayawada" form.
- Category:1982 Japanese television episodes: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified Jameboy (talk · contribs) 15:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Category newly created just to hold a single redirect. This would be fine if there were actual articles about Japanese television episodes from 1982 to file here, but is not needed just to hold one redirect to a television series.
- Category:Members of the House of Commons of Canada by term: nominated at CfD (CfD) 23:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Misguided and deeply incomplete scheme of overlapping categories. WikiProject Canada has not established any consensus that instituting a scheme of categorizing Members of Parliament for each individual term that they served in the legislature is desired -- note that these were started by an editor from Bangladesh, not a Canadian.
Each election sees only a modest turnover of membership, so the end of a parliament and the initiation of a new one results in a large percentage of MPs being reelected to another term -- meaning that a large percentage of MPs would have to be readded to each new category, resulting in extreme category bloat as MPs get added to two, three, four, five, six, seven or eight of these in succession.
Furthermore, the creator half-assed the job, creating these only for a few of the most recent parliaments and adding them only to eight MPs total -- but if this scheme is to exist at all, it would need to comprehensively exist for all 44 parliaments all the way back to 1867, and it would need to contain every person who had ever served as an MP at all, not just eight incumbent Conservatives.
Again, the Canadian contingent has never established any consensus that this is desired -- we categorize Members of Parliament by province and/or party, and use lists to handle the "who served in which Parliament" stuff -- and if there were a consensus to start doing this now, it would have to be (a) named differently than "Canada MPs YYYY-YYYY", and (b) seen through to actual completion, across 45 parliaments rather than just three, and a few thousand MPs filed in the categories rather than just eight.
- Reason: Misguided and deeply incomplete scheme of overlapping categories. WikiProject Canada has not established any consensus that instituting a scheme of categorizing Members of Parliament for each individual term that they served in the legislature is desired -- note that these were started by an editor from Bangladesh, not a Canadian.
- Harry Forbes (musician): nominated at AfD; notified RosyGreyTO (talk · contribs) 14:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Biography of a recently-deceased composer, not properly sourced as having a strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The main notability claim here is that he composed the theme music for a TV show, which would be fine if the article were reliably sourced -- but except for one obituary in Billboard (which isn't dedicated solely to him, but just blurbs him as one of several recent deaths in music), this is otherwise referenced entirely to unreliable sources that are not support for notability: directory entries on IMDb and Discogs.com, his paid-inclusion death notice from the self-published website of the funeral home that held his funeral, a podcast, a WordPress blog and aSubstack newsletter.
And a WP:BEFORE search for better sources also turned up dry: searching for just Harry Forbes only got me unrelated hits for different people, such as a military veteran and a hockey coach, while searching for Harry Forbes composer or Harry Forbes Magic Shadows both found absolutely zilch.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more than just one GNG-worthy source.
- Reason: Biography of a recently-deceased composer, not properly sourced as having a strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The main notability claim here is that he composed the theme music for a TV show, which would be fine if the article were reliably sourced -- but except for one obituary in Billboard (which isn't dedicated solely to him, but just blurbs him as one of several recent deaths in music), this is otherwise referenced entirely to unreliable sources that are not support for notability: directory entries on IMDb and Discogs.com, his paid-inclusion death notice from the self-published website of the funeral home that held his funeral, a podcast, a WordPress blog and aSubstack newsletter.
- James P. Covey: nominated at AfD; notified TridentMan123 (talk · contribs) 14:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a diplomat and politician, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for diplomats or politicians. The attempted notability claim here is that he was nominated for a subcabinet position but was never confirmed into the role by the senate, which is not "inherently" notable in and of itself -- the notability bar at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just being nominated for one -- but the article says absolutely nothing else about his career up to that point to suggest any other basis for preexisting notability, and it's referenced 2/3 to primary sources that are not support for notability at all. And while there is one reliable source to a piece of media coverage, one of those isn't enough all by itself.
- Cullen Sheehan: nominated at AfD; notified Seeingtheworld (talk · contribs) 14:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a lobbyist, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for lobbyists. The attempted notability claim here is that he had political consultancy roles, like campaign manager or chief of staff, before registering as a lobbyist, but those are completely unsourced for the purposes of turning them into notability claims, while his work as a lobbyist is referenced entirely to a single directory entry that isn't support for notability. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage in media about him and his work.
- Alex Arundel: nominated at AfD; notified Scripto100 (talk · contribs) 19:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a musician, not properly sourced as having a strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. As always, musicians are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them and their accomplishments in media -- but this is referenced entirely to unreliable sources that are not support for notability, such as Spotify streams and YouTube clips, with not even one hit of GNG-worthy coverage shown at all. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced properly.
- Galápagos (radio show): nominated at AfD 16:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a radio program, not reliably sourced as passing notability criteria for radio programs. To be fair, this is left over from almost 20 years ago, a time when Wikipedia basically extended an automatic presumption of notability to any radio program whose existence was verified, regardless of whether it actually had any non-primary sources to satisfy WP:GNG or not -- but the notability criteria for radio shows have long since been tightened up, and now require GNG-worthy coverage in sources independent of the program to externally validate its significance. But this cites no references at all, the Spanish interlang doesn't have any non-primary sources either, and a WP:BEFORE search for other sources failed to find anything new.
- List of ex officio delegates to the 2006 Liberal Party of Canada leadership election: nominated at AfD 17:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endorsements for the 2006 Liberal Party of Canada leadership election, this is also a poorly sourced list that essentially constitutes WP:TRIVIA rather than information of enduring significance. There isn't a similar article for any other leadership convention in the entire history of Canadian politics, so this is essentially standing alone, but there's no particular reason why being an ex officio delegate to this leadership convention would be a special case of greater significance than all the other leadership conventions that don't have sibling lists.
A political party's incumbent and still-living former senators and MPs would simply be expected to be ex officio delegates to the leadership convention, so that being true here doesn't constitute news -- and apart from the senators and MPs, the overwhelming majority of other people listed here are unelected candidates and party apparatchiks who aren't independently notable at all, alongside a large chunk of positions whose "occupant" is still listed as just the word "Name" rather than an actual name. The list, further, contains hundreds of directly-embedded-in-open-text offsite links (which is not proper formatting for a list) to primary sources (which are not support for notability), with very little WP:GNG-worthy reliable sourcing shown at all.
This simply isn't of anywhere near enough uniquely enduring significance to warrant being retained in this form if sibling lists for other Canadian political party leadership conventions don't consistently exist across the board.
- Reason: As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endorsements for the 2006 Liberal Party of Canada leadership election, this is also a poorly sourced list that essentially constitutes WP:TRIVIA rather than information of enduring significance. There isn't a similar article for any other leadership convention in the entire history of Canadian politics, so this is essentially standing alone, but there's no particular reason why being an ex officio delegate to this leadership convention would be a special case of greater significance than all the other leadership conventions that don't have sibling lists.
- Template:Canada Cup: nominated at TfD 19:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Unnecessary navigational box. Apart from one link to an article about a floorball team that competed in this championship, this otherwise consisted entirely of permanent redlinks and two recursive redirects back to the head article about the championship itself -- and since I've unlinked all the redlinks, it's actually serving solely to link just two articles to each other, which both already interlink each other in the article bodies anyway and thus don't need a navbox to repeat the same links.
- Naveen Goyal: nominated at AfD; notified Anish Semalty (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of an as yet unelected political candidate. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they haven't won -- the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not running for one -- but this neither demonstrates that he had sufficient preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy, nor that his candidacy would be a special case of greater and more enduring significance than everybody else's candidacies. No prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to already get him into an encyclopedia today.
- Category:Cities formerly served by Chicago and North Western: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified CyberTheTiger (talk · contribs) 14:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Categories for a non-defining characteristic. Per longstanding consensus, we do not categorize cities for their geographic location on railroad lines that happen to serve them -- and if we don't categorize them for current railroad lines, we obviously shouldn't categorize them for former railroad lines either.
- Category:Medical doctors in British media: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified Svampesky (talk · contribs) 15:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Category for a non-defining intersection of unrelated traits. Medical doctors all over the world frequently get quoted in coverage of health-related topics, so this would be entirely subjective and unmaintainable: should it contain every medical doctor who has ever appeared in media at all, or is there some specific and arbitrary minimum number of media appearances that a medical doctor has to make before they belong in this category?
So "medical doctors in media" is not a defining intersection of traits in its own right, meaning that no Category:Medical doctors in media parent or "Medical doctors in [Any Other Country] media" siblings exist at all, and Britain doesn't have any special need for this if no other country has such a thing.
- Reason: Category for a non-defining intersection of unrelated traits. Medical doctors all over the world frequently get quoted in coverage of health-related topics, so this would be entirely subjective and unmaintainable: should it contain every medical doctor who has ever appeared in media at all, or is there some specific and arbitrary minimum number of media appearances that a medical doctor has to make before they belong in this category?
- Category:Weather events with particularly dangerous situation watches: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified Hurricane Clyde (talk · contribs) 15:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Category for a non-defining characteristic. A "particularly dangerous situation watch" is just wording that the Weather Service sometimes uses when it sends out a weather alert, so the weather events themselves are not defined by whether the National Weather Service used those particular words or not.
- Category:Brazilian footballers at FC Shakhtar Donetsk: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified Ablakec (talk · contribs) 15:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Category for a non-defining intersection of traits. While we do have general "[Nationality] expatriate sportspeople in [Other Country]" categories, we do not have any established scheme of subcategorizing them for each specific individual team they may have played for in that other country.
- Draft:Peep and the Big Wide World Which Fish (TV series): nominated at MfD 16:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:HOAX-like draft which takes a technically real thing and misrepresents it as something it isn't. "Which Fish" does exist as a simple Flash pattern matching game on the Peep and the Big Wide World website, but this presents it as if it were its own full-on spinoff television series, which it isn't.
Even the real Flash game is deeply unlikely to have any real notability of its own as a topic for a standalone article, so there's no real value in retaining this just because it could technically be rewritten.
- Reason: WP:HOAX-like draft which takes a technically real thing and misrepresents it as something it isn't. "Which Fish" does exist as a simple Flash pattern matching game on the Peep and the Big Wide World website, but this presents it as if it were its own full-on spinoff television series, which it isn't.
