This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Canada. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Canada|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Canada. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Americas.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Delete: Minor character actor in Canada, seems to have passed away (or there are obituaries for a similarly named individual). I don't see much coverage now in the article we can use and I can't bring up anything extra. Oaktree b (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first time here so possibly I'm missing something, but I don't see how this addresses my point? The notability requirement is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It's maybe surprising that nobody has ever provided that coverage for this person given the roles they've played, but nevertheless that seems to be the case, I cannot find a reliable source for *any* piece of biographical information whatsoever about this person except what roles they've played and what band they were in. The closest is this one tiny bit here I've found: https://web.archive.org/web/20090220002635/https://nowtoronto.com/music/story.cfm?content=166274 but this is really about the band more than the person.
The reason I came here is I'm trying to compile and reference the list of people from London, Ontario, and discovered that this page is basically referenced only to social media posts, and also contains a bunch of unreferenced material from who knows where. And I was then was unable to find any other reference for any of the information. Somatochlora (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there!I was the new user that "move-warred" to keep this article in mainspace. This article is based on the article for Escott Reid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escott_Reid, however it contains more sources.
All sources are vetted and from the Indian government (2 articles), neutral sources (1 article) or press (2 articles).
Beyond the article,
I moved the page to article, ghostofdangurrey moved it to draft, I removed an uncited sentence and moved it to article (which I assumed was the best way to work based on the details from the help articles). While I understand if there is room for improvement, gatekeeping editing and using words like move-warred (when I apologized for moving it following a comment), is an interesting way to moderate. Researchmoreorless (talk) 12:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I feel like Detective Columbo right now. Wait, what was that last thing? Covering up an international assassination plot and getting you and your cute family deported and expelled from a country famous for its super nice diplomatic culture? I think that’s more than BLP1E. This is the stuff of which procedurals are made. Bearian (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC) I would not oppose a murder merger to Canada–India diplomatic row. Bearian (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Referenced only two primary sources from YouTube and a web store. Before search did not present anything that makes this game notable for an entry here Mekomo (talk) 08:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete It got a substantive mention in Rock Paper Shotgun. While it got mentions in Softonic, and a preview in RPGFan, these mostly have a purely descriptive feel to them without much opinions. I think it falls short of the bar for actual critical analysis. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unreleased film that has been in development limbo and does not meet notability guidelines for unreleased films, which are only notable if production itself is notable. Review of the sources shows that they are not about the production itself, and that they are not independent, consisting of information from the producers.
Number
Reference
Remarks
Independent
Significant
Reliable
Secondary
1
cartoonbrew.com
An article about the production company
Yes
No. Passing mention of film.
Yes?
Yes
2
www.animationmagazine.net
A sneak preview of the film
No
Yes
Yes
No
3
deadline.com
A press release about the film
No
Yes
Yes
No
4
variety.com
Combination advance preview and interviews
No
Yes
Yes
No
5
www.instagram.com
An Instagram by the composer
No
Yes
No
No
6
www.animationmagazine.net
A description of the teaser
No
Yes
Yes
No
This article was declined three times in draft space and then moved to article space. It should be moved back to draft space.