- Category:Shooting people: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified Jommy3210 (talk · contribs) 14:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Newly created category that duplicates an existing category, and is extremely liable to being misunderstood and misused. These were created as parents for a new Category:Shooting coaches hierarchy, but the problem is that the name is highly ambiguous -- it isn't clearly communicating the distinction between the intended "people involved in sport shooting" and unintended uses like "people who shot other people" or "people who were shot" or "people who committed mass shootings" that wouldn't belong in the same place as sport shooters.
So since we already have Category:Sport shooters for people involved in sport shooting, and the coaches category has already been added to it, we don't need this to coexist alongside it.
- Reason: Newly created category that duplicates an existing category, and is extremely liable to being misunderstood and misused. These were created as parents for a new Category:Shooting coaches hierarchy, but the problem is that the name is highly ambiguous -- it isn't clearly communicating the distinction between the intended "people involved in sport shooting" and unintended uses like "people who shot other people" or "people who were shot" or "people who committed mass shootings" that wouldn't belong in the same place as sport shooters.
- Siue Moffat: nominated at AfD 18:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a cookbook author and filmmaker, not reliably sourced as having a strong claim to passing notability criteria for either occupation. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them in media independent of themselves -- but the only notability claim on offer here is that her work exists, and the article is referenced to one (deadlinked but recoverable) short blurb that isn't enough to get her over GNG all by itself, and one primary source that isn't support for notability at all.
The article, further, has been tagged for needing more sources since 2011 without ever having better sources added, and a WP:BEFORE search came up dry as all I found in ProQuest was the blurb and a bunch of glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of events.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have more and better referencing than this.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a cookbook author and filmmaker, not reliably sourced as having a strong claim to passing notability criteria for either occupation. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them in media independent of themselves -- but the only notability claim on offer here is that her work exists, and the article is referenced to one (deadlinked but recoverable) short blurb that isn't enough to get her over GNG all by itself, and one primary source that isn't support for notability at all.
- Zulfikar Hirji: nominated at AfD; notified Almaddy2022 (talk · contribs) 14:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Highly advertorialized WP:BLP of an academic, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPROF. As always, academics are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show proper sourcing establishing that they surpass certain specific notability criteria -- but this is referenced entirely to primary sourcing that is not support for notability at all, such as his own self-published website and his own staff profile on the self-published website of his own employer and his own writing metasourcing its own existence, rather than any third-party validation of his significance.
There are further WP:COPYRIGHT issues here, as every book in his "selected works" isn't just "title + ISBN", but contains an extended advertorial spiel copied and pasted verbatim from its promotional page on the website of its own publisher.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be written and sourced properly.
- Reason: Highly advertorialized WP:BLP of an academic, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPROF. As always, academics are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show proper sourcing establishing that they surpass certain specific notability criteria -- but this is referenced entirely to primary sourcing that is not support for notability at all, such as his own self-published website and his own staff profile on the self-published website of his own employer and his own writing metasourcing its own existence, rather than any third-party validation of his significance.
- Category:Furry stubs: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified Ye9CYNMD (talk · contribs) 15:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Underpopulated stub category with little prospect of expansion to the required size. As always, stub categories are not free for just any user to create on a whim for any topic of personal interest -- there have to be at least 60 articles to file in a stub category before it can be created, and for that very reason stub categories have to be proposed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting for discussion before they can be created. But there's only one article here, and there's no prospect of finding 59 others quickly: the mainspace category Category:Furry fandom doesn't even contain 60 articles total across it and all of its subcategories combined, and what it does contain isn't all (or even mostly) stubs.
The template isn't as much of a problem -- the minimum bar for a stub template isn't 60 articles, as templates can file articles into higher-level stub categories in the meantime even if they don't yet have enough articles to get their own dedicated category. So I'm fine with keeping it if somebody can think of an appropriate higher-level category that it can be moved to -- but as a stub template does have to file its entries somewhere, it also has to be deleted if a replacement stub category can't be found.
- Reason: Underpopulated stub category with little prospect of expansion to the required size. As always, stub categories are not free for just any user to create on a whim for any topic of personal interest -- there have to be at least 60 articles to file in a stub category before it can be created, and for that very reason stub categories have to be proposed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting for discussion before they can be created. But there's only one article here, and there's no prospect of finding 59 others quickly: the mainspace category Category:Furry fandom doesn't even contain 60 articles total across it and all of its subcategories combined, and what it does contain isn't all (or even mostly) stubs.
- ALAIZ collective: nominated at AfD; notified Ɠɧơʂɬɛɖ (talk · contribs) 17:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a music production collective, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The main notability claim being attempted here is that they and artists they have worked with exist, which is not automatically notable enough to guarantee a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- but the article is referenced almost entirely to directly affiliated primary sources and glancing namechecks of ALAIZ in coverage of the individual artists, with little to no evidence of any WP:GNG-worthy coverage about ALAIZ in its own right.
The article was, further, heavily burnished with entirely inappropriate offsite links to the self-published webpages of individual artists named in the body text, as well as quoteboxes highlighting cherry-picked promotional quotes for PR purposes, all of which I've already had to remove as WP:ELNO violations.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have a stronger notability claim than just existing, and better sourcing for it than has been provided.
- Reason: Article about a music production collective, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The main notability claim being attempted here is that they and artists they have worked with exist, which is not automatically notable enough to guarantee a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- but the article is referenced almost entirely to directly affiliated primary sources and glancing namechecks of ALAIZ in coverage of the individual artists, with little to no evidence of any WP:GNG-worthy coverage about ALAIZ in its own right.
- The World Challenge (competition): nominated at AfD 15:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a business competition, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for business competitions. The main notability claim on offer here is that this existed, which is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself -- making this notable enough for a Wikipedia article would be a matter of showing that it passed WP:GNG on its sourceability, not merely of stating its existence. But the only source here is the self-published website of the thing itself, rather than any evidence of third-party coverage about it, and a Google search didn't find much else.
I'm willing to withdraw this if a British editor with much better access to archived British media coverage from 15-20 years ago than I've got can find the sourcing needed to salvage it, but it can't just be kept in perpetuity without sourcing.
- Reason: Article about a business competition, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for business competitions. The main notability claim on offer here is that this existed, which is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself -- making this notable enough for a Wikipedia article would be a matter of showing that it passed WP:GNG on its sourceability, not merely of stating its existence. But the only source here is the self-published website of the thing itself, rather than any evidence of third-party coverage about it, and a Google search didn't find much else.
- Trouble Sleeping (film): nominated at AfD 21:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a film of unclear release status, not adequately sourced as the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage to exempt it from the primary notability criteria at WP:NFILM. This has gone through multiple cycles of "is it released or not?" in the past decade; it was claimed as "upcoming" when the article was created in 2015, then was edited in 2017 to claim that it had been released in 2015, and then got edited again in 2020 to indicate that it was still unreleased -- meanwhile, IMDb claims it was released in 2018, while this piece Screen Anarchy claims it was "long-hibernating" when it was "finally released" in 2022, but even that piece is just a short blurb wrapping a YouTube promo clip, not substantive coverage about the film.
As always, however, films are not all "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show passage of WP:GNG on coverage about them -- but three of the five footnotes here are unreliable junk that isn't helping to build GNG at all, the two acceptable sources (Dread Central and The Wrap) both have to be discounted if the film didn't come out in 2015 as they claimed it was supposed to, and that Screen Anarchy blurb is the only new thing that's been published in any GNG-worthy reliable source since 2015 at all, which means even the best sources here aren't good enough if they're all either short blurbs or problems.
Especially given that there are such unresolved questions about whether or when this was ever actually released in the first place, there's just nothing here of enough enduring significance to exempt it from having to have much, much better referencing than this.
- Reason: Article about a film of unclear release status, not adequately sourced as the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage to exempt it from the primary notability criteria at WP:NFILM. This has gone through multiple cycles of "is it released or not?" in the past decade; it was claimed as "upcoming" when the article was created in 2015, then was edited in 2017 to claim that it had been released in 2015, and then got edited again in 2020 to indicate that it was still unreleased -- meanwhile, IMDb claims it was released in 2018, while this piece Screen Anarchy claims it was "long-hibernating" when it was "finally released" in 2022, but even that piece is just a short blurb wrapping a YouTube promo clip, not substantive coverage about the film.
- Margaret Pargeter: nominated at AfD 17:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Completely unreferenced article about the pseudonym of a writer of romance novels. As always, writers are not "inherently" notable just because their work exists, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on third-party coverage and analysis about their work -- biographical information, reviews of their books by professional literary critics, evidence of noteworthy literary awards, etc. -- but this cites no GNG-worthy sourcing at all, and in fact the closest thing to a "reference" in it (until I stripped it just now) was the self-published directory profile of a non-pseudonymous writer who wasn't purporting to be the author of these books, and thus appears to have been a "publicize herself by piggybacking on an unrelated article" stunt rather than evidence of the notability of "Margaret Pargeter".
Nothing here is "inherently" notable without proper GNG-compliant sourcing for it.
- Reason: Completely unreferenced article about the pseudonym of a writer of romance novels. As always, writers are not "inherently" notable just because their work exists, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on third-party coverage and analysis about their work -- biographical information, reviews of their books by professional literary critics, evidence of noteworthy literary awards, etc. -- but this cites no GNG-worthy sourcing at all, and in fact the closest thing to a "reference" in it (until I stripped it just now) was the self-published directory profile of a non-pseudonymous writer who wasn't purporting to be the author of these books, and thus appears to have been a "publicize herself by piggybacking on an unrelated article" stunt rather than evidence of the notability of "Margaret Pargeter".
- Brock Frost: nominated at AfD 06:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Semi-advertorialized rticle about a city councillor, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, city councillors are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence that they should be seen as special cases of significantly more nationalized notability than the norm -- but this is showing nothing of the sort, and instead is trending in the direction of trying to promote his post-council business as a mortgage agent, and is referenced entirely to the type of run of the mill local coverage that's merely expected to always exist for all city councillors in their local media, except for a single brief glancing namecheck of his existence in a national newspaper article about somebody else, which isn't support for notability and doesn't even support the sentence it's footnoting anyway.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more sourcing and substance than this.
- Reason: Semi-advertorialized rticle about a city councillor, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, city councillors are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence that they should be seen as special cases of significantly more nationalized notability than the norm -- but this is showing nothing of the sort, and instead is trending in the direction of trying to promote his post-council business as a mortgage agent, and is referenced entirely to the type of run of the mill local coverage that's merely expected to always exist for all city councillors in their local media, except for a single brief glancing namecheck of his existence in a national newspaper article about somebody else, which isn't support for notability and doesn't even support the sentence it's footnoting anyway.
- Yolette Lévy: nominated at AfD 21:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Biography of a smalltown municipal councillor and activist, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing notability criteria for local politicians or activists. As always, neither city councillors nor activists are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they existed, and have to show WP:GNG-worthy coverage and analysis about their work to validate its significance -- but 16 of the 20 footnotes here are directly affiliated primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and of the just four hits that come from real GNG-worthy media, two are just death reportage from the local media in her hometown, one is just a short blurb about her winning a minor award that isn't highly notable enough to clinch an instant "she's notable because she won this award" freebie all by itself for a person who's otherwise this poorly sourced, and the last one doesn't mention her name at all, and is here solely to tangentially (by virtue of her absence from it) verify that she didn't win a seat in the election that it's "sourcing", and thus isn't a demonstration of her notability.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced much, much better than this.
- Reason: Biography of a smalltown municipal councillor and activist, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing notability criteria for local politicians or activists. As always, neither city councillors nor activists are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they existed, and have to show WP:GNG-worthy coverage and analysis about their work to validate its significance -- but 16 of the 20 footnotes here are directly affiliated primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and of the just four hits that come from real GNG-worthy media, two are just death reportage from the local media in her hometown, one is just a short blurb about her winning a minor award that isn't highly notable enough to clinch an instant "she's notable because she won this award" freebie all by itself for a person who's otherwise this poorly sourced, and the last one doesn't mention her name at all, and is here solely to tangentially (by virtue of her absence from it) verify that she didn't win a seat in the election that it's "sourcing", and thus isn't a demonstration of her notability.
- Absolute (Aion album): nominated at AfD 13:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Five articles about albums not shown to pass WP:NALBUM. Back in the day, Wikipedia's approach to album notability was to extend an automatic inclusion freebie to any album recorded by a notable artist, regardless of its sourcing or lack thereof, in the service of completionist directoryism -- but that's long since been kiboshed, and albums are now independently notable only if they can be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about the album. But four of these five articles are completely unreferenced, and one is referenced solely to a single unreliable source directory listing that isn't support for notability.
It also warrants note that these were all briefly redirected to the band a year and a half ago for lack of independent sourcing, but that was reverted within 24 hours with no actual explanation provided of what the problem with redirecting them was, and they've continued to stand as unreferenced articles ever since.
- Reason: Five articles about albums not shown to pass WP:NALBUM. Back in the day, Wikipedia's approach to album notability was to extend an automatic inclusion freebie to any album recorded by a notable artist, regardless of its sourcing or lack thereof, in the service of completionist directoryism -- but that's long since been kiboshed, and albums are now independently notable only if they can be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about the album. But four of these five articles are completely unreferenced, and one is referenced solely to a single unreliable source directory listing that isn't support for notability.
- Category:Rome Film Festival: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified Rickyurs (talk · contribs) 14:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:TOOSOON category without enough content to support it. The Rome Film Festival has not yet had articles created for any prior edition, with the upcoming 2024 festival being the first time such a thing has ever been created -- and while it's possible that other editions may be added in the future, it's also possible that they won't be.
So this can be recreated if and when three or four other prior editions also have articles in place to file in it, but the articles have to exist first and then the category to contain them comes second, not vice versa.
- Reason: WP:TOOSOON category without enough content to support it. The Rome Film Festival has not yet had articles created for any prior edition, with the upcoming 2024 festival being the first time such a thing has ever been created -- and while it's possible that other editions may be added in the future, it's also possible that they won't be.
October 2024
[edit]- Better Days (Robbie Seay Band album): nominated at AfD 14:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Articles about albums, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NALBUMS. As usual, Wikipedia's approach to albums used to extend an automatic presumption of notability to any album that was recorded by a notable artist regardless of sourcing or the lack thereof, in the name of completionist directoryism -- but that's long since been deprecated, and an album now has to have a meaningful notability claim (chart success, notable music awards, a significant volume of coverage and analysis about it, etc.) and WP:GNG-worthy sourcing to support it.
But none of these three albums are making any notability claim above and beyond "this is an album that exists", two of the three are completely unreferenced, and the one that does have references doesn't have good ones: it's citing one review in an unreliable source, and one "Billboard chart history" that lists no actual charting history and is being cited only to support a release date that it doesn't actually support rather than any charting claims.
As always, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much more expertise in Christian music than I've got can find the right kind of sourcing to salvage them, but simply existing isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt an album from having to pass GNG.
- Reason: Articles about albums, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NALBUMS. As usual, Wikipedia's approach to albums used to extend an automatic presumption of notability to any album that was recorded by a notable artist regardless of sourcing or the lack thereof, in the name of completionist directoryism -- but that's long since been deprecated, and an album now has to have a meaningful notability claim (chart success, notable music awards, a significant volume of coverage and analysis about it, etc.) and WP:GNG-worthy sourcing to support it.
- Category:Films directed by Bob Carlson: nominated at CfD (CfD) 17:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Per longstanding consensus, a filmmaker has to have a biographical article about the person before he gets a "Films directed by" category to batch his films together. While that rule was followed here, in that Bob Carlson did have an article at the time this was created, it subsequently got prodded for being improperly sourced and has never been recreated since -- so if he doesn't currently have a biographical article to parent this category, then we don't need to retain the category for just one film.
- Category:Films directed by Francis Annan: nominated at CfD (CfD) 17:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Per longstanding consensus, a filmmaker has to have a biographical article about the person before he gets a "Films directed by" category to batch his films together. Unlike Bob Carlson below, however, that rule wasn't followed here: Francis Annan's lack of a biographical article isn't because it got deleted, it's because no biographical article ever existed in the first place. So without a biographical article about Francis Annan to parent this, we don't need it for just one film.
- Category:Films directed by Caroline Labrèche: nominated at CfD (CfD) 00:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Two related categories for co-directors of the same film. Per longstanding consensus, a filmmaker has to have a biographical article about the person before they get a "Films directed by" category to batch their films together -- but neither of these two people have a biographical article at all, so these aren't both necessary for the same single film.
- Hamilton International Film Festival: nominated at AfD 16:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a smalltown film festival, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for film festivals. As always, film festivals are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to be shown to have reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT -- but this is referenced to just one hit of purely local coverage and two primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and a Google search mostly found glancing namechecks of this in coverage of films or filmmakers rather than coverage about this.
There's also an ambiguity problem here, as there's a Canadian film festival (without an article yet) that's officially just the "Hamilton Film Festival" but does sometimes get mistakenly called the "Hamilton International Film Festival" -- and a significant number of the hits in the Google search meant the Canadian one and were thus irrelevant here. I also had to unlink almost every single inbound wikilink to this article (except the disambiguatory hatnote in New Zealand's Hamilton Underground Film Festival), because every single actor or film that was linking here as a "notable because awards" play was referenced to a source that explicitly verified that the Canadian one was the intended topic.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to archived US media coverage than I've got can find more than I was able to, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to be referenced better than this.
- Reason: Article about a smalltown film festival, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for film festivals. As always, film festivals are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to be shown to have reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT -- but this is referenced to just one hit of purely local coverage and two primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and a Google search mostly found glancing namechecks of this in coverage of films or filmmakers rather than coverage about this.
- Curtis Bashaw (politician): nominated at AfD; notified CavDan24 (talk · contribs) 14:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about an as yet unelected political candidate, not properly referenced as having any serious claim to notability. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they haven't won -- the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while candidates must either (a) have preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway, or (b) show credible evidence that 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 basically "he is a candidate, the end", and isn't even trying to satisfy either of those tests at all.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat, but simply being a candidate for a seat he hasn't already won is not grounds for an article now.
- Reason: Article about an as yet unelected political candidate, not properly referenced as having any serious claim to notability. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they haven't won -- the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while candidates must either (a) have preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway, or (b) show credible evidence that 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 basically "he is a candidate, the end", and isn't even trying to satisfy either of those tests at all.
- Eleanor Delamere Ball Laurens: nominated at AfD; notified Ali Beary (talk · contribs) 17:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Biography of a person, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing Wikipedia inclusion criteria. As always, notability is not inherited, so people don't get Wikipedia articles just for being related to other people per se, and have to be the subject of a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable source coverage about them doing something noteworthy -- but being a family member of other people is the only notability claim on offer here, and the sole "reference" is a genealogy of her husband on a Blogger blog, which is not a reliable or GNG-building source.
Simply having been married to somebody is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have more substantive content, and better referencing for it, than this.
- Reason: Biography of a person, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing Wikipedia inclusion criteria. As always, notability is not inherited, so people don't get Wikipedia articles just for being related to other people per se, and have to be the subject of a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable source coverage about them doing something noteworthy -- but being a family member of other people is the only notability claim on offer here, and the sole "reference" is a genealogy of her husband on a Blogger blog, which is not a reliable or GNG-building source.
- Bob Connolly (Canadian film director): nominated at AfD 19:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Semi-advertorialized article about a filmmaker, not properly referencing any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for filmmakers. The attempted notability claim here is that his work exists, which is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself -- we would need to see some evidence of distinction, such as notable awards and/or WP:GNG-worthy coverage and analysis about him and his work in media and/or books. But this is referenced entirely to primary sources self-published by people or organizations directly affiliated with the statements they're referencing, which is not support for notability, and the article claims absolutely nothing about him that would be "inherently" notable without better sourcing for it than this.
Further, there are no inbound links here from any other page in Wikipedia but the disambiguation page at Bob Connolly, and this appears to be a conflict of interest as the creator (who created it in 2013 and has occasionally returned to edit the article as recently as August 2024) appears to have self-identified as Bob Connolly in past posts to Talk:Lee Aaron.
- Reason: Semi-advertorialized article about a filmmaker, not properly referencing any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for filmmakers. The attempted notability claim here is that his work exists, which is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself -- we would need to see some evidence of distinction, such as notable awards and/or WP:GNG-worthy coverage and analysis about him and his work in media and/or books. But this is referenced entirely to primary sources self-published by people or organizations directly affiliated with the statements they're referencing, which is not support for notability, and the article claims absolutely nothing about him that would be "inherently" notable without better sourcing for it than this.