I say keep. While I agree the article could be improved, I think there are enough sources currently including news coverage and a PLOS ONE study that demonstrate some notability. Since it has significant coverage from independent sources, I don't see how deletion would be warranted under WP:GNGUrchincrawler (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep with WP:NPASR. No valid deletion rationale has been offered, nor has evidence of a WP:BEFORE been provided. There is no reason provided why any COI that may be present cannot be addressed editorially. The WP:WEBHOST policy primarily applies to userspace and is thus not a rationale for deletion, and WP:COIEDIT is not a reason for deletion since such edits are not prohibited (just strongly discouraged). I would encourage the nominator to renominate with a valid rationale and evidence of a BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a publicly-owned heritage-listed building (so COI is less of an issue, though the city council heritage listing is probably generally insufficient) that has been briefly used as local government offices[2], and was most-visited site during the city's 2019 "Doors Open" program[3]. WP:NBUILD applies -- here's what looks to be the total visible local newspaper coverage [4], which is not overwhelming, but looks to have enough to be able to use for sourcing. I believe that there would almost certainly have been more coverage during the 1960s (when it was acquired by the council due to community pressure) and from the 1980s (when it was heritage listed) -- though the heritage notice is fairly cursory[5]. List of historic buildings in Markham, Ontario does not have the capacity currently to capture a potted history. I'm at a "don't delete", and leaning keep (but trim away) over a weighty merge somewhere (if a suitable target and candidate text is provided). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~04:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep with WP:NPASR. No valid deletion rationale has been offered, nor has evidence of a WP:BEFORE been provided. There is no reason provided why any COI that may be present cannot be addressed editorially. The WP:WEBHOST policy primarily applies to userspace and is thus not a rationale for deletion, and WP:COIEDIT is not a reason for deletion since such edits are not prohibited (just strongly discouraged). I would encourage the nominator to renominate with a valid rationale and evidence of a BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. I've just expanded the article (alongside Ashlar) with some reviews of her work. Some of book reviews merely mention her illustrator credit and don't really touch on her illustrative work. But I believe this passes WP:NAUTHOR (or a more general notability guideline) based on the cited critical attention on Hyena in Petticoats (in CM Magazine and Quill & Quire), The Wolf-Birds (in School Library Journal, Publisher Weekly and Kirkus Reviews), and her work on the White as Milk, Red as Blood translation, which was the work's "very first fully illustrated, full-colour edition" according to this article. This 2005 article in the The Tyee also discusses more of her earlier graphic novel work. Best, Bridget(talk)17:24, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please remove my name from your comment. I did not "expand" the article, I deleted material that was inappropriate, which you re-added. Also, you didn't do anything "alongside" me - you undermined my efforts and your reference to "reviewing my work" is paternalistic and offensive. (Also, there is no need to mention me as the changes are logged in the history.) ash (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ashlar: Not sure where you're getting "reviewing my work" from. I'm talking about reviews of Dawson's work, i.e., the focus of this discussion. You clearly misunderstood my comment. Bridget(talk)13:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopedia provide a narrative explaining the significance, contributions, and key facts about a subject. It is not a compilation of opinions or reviews. ash (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page appears to be primarily used for self-promotion and does not meet the notability criteria for inclusion. The subject's accomplishments, while noteworthy on a personal level, do not seem to rise to the level of broader significance required for an encyclopedic entry. Efforts to edit and improve the article to remove non-encyclopedic content have been repeatedly overridden, with additional irrelevant and subjective content being added. This raises concerns about possible conflicts of interest or undue bias in favor of the subject. I recommend deletion due to lack of notability and the continued introduction of non-encyclopedic content. ash (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia not Linkedin or Goodreads. She's not a person of any particular note (in Canada) or otherwwise. She hasn't won any awards nor does the article disclose any lasting and significant impact in the field or on society, beyond routine career milestones. And because she's not really notable, the article relies too heavily on, and is padded with weak secondary sources.ash (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to be "a person of particular note", her works must be notable themself, which they are, through reviews and other content. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