- Scared Shitless: nominated at RfD; Target: Thanks to the Moon's Gravitational Pull (notified) 20:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Song title to album redirect for a song with no apparent notability claim besides existing. There's no claim that it was released as a single, and no claim that it was ever used in a film or television series, to suggest a reason why it might be semi-notable enough to be the only song on the album whose title exists as a redirect to the album -- in fact, I suspect (though cannot definitively prove) that the only real reason this exists was in an attempt to occupy a title with a dirty word in it before it could be misused by vandals.
Further, the horror film Scared Shitless now has an article, which I had to create at a disambiguated title because of the existence of this redirect -- but there's no particular reason why a not independently notable 20-year-old album track should retain WP:PRIMARYTOPIC status over a current film.
- Reason: Song title to album redirect for a song with no apparent notability claim besides existing. There's no claim that it was released as a single, and no claim that it was ever used in a film or television series, to suggest a reason why it might be semi-notable enough to be the only song on the album whose title exists as a redirect to the album -- in fact, I suspect (though cannot definitively prove) that the only real reason this exists was in an attempt to occupy a title with a dirty word in it before it could be misused by vandals.
- Category:Events at Yankee Stadium: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs) 14:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Per WP:OCVENUE, we do not categorize events by the venues they were held at.
- Stuart Laughton: nominated at AfD 21:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a musician, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC.
The attempted notability claims here are "started a record label", "was a member of musical ensembles" and "was artistic director of a music festival", none of which are automatic notability freebies in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about them and their work -- but while this was tagged for PROD a few days ago as being completely unsourced, it was then deprodded by an editor who added primary sources (mainly content self-published by Laughton himself and/or organizations directly affiliated with him) rather than reliable or GNG-building ones.
It's also a clear conflict of interest, as the article was first created by the subject himself under his own name.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much better referencing than this.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a musician, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC.
- Kyra Belan: nominated at AfD; notified MinTrouble (talk · contribs) 17:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of an artist, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NARTIST. The attempted notability claim here is that her art has been exhibited, which is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself -- notability on that basis doesn't derive from the list of gallery shows, it derives from the use of reliable source coverage and analysis about the gallery shows, such as reviews of her shows by professional art critics in newspapers or magazines or book to establish that the show was seen as significant. But this is referenced entirely to sources self-published by Belan herself and/or the affiliated galleries, with absolutely not one reliable or GNG-building source shown at all.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much better access than I've got to archived US media coverage can find more than I've been able to, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced considerably better than this.
- Reason: WP:BLP of an artist, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NARTIST. The attempted notability claim here is that her art has been exhibited, which is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself -- notability on that basis doesn't derive from the list of gallery shows, it derives from the use of reliable source coverage and analysis about the gallery shows, such as reviews of her shows by professional art critics in newspapers or magazines or book to establish that the show was seen as significant. But this is referenced entirely to sources self-published by Belan herself and/or the affiliated galleries, with absolutely not one reliable or GNG-building source shown at all.
- Wikipedia:AAAAAA!: nominated at MfD 18:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Page serving no obvious purpose. This page, whose entire text consists of "AAAAAA!" just as the title implies, was created in March with the {{humor}} template on it from the outset -- but precisely because anybody could just add that template to absolutely anything in projectspace (e.g. failed drafts, total nonsense, hoaxes, etc.) that they wanted to "immunize" against deletion, the use of that template has traditionally required a consensus to be established that the page warranted retention on the grounds of humor.
Then a few days later the creator tried to add it to a redlinked (i.e. non-existent) category for "Articles that their creator doesn't remember writing", before immediately reverting themselves within less than a minute -- and then the page saw no further activity for the next seven months until last Thursday, when a different editor with no prior connection to it tried, for no obvious reason, to unrevert it back into the redlinked category with the edit summary "hummus" (i.e. no genuine explanation of why they were doing it, or how they even found the page in the first place given that absolutely nothing in Wikipedia links to it.)
So, basically, this is just silliness that's only inviting unconstructive editing rather than serving any purpose.
- Reason: Page serving no obvious purpose. This page, whose entire text consists of "AAAAAA!" just as the title implies, was created in March with the {{humor}} template on it from the outset -- but precisely because anybody could just add that template to absolutely anything in projectspace (e.g. failed drafts, total nonsense, hoaxes, etc.) that they wanted to "immunize" against deletion, the use of that template has traditionally required a consensus to be established that the page warranted retention on the grounds of humor.
- Exclusion (film): nominated at AfD 16:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a film that has never actually been released, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFF criteria. It is true that Deepa Mehta announced about 15 years ago that a film about the Komagata Maru was entering development -- but it's never actually been completed or released at all, and certainly not in 2014 as this article claims (per this article, which states that the film was "still in the pipeline" as of 2019.)
But the references here are primary sources and dead links, which are not support for notability -- and while a bit of reliable source coverage can be found about her announcement that this was going into development, there's not enough of that to suggest a reason why a never-finished film could remain permanently notable despite its failure: there's no evidence that it even entered photography at all, and the search string "Deepa Mehta exclusion" mainly just brings up references to the narrative themes of Beeba Boys and Funny Boy.
So this film was simply never completed or released at all, and thus isn't permanently notable as an unrealized project.
- Reason: Article about a film that has never actually been released, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFF criteria. It is true that Deepa Mehta announced about 15 years ago that a film about the Komagata Maru was entering development -- but it's never actually been completed or released at all, and certainly not in 2014 as this article claims (per this article, which states that the film was "still in the pipeline" as of 2019.)
- Nirmalya Ghosh: nominated at AfD; notified Bionap (talk · contribs) 12:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP, identified as possible WP:UPE, about a scientist not clearly shown as passing inclusion criteria. This was started in the creator's personal sandbox, going through two rounds of WP:USERNOCAT removal of categories before the creator (a WP:SPA with no prior edit history apart from this article) tried to move it to a "user" profile, following which it was moved to draftspace by an established editor on the grounds that no user account existed under the username Nirmalya Ghosh -- but then the creator moved it directly to mainspace themselves, following which there's been an edit war over redraftifying and remainspacing it.
Paid editors, however, are required to use the WP:AFC process so that their articles can be reviewed for compliance with Wikipedia's content rules -- but given the fact that there's already been an editwar over draftspacing and undraftspacing it, I don't see the point in just moving it back to draftspace again without discussion.
- Reason: WP:BLP, identified as possible WP:UPE, about a scientist not clearly shown as passing inclusion criteria. This was started in the creator's personal sandbox, going through two rounds of WP:USERNOCAT removal of categories before the creator (a WP:SPA with no prior edit history apart from this article) tried to move it to a "user" profile, following which it was moved to draftspace by an established editor on the grounds that no user account existed under the username Nirmalya Ghosh -- but then the creator moved it directly to mainspace themselves, following which there's been an edit war over redraftifying and remainspacing it.
- Sam Chandola: nominated at AfD 15:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a tech entrepreneur cum political candidate, not properly sourced as meeting inclusion criteria for tech entrepreneurs or political candidates. This was created in August, so it was clearly intended as a campaign brochure for his electoral candidacy -- but candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, and must demonstrate that they already had preexisting notability for other reasons.
But his "career background" as a tech entrepreneur is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, but for one article in a suburban community hyperlocal that isn't enough to vault him over GNG all by itself -- and otherwise what's left for reliable sourcing is just the bog-standard run of the mill "party selects candidate" stuff that every candidate for every party in every electoral district can always show, not evincing any reason why his candidacy would be a special case of more enduring significance than all the other candidates who failed to win the election yesterday.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable without better sourcing than this.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a tech entrepreneur cum political candidate, not properly sourced as meeting inclusion criteria for tech entrepreneurs or political candidates. This was created in August, so it was clearly intended as a campaign brochure for his electoral candidacy -- but candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, and must demonstrate that they already had preexisting notability for other reasons.
- Tony Valente (politician): nominated at AfD 15:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a suburban municipal councillor, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, city councillors are not all "inherently" notable just because they exist, and must show credible reasons why they should be seen as special cases of significantly greater notability than the norm for city councillors (nationalized prominence, unusual depth and volume of coverage well beyond the norm, etc.) -- but apart from one primary source that isn't support for notability at all, this is otherwise referenced entirely to run of the mill coverage in the city's weekly hyperlocal, of the type that every city councillor in every city can always show, and does not demonstrate a credible reason why he would be more special than any of his colleagues who don't have articles.
- Andromeda: 1883: nominated at AfD; notified SidP (talk · contribs) 15:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a film, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show third-party reliable source coverage about the film (reviews by professional film critics, production coverage, evidence of notable awards, etc.) -- but this is completely unreferenced, and even on a Google search for other sources I found primary source evidence that the film exists, but I found absolutely nothing in the way of reliable or GNG-worthy coverage about it at all.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if circumstances change, but a film's mere existence is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to pass GNG.
- Reason: Article about a film, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show third-party reliable source coverage about the film (reviews by professional film critics, production coverage, evidence of notable awards, etc.) -- but this is completely unreferenced, and even on a Google search for other sources I found primary source evidence that the film exists, but I found absolutely nothing in the way of reliable or GNG-worthy coverage about it at all.
- Category:First Timers bands: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified Lewishhh (talk · contribs) 15:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:OCVENUE. We do not categorize bands for each individual festival or venue they may have played at, and First Timers is not such a highly meganotable special case as to warrant a special exception over and above other festivals.
- Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/LGBT article alerts: nominated at TfD; notified Wikignome0529 (talk · contribs) 17:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: "Wrapper" template no longer needed. This formerly existed as a wrap-around for User:AlexNewArtBot/LGBTSearchResult, so that it could be displayed on Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies inside a collapsible box instead of being directly transcluded wholesale -- but the structure of the WikiProject page has been significantly revised, so that the search-results page (which is still in use) is now accessed through a direct text link instead of using this wrapper template for transcludability, so an editor tried to "archive" it even though it's just a wrapper for a different page that remains in use. So we no longer need to retain this wrapper at all anymore, if the thing it's wrapping is being used in a different way now.
- Barb Kelly: nominated at AfD 21:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Biography of a smalltown mayor, not demonstrated as the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage to pass WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just for existing as mayors, and the notability test hinges on the ability to write a substantive article, referenced to a significant volume of reliable source coverage, about her political career: specific things she did, specific projects she spearheaded, specific effects her leadership had on the development of the community, and on and so forth. But this barely goes any further than "there once was a mayor who lived and died, the end", and is referenced entirely to three short blurbs that aren't enough to pass WP:GNG all by themselves, with no evidence of genuinely substantive coverage shown at all.
The mere fact that she existed is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt the article from having to have a lot more substance, and a lot more sourcing to support it, than this.
- Reason: Biography of a smalltown mayor, not demonstrated as the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage to pass WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just for existing as mayors, and the notability test hinges on the ability to write a substantive article, referenced to a significant volume of reliable source coverage, about her political career: specific things she did, specific projects she spearheaded, specific effects her leadership had on the development of the community, and on and so forth. But this barely goes any further than "there once was a mayor who lived and died, the end", and is referenced entirely to three short blurbs that aren't enough to pass WP:GNG all by themselves, with no evidence of genuinely substantive coverage shown at all.
- Jim Hustwit: nominated at AfD 16:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a composer and record producer, not properly sourced as having a strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. As always, musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and must meet certain specific criteria to qualify for inclusion -- but the only notability claim being attempted here is that his work exists, and the article is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability -- mainly his work metaverifying its own existence on the self-published websites of organizations or companies that were directly affiliated with it, but also IMDb -- and cites not even one piece of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him in an independent third-party source at all, and absolutely nothing reliable or GNG-worthy turned up on a Google search either.
As his career goes back more than a decade, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to archives of British media coverage that might not have Googled can find more than I was able to, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on better referencing than this.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a composer and record producer, not properly sourced as having a strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. As always, musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and must meet certain specific criteria to qualify for inclusion -- but the only notability claim being attempted here is that his work exists, and the article is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability -- mainly his work metaverifying its own existence on the self-published websites of organizations or companies that were directly affiliated with it, but also IMDb -- and cites not even one piece of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him in an independent third-party source at all, and absolutely nothing reliable or GNG-worthy turned up on a Google search either.
- Exclusion (film): nominated at RfD; Target: Deepa Mehta (notified) 17:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Redirect with no important reason to exist. This was redirected as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exclusion (film) (2nd nomination), in which one person suggested a redirect while two people voted for straight deletion -- but it represents a film that was never made or released at all, and exists only as a "development" project that she announced 20 years ago but then abandoned due to casting issues before ever shooting even one frame. Which means that it isn't mentioned in Mehta's article at all to provide a reader with any context for why it redirects there, and Mehta's article is already long and detailed enough as it is, without delving into undue trivia about unrealized projects, that there would be no value in adding any mention of it to her article -- and even if we did add a mention of it to her article, as a film that never happened there's no chance that anybody would ever be searching for it by title anyway. So there's just no point in maintaining it as a redirect if the target article doesn't have any content about it.
- Chang Jiang: The Great River of China: nominated at AfD 16:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a film, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. As always, every film is not always automatically notable enough for a Wikipedia article just because it exists, and must pass certain specific notability criteria to qualify for inclusion -- but the only notability claim on offer here is that the film exists, and the only footnote is a Rotten Tomatoes profile that offers no tomato rating and lists no film reviews that could be pulled over to start building passage of WP:GNG.
I had to remove one other footnote, which was an unrecoverable deadlink to a site I cannot determine whether it would have been GNG-worthy or not, and a Google search found only primary sources and wikimirrors rather than anything GNG-worthy.
As the film was a Chinese-Japanese coproduction, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with skills in those languages can find coverage in those languages that wouldn't have turned up by searching on the English title, but just existing isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt a film from having to have any GNG-worthy sourcing.
- Reason: Article about a film, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. As always, every film is not always automatically notable enough for a Wikipedia article just because it exists, and must pass certain specific notability criteria to qualify for inclusion -- but the only notability claim on offer here is that the film exists, and the only footnote is a Rotten Tomatoes profile that offers no tomato rating and lists no film reviews that could be pulled over to start building passage of WP:GNG.
- Desserts (film): nominated at AfD 17:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Completely unreferenced article about a short film. As always, films are not inherently notable just for existing, and have to be reliably sourced as passing certain specific notability criteria to qualify for inclusion -- but the only claim of notability even attempted here is that Ewan McGregor was in it, but films do not inherit notability from their cast members, so having a famous actor in it does not exempt the film from having to pass WP:GNG in and of itself.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to archived British media coverage from the 1990s can find better sourcing than I've been able to locate on the Google, but even Ewan McGregor can't magically exempt short films from having to have sources.
- Reason: Completely unreferenced article about a short film. As always, films are not inherently notable just for existing, and have to be reliably sourced as passing certain specific notability criteria to qualify for inclusion -- but the only claim of notability even attempted here is that Ewan McGregor was in it, but films do not inherit notability from their cast members, so having a famous actor in it does not exempt the film from having to pass WP:GNG in and of itself.
- Waiting for Woody: nominated at AfD 17:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Completely unreferenced article about a short film, not making any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not all automatically notable just for existing, and have to show reliably sourced evicence of passing one or more notability criteria to qualify for inclusion -- but the attempted notability claim here is an unsourced table of awards from minor film festivals whose awards aren't "inherently" notable enough to exempt a film from having to have sources. (And the most notable film festival in the table is one where it's pulling the "nominee for film festival award that was wide-open to every single film in the program and didn't actually curate any special shortlist of finalists" stunt that Wikipedia editors often pull to oversell a film's passage of "notable because awards" -- which, therefore, also cannot be an "inherent" notability freebie without sources explicitly stating that the film was actively "nominated" for the award either.)
The film, further, also cannot claim "inherent" notability just because you've heard of some of the people in the cast list -- notability is not inherited, so even a film with famous people in its cast still has to pass WP:GNG on its sourcing. A Google search, further, turned up nothing useful, finding only directory entries, primary sources and a single glancing namecheck of this film's existence as a prior work by the director in an article whose primary subject was a different later film rather than this.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this film from having to have any sources.
- Reason: Completely unreferenced article about a short film, not making any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not all automatically notable just for existing, and have to show reliably sourced evicence of passing one or more notability criteria to qualify for inclusion -- but the attempted notability claim here is an unsourced table of awards from minor film festivals whose awards aren't "inherently" notable enough to exempt a film from having to have sources. (And the most notable film festival in the table is one where it's pulling the "nominee for film festival award that was wide-open to every single film in the program and didn't actually curate any special shortlist of finalists" stunt that Wikipedia editors often pull to oversell a film's passage of "notable because awards" -- which, therefore, also cannot be an "inherent" notability freebie without sources explicitly stating that the film was actively "nominated" for the award either.)
- Timeline of Kilgore, Texas: nominated at AfD; notified No No No No Name fu (talk · contribs) 12:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Poorly conceived "timeline" article for a small city (pop. 13K) with no significant events being listed to justify the need for a "timeline". This is the type of thing we can spin out for communities where there's actual substance for the list to contain, but it isn't a thing that every town or city in the world automatically gets as a matter of course -- but apart from "Establishment of Kilgore College", referenced to Kilgore College's own self-published website about itself rather than a WP:GNG-worthy news article, this otherwise consists exclusively of random population updates with no other significant or properly sourced events listed.
The creator of this has also tried to arbitrarily create a full-on Kilgore-specific WikiProject without going through the proper processes for that (or justifying why a small city with a population of just 13,000 people would need its own full-on WikiProject in the first place), which isn't a deletion rationale in and of itself but does suggest that they need some education in how Wikipedia actually works.
No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when there's substantive content to list, but we would need to see a lot more than just community population estimates.
- Reason: Poorly conceived "timeline" article for a small city (pop. 13K) with no significant events being listed to justify the need for a "timeline". This is the type of thing we can spin out for communities where there's actual substance for the list to contain, but it isn't a thing that every town or city in the world automatically gets as a matter of course -- but apart from "Establishment of Kilgore College", referenced to Kilgore College's own self-published website about itself rather than a WP:GNG-worthy news article, this otherwise consists exclusively of random population updates with no other significant or properly sourced events listed.
- Andrew Knack: nominated at AfD 14:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a politician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL #2. To be fair, Edmonton is a large and prominent enough city that its city councillors could qualify for articles if they were substantive and properly sourced -- but the only attempts at content about his work on council shown here is "he participated in various committees relevant to city governance" (i.e. did his job) and "utilized social media platforms to inform constituents about local issues and gather public feedback" (i.e. did his job), without stating or sourcing anything about the impact of his work.
We would need to see things like specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his work had on the development of the city, and on and so forth, but there's absolutely none of that here.
And for sourcing, this is referenced entirely to one primary source (reduplicated as four distinct footnotes for no obvious reason) that isn't support for notability at all, and two deadlinked hits of run of the mill coverage of his decision to step down and not run for reelection next year, which is not enough to get him over NPOL's requirement for significant press coverage all by itself.
Simply existing as a city councillor is in no way "inherently" notable enough to exempt the article from having to be a lot more substantive, and a lot better sourced, than this.
- Reason: WP:BLP of a politician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL #2. To be fair, Edmonton is a large and prominent enough city that its city councillors could qualify for articles if they were substantive and properly sourced -- but the only attempts at content about his work on council shown here is "he participated in various committees relevant to city governance" (i.e. did his job) and "utilized social media platforms to inform constituents about local issues and gather public feedback" (i.e. did his job), without stating or sourcing anything about the impact of his work.
- Colleˊ Kharis: nominated at AfD; notified Aishaltonguy (talk · contribs) 15:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician and filmmaker, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for either musicians or filmmakers. The attempted notability claim here is minor film and music awards that aren't prominent enough to clinch an instant notability pass in the absence of solidly reliable sourcing, but the article is referenced almost entirely to primary sources rather than reliable ones -- YouTube, Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself in the first person, music metaverifying its own existence on Spotify or Apple Music, marketing content self-published by his own record label, his own social media accounts, etc. -- and the very few marginally (but not solidly) reliable sources are not enough to get him over WP:GNG all by themselves if the sourcing is 95 per cent garbage otherwise.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much better references than this.
- Reason: Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician and filmmaker, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for either musicians or filmmakers. The attempted notability claim here is minor film and music awards that aren't prominent enough to clinch an instant notability pass in the absence of solidly reliable sourcing, but the article is referenced almost entirely to primary sources rather than reliable ones -- YouTube, Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself in the first person, music metaverifying its own existence on Spotify or Apple Music, marketing content self-published by his own record label, his own social media accounts, etc. -- and the very few marginally (but not solidly) reliable sources are not enough to get him over WP:GNG all by themselves if the sourcing is 95 per cent garbage otherwise.