All 9 sources cited in the creation of this page lack credibility and fail to establish notability, as they barely address the topic in any meaningful way. Upon closer inspection, there is little to no reliable information available online. Additionally, the publication in question appears to be self-proclaimed and lacks established recognition. The article was created without prior discussion, and if such a discussion had occurred, it is unlikely the article would have been approved or passed moderation standards. This seems to reflect a pattern of using Wikipedia as a platform to lend credibility to fake or paid news. Moondust534 (talk) 07:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without looking further into this, so no comment on the notability, something lacking popularity does not make it "fake news" and almost all articles on Wikipedia are created without discussion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. While I agree an initial search is showing that it's probably not notable, I don't see the malice of things being "fake" or overtly promotional mentioned by the nominator. This looks like a run-of-the-mill article creation by an inexperienced editor who didn't understand our notability standards. Sergecross73msg me11:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw multiple fake news, so I reported it, with article prices on upwork. A blog cannot be labeled a reliable magazine tho. The platform has mixed reviews, with some raising concerns about its reliability and payout practices. Moondust534 (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's sad but there are several isolated industrial incidents such as this. She was not notable before her death and her death has not received sustained coverage or forced significant reform to be eligible for an entry. Mekomo (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's disturbing this is even being debated. Nation-wide story in Canada. Reported on by CNN. That's enough for notability. It's also hard for "significant reform" to be forced if Wikipedia erases its entry on said nation-wide and international story. Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed three sources from the article. Two were unreliable or deprecated per WP:RSP. One was about a completely unrelated subject. I have not yet analyzed notability more generally. Toadspike[Talk]09:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yes the event got coverage in Canada, it's basically an industrial accident. Other than passing away, there isn't much more to be said about the individual. The event isn't terribly notable either; workplace deaths are rare but not unheard of... Could be re-created if it's found to cause changes in labour/safety laws. I hate to use the ROUTINE, but this was just a non-notable person that passed away in a workplace incident. Oaktree b (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To put this in perspective, there were 220 deaths in the workplace, in Ontario, in 2022. [6]. Industrial accidents happen and most are not notable. This event happened in another province, but it's one in a list of many. Oaktree b (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:EVENTCRIT: Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. An article would be justified if e.g. the tragedy led to workplace safety reforms, if it had broader effects for the Indian community in Canada, etc. - but not currently. Astaire (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find the mention of the subject in all sources referenced in the article and before search did not bring anything useful for the sustenance of this article. This producer fails WP:GNG. Mekomo (talk) 08:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•Keep.As the person in question (see my response below @Bearcat, before I learned how to use Bold) I can tell you it's not a hoax. As much as the name takes some time for me to explain every time I meet someone new. Bartsimpsonfilm (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This isn't a hoax, for the record — unlikely as it may seem, it's the real name of a real person in the Canadian film industry, who does have a legitimate notability claim as the producer of a Genie Award-winning documentary film. (Remember that such awards go to the producer of the film, which means he was personally a recipient of that award.) Also, he was born in the 1970s, so he had the name first and The Other One came later, so it wasn't his parents trying to be funny. While the article was obviously in poor shape at the time of nomination, it actually is salvageable with better sourcing; the key (aside from the obvious need to use much more specific search terms than just his name alone) is that because his strongest notability claim happened 20 years ago, it wouldn't Google well and will have to be recovered from archives like ProQuest and newspapers.com. But I've searched those, and there are viable sources with which to fix the problem, so I've cleaned it up significantly. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also Keep, and thanks to @Bearcat for the rigorous research. I am the person in question who's getting debated about RE: deletion (and yes, this is my real name and I did indeed come first, which is getting sadder to admit by the decade).
My latest documentary is referenced at the link below - The MAD World of Harvey Kurtzman, produced by Intuitive Pictures. We are in production now and are due for release in late 2025/early 2026.
Not a hoax. Real person. Real producer -- who also has been busy directing ("Brasilia: Life After Design" , love this title). I heard this filmmaker on a CBC interview -- he had a sense of humor about his name, saying "it could be worse." 130.208.129.144 (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E. This person is only notable for his 9-month imprisonment by the Turkish government, the news coverage of him mostly starts and ends within that period. Being one of about one hundred political prisoners caught in a government crackdown in a country that has been experiencing a democratic backsliding for over ten years now is not a very solid claim of notability. Badbluebus (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not sure getting arrested for your beliefs is notable. Certainly doesn't meet academic notability. Coverage is about the arrest, but I don't think that's enough for an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I notice there is some book coverage in google books by some major academic presses. For example: [9], [10], [11] The diversity of the sources and prolonged coverage over a couple years suggests that the arrest, imprisonment, and release of Cihan Erdal would pass WP:NEVENT. Perhaps repurpose this an event page instead of a WP:BLP?4meter4 (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Source eval for the newly found ones would be appreciated. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