- Plan of Action: nominated at AfD 15:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Album not properly sourced as passing WP:NALBUM. Wikipedia's approach to album notability used to confer an automatic inclusion freebie on any album recorded by a notable band, in the name of completionist directoryism -- but that's long since been kiboshed, and an album now has to have its own standalone notability claim (e.g. charting, awards, etc.) supported by a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable source coverage about it.
But the only attempted notability claim here is that one song on it is asserted as being the band's "most popular", with no attempt at either quantifying how their songs' popularity was measured or sourcing the claim as accurate, and the sole source in the article is a deadlink that didn't even provide the correct title of the content for recoverability purposes, and a Google search for better sources only turned up directory entries, label PR and streaming platforms rather than GNG-worthy coverage about the album.
- Reason: Album not properly sourced as passing WP:NALBUM. Wikipedia's approach to album notability used to confer an automatic inclusion freebie on any album recorded by a notable band, in the name of completionist directoryism -- but that's long since been kiboshed, and an album now has to have its own standalone notability claim (e.g. charting, awards, etc.) supported by a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable source coverage about it.
- Make Trade Fair (album): nominated at AfD 15:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a compilation album, not properly sourced as passing WP:NALBUM. Once upon a time, the only notability claim a compilation album had to make was that it had notable artists on it, and no sourcing was required beyond listing the tracks -- but that's long since been kiboshed, and albums now have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability regardless of who was involved in them.
But there are no footnotes here at all, and a search for better sourcing came up empty: even with highly specialized search terms to filter out hits on Coldplay's unrelated X&Y era Oxfam philanthropy campaign, I found absolutely nothing about this album but a few primary sources that aren't support for notability.
- Reason: Article about a compilation album, not properly sourced as passing WP:NALBUM. Once upon a time, the only notability claim a compilation album had to make was that it had notable artists on it, and no sourcing was required beyond listing the tracks -- but that's long since been kiboshed, and albums now have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability regardless of who was involved in them.
- The Riptides (Canadian band): nominated at AfD 16:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a band, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. As always, bands are not "inherently" notable just because they existed, and have to be shown to pass specific criteria supported by reliable sourcing -- but the strongest potential notability claim being attempted here is touring, which is not an instant inclusion freebie in the absence of reliable source coverage about the tour. But this is referenced entirely to primary and unreliable sources that aren't support for notability, and a ProQuest search only found glancing namechecks and short blurbs rather than substantive coverage that would count toward passage of WP:GNG.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to be referenced much, much better than this.
- Reason: Article about a band, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. As always, bands are not "inherently" notable just because they existed, and have to be shown to pass specific criteria supported by reliable sourcing -- but the strongest potential notability claim being attempted here is touring, which is not an instant inclusion freebie in the absence of reliable source coverage about the tour. But this is referenced entirely to primary and unreliable sources that aren't support for notability, and a ProQuest search only found glancing namechecks and short blurbs rather than substantive coverage that would count toward passage of WP:GNG.
- Category:Californian Olympic medalists: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified Fyunck(click) (talk · contribs) 12:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:OCLOCATION. State of residence has no defining relationship with being an Olympic medalist per se, and there is no established scheme of subdividing Category:Olympic medalists for the United States by state. And even if there were legitimate grounds for keeping it, it would have to be renamed "Olympic medalists from California" anyway, as we do not use demonyms for state-level categories (and per the logical parent Category:Olympic medalists for the United States, this tree doesn't even use demonyms at the country level either.)
- Vishwa Bharti Women's College, Srinagar: nominated at AfD 14:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Completely unsourced article about a local "branch" of a "large educational complex" that doesn't have an article about the overarching entity (or at least not at the name asserted by this article). As always, educational institutions are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to have GNG-worthy coverage to support an article with -- and if the parent institution isn't notable enough for an article, then a "branch" obviously can't be more notable than its parent entity.
- Category:2026 Asian Para Games: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified Family27390 (talk · contribs) 14:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Eponymous category with no content but the eponym itself. Since the event is still two full years away as of right now, there's no prospect of this growing anytime soon -- absolutely none of the spinoff events-at, athletics-at, medalists-at, nations-at or venues-of content that sibling categories have is possible to create yet, since there's absolutely nothing of substance to say about any of that two full years in advance, so the eponym will be the only article here for the foreseeable future. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in 2026 when enough of the spinoff content exists to justify it, but it isn't already needed now just to contain only one page.
November 2024
[edit]- Agnes Gallus: nominated at AfD; notified Harrietcyy (talk · contribs) 20:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Biography of an artist, not properly referenced as having a strong claim to passing WP:NARTIST. The main notability claim attempted here is that her work has been exhibited -- but notability on that basis doesn't derive from using the self-published websites of the galleries to prove that the exhibitions happened, it derives from using reliable source coverage about her and her work to prove that they were the subjects of independent third-party coverage and analysis.
However, this is referenced mainly to primary sources, like gallery websites and directory entries, with the exception of a Globe and Mail "Lives Lived" (its feature for personal essays about the deaths of people who were meaningful in the life of the writer, but not necessarily famous or notable in a conventional sense) which was written by her own daughter (and thus isn't fully independent of the subject), and a brief glancing namecheck of her existence in a short blurb (and thus not substantive). And on a ProQuest search for other sourcing, I got just three hits total, of which one was the same Lives Lived and the other two are just more short blurbs.
There's also reason to suspect direct conflict of interest here, as the creator's only other Wikipedia activity has been the sixth resubmission in eight months of a poorly sourced draft about one of Agnes's daughter's films, which was originally created by a "different" editor with an only slightly different username whose edit history also revolves exclusively around the work of said daughter.
The daughter herself is genuinely notable, that's not the problem at all, though the related articles may need some review for COI issues nonetheless -- but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt Agnes from having to have more and better sourcing than this.
- Reason: Biography of an artist, not properly referenced as having a strong claim to passing WP:NARTIST. The main notability claim attempted here is that her work has been exhibited -- but notability on that basis doesn't derive from using the self-published websites of the galleries to prove that the exhibitions happened, it derives from using reliable source coverage about her and her work to prove that they were the subjects of independent third-party coverage and analysis.
- Maryam Issaka Kriese: nominated at AfD; notified Gyanford (talk · contribs) 21:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about an unelected political candidate, not properly sourced as meeting notability criteria for unelected political candidates. As always, candidates are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their name happens to be on the ballot -- a person has to win election to an WP:NPOL-passing office to get an article on that basis, while unelected candidates must either (a) demonstrate that they had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article as it is, or (b) show credible reasons why they should be seen as a special case of much greater and more enduring significance than other candidates.
And no, the fact that a smattering of campaign coverage happens to exist is not, in and of itself, a WP:GNG-based exemption from NPOL -- every candidate in every election can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so if that were how it worked then NPOL would just be completely meaningless and unenforceable.
But there's no strong claim to preexisting notability here, and no particular evidence that her candidacy would pass the ten year test in and of itself -- and even the campaign coverage is entirely a two-day blip of "presidential candidate announces running mate", with no evidence of substantial or sustained coverage for any other reason shown at all.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if she wins the election, but she isn't "inherently" notable just for being a candidate.
- Reason: Article about an unelected political candidate, not properly sourced as meeting notability criteria for unelected political candidates. As always, candidates are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their name happens to be on the ballot -- a person has to win election to an WP:NPOL-passing office to get an article on that basis, while unelected candidates must either (a) demonstrate that they had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article as it is, or (b) show credible reasons why they should be seen as a special case of much greater and more enduring significance than other candidates.
- User:DontWatchMePls/sandbox: nominated at MfD; notified DontWatchMePls (talk · contribs) 02:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Likely WP:HOAX. Other than small changes being made to the introduction and infobox to present the subject as "A(u)gustus Huckleberry" (a name that doesn't verify on the Google as having any connection to Carnegie Mellon University at all under either spelling), this is otherwise a mixture of text copied and pasted from Farnam Jahanian without being significantly changed, and boilerplate placeholder text of the lorem ipsum variety. Also, the photo in the infobox is clearly not of a man in his 60s.
- Draft:PC: nominated at MfD 15:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Virtually blank draft, consisting of a Wikipedia maintenance template but no actual content, with no obvious reason to exist. This appears to have been created in an attempt to institute a "PC" --> Pony Canyon redirect as a bypass of the fact that PC already exists in mainspace as a disambiguation page listing a lot of things (including, but not limited to, the obvious one that would have a much stronger claim to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for it than Pony Canyon ever would), and has been filed in Category:Pony Canyon a couple of times in defiance of WP:DRAFTNOCAT, even though filing it there wouldn't even serve any useful purpose anyway.
So there's just no need for this, if its only purpose is to try to bypass Wikipedia's standard processes.
- Reason: Virtually blank draft, consisting of a Wikipedia maintenance template but no actual content, with no obvious reason to exist. This appears to have been created in an attempt to institute a "PC" --> Pony Canyon redirect as a bypass of the fact that PC already exists in mainspace as a disambiguation page listing a lot of things (including, but not limited to, the obvious one that would have a much stronger claim to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for it than Pony Canyon ever would), and has been filed in Category:Pony Canyon a couple of times in defiance of WP:DRAFTNOCAT, even though filing it there wouldn't even serve any useful purpose anyway.
- Yab Moung Records: nominated at AfD 15:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Semi-advertorialized article about a record label, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for record labels. As always, record labels are not automatically notable just for existing, and have to be shown to pass WP:CORP criteria -- but except for a couple of reliable source hits that briefly glance off the record label's existence while being principally about the overall music scene in Cambodia, which aren't substantive enough to pass NCORP but don't add up to enough to claim that it would pass WP:GNG in lieu, this is otherwise referenced entirely to primary and unreliable sources that aren't support for notability, such as YouTube videos and blogs and Bandcamp and its own self-published content about itself.
As it may have better sourcing in Khmer that I'm not linguistically equipped to find, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody who can read Khmer is able to find more coverage in that language than I've found in English, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have better sources than this.
- Reason: Semi-advertorialized article about a record label, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for record labels. As always, record labels are not automatically notable just for existing, and have to be shown to pass WP:CORP criteria -- but except for a couple of reliable source hits that briefly glance off the record label's existence while being principally about the overall music scene in Cambodia, which aren't substantive enough to pass NCORP but don't add up to enough to claim that it would pass WP:GNG in lieu, this is otherwise referenced entirely to primary and unreliable sources that aren't support for notability, such as YouTube videos and blogs and Bandcamp and its own self-published content about itself.
- Alas Agnes: nominated at AfD 14:37, 7 November 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 Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the notability bar for songs requires evidence of their cultural significance (charting, awards, sufficient coverage and analysis about the song in reliable sources to get it over WP:GNG, etc.) -- but existence is the only notability claim being attempted here, and the article is completely unreferenced for the purposes of establishing that it would pass GNG.
- Nicholas Sulentic: nominated at AfD 20:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Biography of a businessperson, not properly referenced as having a strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for businesspeople. The attempted notability claim here is that he owned local businesses, which is not "inherently" notable without WP:GNG-worthy sourcing for it, but the only footnotes provided are a glancing namecheck of his existence on one page of a government report and a very short blurb in the nearest bigger-city newspaper to his hometown upon his death, neither of which are substantive enough to get him over GNG. (There was also a stack of primary sources contextlessly listed under the references section without actually being used to footnote anything in the article body, which aren't support for notability and which I've removed.)
While this isn't a deletion rationale per se, it also warrants note (because it speaks to how much traffic and maintenance this is getting) that even though he lived and worked and died in Waterloo, Iowa, the article has spent six years incorrectly wikilinking to Waterloo, Ontario instead of Iowa, and the name of his department store ("Pinkerton's") was also incorrectly wikilinked to Pinkerton, Ontario despite that place having nothing to do with Nicholas Sulentic either.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more and better sourcing than this.
- Reason: Biography of a businessperson, not properly referenced as having a strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for businesspeople. The attempted notability claim here is that he owned local businesses, which is not "inherently" notable without WP:GNG-worthy sourcing for it, but the only footnotes provided are a glancing namecheck of his existence on one page of a government report and a very short blurb in the nearest bigger-city newspaper to his hometown upon his death, neither of which are substantive enough to get him over GNG. (There was also a stack of primary sources contextlessly listed under the references section without actually being used to footnote anything in the article body, which aren't support for notability and which I've removed.)
- Category:Rutulian male boxers: nominated at CfD (CfM); merging to Category:Rutul people 21:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Set of one-entry categories for a not-inherently notable intersection of characteristics. Rutul is an ethnic group who live in Dagestan or Azerbaijan, not a "nationality" in its own right, but these were all created as nationality categories and had to be moved -- but "ethnicity intersected with occupation" categories are not automatically created for every possible combination of those traits that describes just one person, so these aren't warranted until there are a lot more than just one person to file in each of them.
The existing Category:Rutul people (which also won't be large enough to need diffusion even with these people moved into it) is all that's required in the meantime.
- Reason: Set of one-entry categories for a not-inherently notable intersection of characteristics. Rutul is an ethnic group who live in Dagestan or Azerbaijan, not a "nationality" in its own right, but these were all created as nationality categories and had to be moved -- but "ethnicity intersected with occupation" categories are not automatically created for every possible combination of those traits that describes just one person, so these aren't warranted until there are a lot more than just one person to file in each of them.
- Ashwin Ramaswami: nominated at AfD 17:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of an unelected political candidate, not demonstrating that he would pass the conditions for the permanent notability of unelected candidates. As always, the notability bar at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while candidates get Wikipedia articles only if either (a) they can demonstrate that they had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway, or (b) they can show credible reasons why their candidacy should be seen as a special case of much greater and more enduring significance than most other people's candidacies. But this shows neither of those things at all, and is basically just a campaign brochure referenced entirely to the run of the mill campaign coverage that every candidate everywhere can always show, rather than any evidence that his unsuccessful candidacy will still be of enduring significance into the 2030s or 2040s.
- Across Mt. Wati: nominated at AfD; notified Aikolugbara (talk · contribs) 18:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass certain specific criteria to qualify for articles. But this just states that the film exists, which is not automatically enough in the absence of sufficient reliable source coverage about the film to pass WP:GNG.
Two of the three footnotes here, however, are just tangential verification of geographic facts about a mountain that features in this film's plot, which are not about this film for the purposes of helping to establish the notability of this film -- and while there is one footnote that is about this film, that isn't enough all by itself, and we would need to see several sources about the film before it passed GNG.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when the film has more sourcing, and I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much deeper knowledge of where to find good Ugandan sourcing than I've got can find more coverage to salvage it with, but a film's mere existence isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have more than just one hit of coverage about it.
- Reason: Article about a film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass certain specific criteria to qualify for articles. But this just states that the film exists, which is not automatically enough in the absence of sufficient reliable source coverage about the film to pass WP:GNG.
- Nate Douglas: nominated at AfD; notified Crcolas (talk · contribs) 07:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of an unelected candidate, not adequately demonstrated as passing the conditions for the permanent notability of unelected candidates. As always, the notability bar at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while unelected candidates get articles only if either (a) they can demonstrate that they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway, or (b) they can demonstrate a credible reason 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 demonstrates neither of those things, and is effectively just the usual campaign brochure referenced to the usual smattering of run of the mill campaign coverage that every candidate in every district can always show, which is not enough to render his unsuccessful election campaign more notable than other unsuccessful election campaigns all by itself.
- Reason: WP:BLP of an unelected candidate, not adequately demonstrated as passing the conditions for the permanent notability of unelected candidates. As always, the notability bar at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while unelected candidates get articles only if either (a) they can demonstrate that they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway, or (b) they can demonstrate a credible reason why their candidacy should be seen as a special case of significantly greater and more enduring notability than most other people's candidacies.
- Asociación Civil: nominated at AfD 16:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article of unclear utility. As written, it consists of a single sentence stating that the title is just the Spanish-language term for another term that we have a much longer article about, so it's essentially functioning as a dictionary definition. Since I don't speak Spanish, I suppose it might be possible that there's some nuance missing here -- is an "asociación civil" a particular kind of non-profit organization that does a very particular thing, while other non-profit organizations might exist that aren't asociacións civil, so that there's a distinction not being properly communicated here? -- but if that's the case then the article would need to explain and contextualize and reliably source that distinction, and if asociación civil really is just a straight synonym for all non-profit organizations then we just don't need this to be a separate article at all.
In actual practice, all this really does in its current form is attract spam-like attempts to use it as a directory listing of the Wikipedia articles or offsite weblinks of individual asociacións civil, which is not what Wikipedia is for and has been stripped.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with more knowledge of hispanophone cultures than I've got can expand the article with content showing that there's a substantive distinction in meaning between "asociación civil" and "non-profit organization", but we don't need it at all if it's really just a straight-up dicdef of a straight-up translation.
- Reason: Article of unclear utility. As written, it consists of a single sentence stating that the title is just the Spanish-language term for another term that we have a much longer article about, so it's essentially functioning as a dictionary definition. Since I don't speak Spanish, I suppose it might be possible that there's some nuance missing here -- is an "asociación civil" a particular kind of non-profit organization that does a very particular thing, while other non-profit organizations might exist that aren't asociacións civil, so that there's a distinction not being properly communicated here? -- but if that's the case then the article would need to explain and contextualize and reliably source that distinction, and if asociación civil really is just a straight synonym for all non-profit organizations then we just don't need this to be a separate article at all.
- Krsy Fox: nominated at AfD; notified AgentSniff (talk · contribs) 18:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of an actress, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NACTOR. As always, actors are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they've had acting roles to list -- even if you're shooting for NACTOR #1, "has had significant roles in multiple notable films", that still has to be supported by WP:GNG-worthy third-party coverage about them and their careers in reliable sources, and is not passed just by listing roles per se. But this article is referenced entirely to IMDb and Q&A interviews in which she and her husband are talking about themselves in the first person, which are not notability-building sources.
Simply existing as a working actor is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt a performer from having to pass GNG on better referencing than this.
- Reason: WP:BLP of an actress, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NACTOR. As always, actors are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they've had acting roles to list -- even if you're shooting for NACTOR #1, "has had significant roles in multiple notable films", that still has to be supported by WP:GNG-worthy third-party coverage about them and their careers in reliable sources, and is not passed just by listing roles per se. But this article is referenced entirely to IMDb and Q&A interviews in which she and her husband are talking about themselves in the first person, which are not notability-building sources.
- Ario Sagantoro: nominated at AfD; notified QatarStarsLeague (talk · contribs) 19:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of a film producer, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for film producers. As always, producers are not "inherently" notable just because their films exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about them and their work -- but this just states that he exists without stating any discernible notability claim over and above existing, and cites only directory entries for "referencing" rather than anything that would get him over GNG.
- Louis Pendleton: nominated at AfD 16:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Biography of a dentist and local political activist, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for dentists or activists. From its creation in 2020 until today, this was a short stub staking its notability on leading a local political activism committee, and was sourced entirely to just one obituary in his local newspaper -- but one local obituary isn't enough to get a person over WP:GNG all by itself, and leading local committees isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt a person from having to pass GNG.
Then within the past 24 hours, an anonymous IP vastly expanded it with a lot of additional information that may have been gleaned partly from private insider knowledge, without adding even one new source to support any of the new information, and there's still nothing in the newer information that would clinch free passage of WP:NPOL.
So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to archived media coverage from the Shreveport area than I've got can find improved sourcing for it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more than just a local obituary for referencing.
- Reason: Biography of a dentist and local political activist, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for dentists or activists. From its creation in 2020 until today, this was a short stub staking its notability on leading a local political activism committee, and was sourced entirely to just one obituary in his local newspaper -- but one local obituary isn't enough to get a person over WP:GNG all by itself, and leading local committees isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt a person from having to pass GNG.
- File:Anthony Furey On CBC - Jun 2023.png: (log) nominated at FfD 17:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Unused non-free file. This was apparently screencapped from a CBC News report in order to illustrate a biographical article about an unelected political candidate that has been deleted at AFD, meaning it's no longer in use -- and, of course, we're not allowed to claim "fair use" on copyrighted images of living people for whom a GFDL-compliant alternative would be possible to locate or create, so even if the article had survived AFD this still couldn't have been used to illustrate it anyway.
- Roy Shattuck: nominated at AfD 18:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Biography of an unelected political candidate. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates -- the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, while losing candidates get articles only if they can establish that they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway, or they can show credible reasons why their candidacy would be a special case of greater and more enduring significance than most other people's candidacies. But this makes no other notability claim at all besides an unsuccessful candidacy, and is referenced only to the bare minimum verification that he existed rather than anything that would make his candidacy permanently notable.
- Category:February 29 births: nominated at CfD (CfD) 23:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Category for a non-defining characteristic. We categorize people by their year of birth, but not by their month-and-day of birth, and the fact that February 29 doesn't happen every year is a reason why being born on February 29 would be more defining than being born on February 28 or March 1.
- Category:Teetotallers: nominated at CfD (CfD) 23:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Single-entry category for a non-defining characteristic. The person filed here was a Prime Minister of Finland, so the question of whether he drank alcohol or not is not a centrally defining facet of his political career.
- Template:Cinema chains in Canada: nominated at TfD 23:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Navbox template with only one item in it. As always, the purpose of navboxes is to navigate between related articles, so a navbox serves no purpose if there's only one thing in it.
- Draft:Doctor Who series 17: nominated at MfD 18:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Unnecessary boilerplate content that's getting farther ahead of the show than even the show's own cast and crew are.
As of right now, the current Doctor is #15, and there's been absolutely no announcement that Ncuti's leaving the show, so there isn't going to be a 16th or 17th Doctor anytime soon -- when 16th and 17th Doctors are actually announced, creating new articles about them will not be difficult enough that we would need placeholder drafts to already exist this far ahead of any verifiable casting announcements. And similarly, season 15 hasn't even premiered yet, so we don't already need a placeholder draft about a season that's still at least two years away.
I know Doctor Who's internal universe is all timey-wimey and stuff, but Wikipedia operates on a real-world schedule, not a Doctor Who schedule. Obviously articles can be created when we have actual, sourceable information to add to them, but we don't need virtually empty scaffolds to exist this far in advance of the real world.
- Reason: Unnecessary boilerplate content that's getting farther ahead of the show than even the show's own cast and crew are.
- List of Music & the Spoken Word broadcasts: nominated at AfD 04:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Unreferenced list of unclear utility. This is an episode list of a radio and television music performance show in which the Mormon Tabernacle Choir (always the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, never anybody else) performs religious music along with an inspirational/religious sermon -- but this list just goes "broadcast number, date, recording location, title of sermon, production code, the end", with many entries not even containing all of those details, and there's no information at all that would actually be useful, such as the titles of any specific songs that were performed in the episode or a detailed summary of the sermon's theme. There's effectively nothing of any serious substance said about any of the episodes to differentiate one from another, so this is effectively just a list of meaningless and trivial information, and it's completely unreferenced for the purposes of actually verifying even what little information is here.
There's just no value to this without more information and better referencing for it.
- Reason: Unreferenced list of unclear utility. This is an episode list of a radio and television music performance show in which the Mormon Tabernacle Choir (always the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, never anybody else) performs religious music along with an inspirational/religious sermon -- but this list just goes "broadcast number, date, recording location, title of sermon, production code, the end", with many entries not even containing all of those details, and there's no information at all that would actually be useful, such as the titles of any specific songs that were performed in the episode or a detailed summary of the sermon's theme. There's effectively nothing of any serious substance said about any of the episodes to differentiate one from another, so this is effectively just a list of meaningless and trivial information, and it's completely unreferenced for the purposes of actually verifying even what little information is here.
- Alan White (DJ): nominated at AfD 05:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Advertorialized WP:BLP of a radio DJ and a spinoff article about his purported "television show" that may or may not ever have actually existed, with neither article properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for media personalities or their shows.
As always, broadcasters are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence of WP:GNG-worthy third party coverage and analysis about them to establish that they've been externally validated as significant by somebody other than their own public relations agent -- but the BLP is "referenced" to one deadlinked unreliable source, one discogs.com directory entry about somebody else who isn't Alan White and one glancing namecheck of Alan White's existence in a newspaper obituary of somebody else who also isn't Alan White, absolutely none of which constitutes support for the notability of Alan White.
And meanwhile, the "television show" article is actually serving primarily as a coatrack for a largely reduplicated summary of the BLP, and not actually saying even one word at all about a "television show" until the very end, when it finally reveals that the "television show" that's posing as the article's nominal subject is "currently in pre-production" -- except it's said that since the day the article was created in 2011, and the article has never been updated since then. And for sourcing, it's also based entirely on unreliable sources that aren't support for notability, with absolutely no evidence of GNG-worthy coverage about either Alan White or the "show".
Nothing stated in either article is "inherently" notable without GNG-worthy sourcing for it.
- Reason: Advertorialized WP:BLP of a radio DJ and a spinoff article about his purported "television show" that may or may not ever have actually existed, with neither article properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for media personalities or their shows.
- My Country (1986 film): nominated at AfD 15:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article about a film of unverified release status, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass certain specific notability criteria (awards, box-office success, third-party attention paid to them by journalists and film critics in the media) that require the film to have been released and seen by the general public -- but one of the two footnotes here is a short blurb in a book which confirms that this was never released, and the other is an even shorter blurb the student newspaper of the university where parts of this film were apparently shot -- so one of the sources isn't fully independent of the film, and neither of them are substantive enough to confer passage of WP:GNG by themselves if they're all the sourcing this film has.
As I don't have access to archives of Australian media coverage from the 1980s, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with such access can find better coverage to salvage the article with, but simple existence isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt an unreleased film from having to have more than just two short blurbs of coverage.
- Reason: Article about a film of unverified release status, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass certain specific notability criteria (awards, box-office success, third-party attention paid to them by journalists and film critics in the media) that require the film to have been released and seen by the general public -- but one of the two footnotes here is a short blurb in a book which confirms that this was never released, and the other is an even shorter blurb the student newspaper of the university where parts of this film were apparently shot -- so one of the sources isn't fully independent of the film, and neither of them are substantive enough to confer passage of WP:GNG by themselves if they're all the sourcing this film has.
- Template:Telemundo-stub: nominated at CfD (SfD) 17:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Stub template of unclear utility. It's being used on ten Telemundo-affiliated television stations and one Telemundo television series, but it files its entries into the general Category:United States television stubs instead of a dedicated "Telemundo stubs" category that couldn't exist without at least 50 more uses than thus template has -- but since every one of those articles also has another stub template ("State-tv-station stub" and/or "US-drama-tv-prog-stub") on it, that means that every article is already in a more specific subcategory of the Category:United States television stubs parent, and thus this template is adding absolutely nothing but unnecessary duplicate categorization.
- Vonabell Sherman: nominated at AfD 20:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: BLP of a television personality, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for television personalities. The claim here is that she's been an "on-air guest" on a shopping channel, which is not "inherently" notable without WP:GNG-worthy coverage and analysis about her work -- but the article is completely unreferenced, and has been tagged as unreferenced since 2011 without ever having any sources added in the 13 years since.
- Category:2026 anime television series debuts: nominated at CfD (CfD); notified Harushiga (talk · contribs) 15:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:TOOSOON category for one television series on a future characteristic that has been predicted but not yet verified. As always, just because a television series is planned to premiere on a future date doesn't always mean that date is written in stone -- any number of things can happen to mess with the predicted premiere date, so that the series actually premieres earlier than predicted, later than predicted, or not at all.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the late fall of 2025, when we have locked-in 2026 premieres to file in it, but it isn't already needed in 2024 for just one series that's still in the pipeline as of right now.
- Reason: WP:TOOSOON category for one television series on a future characteristic that has been predicted but not yet verified. As always, just because a television series is planned to premiere on a future date doesn't always mean that date is written in stone -- any number of things can happen to mess with the predicted premiere date, so that the series actually premieres earlier than predicted, later than predicted, or not at all.
- Clinton LeSueur: nominated at AfD 06:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: WP:BLP of an unelected political candidate, not properly sourced as meeting criteria for the notability of unelected candidates. As always, unsuccessful candidates are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just for being candidates -- the "automatic" notability bar at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while candidates get to have articles only if they can (a) demonstrate that they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them a Wikipedia article on those other grounds anyway, or (b) show credible evidence that their candidacy would pass the ten year test as a special case of significantly greater and more enduring significance than most other people's candidacies.
But neither of those has been shown here, and the article is referenced to one glancing mention on one page of a book that isn't about him and one primary source that isn't support for notability at all.
- Reason: WP:BLP of an unelected political candidate, not properly sourced as meeting criteria for the notability of unelected candidates. As always, unsuccessful candidates are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just for being candidates -- the "automatic" notability bar at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while candidates get to have articles only if they can (a) demonstrate that they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them a Wikipedia article on those other grounds anyway, or (b) show credible evidence that their candidacy would pass the ten year test as a special case of significantly greater and more enduring significance than most other people's candidacies.
- Gynaecologists in chennai: nominated at AfD; notified Sandeepchennai (talk · contribs) 22:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Article serving no clear purpose. As written, this just generally defines what gynaecology is (a purpose already served by the article gynaecology) and briefly states that the Indian city of Chennai has gynaecologists.
There's absolutely no evidence shown here that there's anything unique about Chennai's gynaecologists that would make them different from everywhere else's gynaecologists, which is the bar that an article about this would have to clear -- you could write an almost identical article about every other city in the entire world, so there would have to be a lot more uniquely city-specific substance than just "the city has gynaecological services" to justify it. And it's referenced almost entirely to general sources footnoting the "general concept of gynaecology" stuff, with the only source that's specific to Chennai being a government-published directory of the city's hospitals that says absolutely nothing about gynaecology at all, so even the sourcing is failing to demonstrate that gynaecology in Chennai needs its own standalone article independently of gynaecology everywhere else.
- Reason: Article serving no clear purpose. As written, this just generally defines what gynaecology is (a purpose already served by the article gynaecology) and briefly states that the Indian city of Chennai has gynaecologists.
- Stephen Hume: nominated at RfD; Target: 2010 United States House of Representatives elections in Michigan (notified) 05:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Redirect representing an unsuccessful candidate in a political party primary with no other claim of notability. Problem is, however, that there are three articles linking here expecting somebody else, an award-nominated Canadian journalist and writer with a much stronger claim to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the undisambiguated name.
- Category:Palestinian women's football biography stubs: nominated at CfD (CfM); merging to Category:Palestinian football biography stubs; notified Lunar Spectrum96 (talk · contribs) 15:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: Underpopulated stub category not authorized through proper processes. As always, stub categories are not free for just any user to create on a whim -- there have to be at least 60 articles to file in a stub category before it's justified, so for that very reason stub categories have to be approved by the stub sorting project before they can be created. But there's no evidence that this was submitted for approval at all, and it has just seven articles, while the parent category doesn't offer up 53 other women who could be refiled here to salvage it. The template is fine, since it can always just upfile articles into the parents in the meantime, but it can't have its own dedicated category without at least eight times as many pages as this.
