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:
Keep. He was the captain of an Olympic-gold-winning football team and seems to have been considered Canada's star of his era, additionally being a top official in the country's governing football organization ([1]). Here's coverage in the U.S. from the Detroit Free Press ([2]), noting him to be "probably the best known football player in Canada"; further coverage from the Free Press at his retirement ([3]) said that he "will gown down as Canada's most famous fullback" and said that he was well known in the Detroit, U.S.-area as well. Historian Colin Jose gave him ~130 words calling him "the father of football in Galt ... One of the best known Canadian players in the United States during his era ... Recognized as the greatest full back in Ontario at the time but was also regarded as a fine captain." Here's also a bit of Montreal Star coverage regarding a dispute over his professionalism, calling him "the famous full back of the Galt Olympic champions" several years after the event. His notability appears clear: @GiantSnowman and Clariniie:BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is clear coverage in at least two existing sources (edge and gi.biz) about the founding of the company that meet the independence of NCORP. That might be tied to talking about Outlast but that's expected for a developer that has focused on one series since founding. Masem (t) 21:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I was wondering as the Edge article on the page is no where near meeting WP:ORGCRIT. The gi.biz is an industry publication so while it meets ORGCRIT, it is still not enough and not that strong of a reference to meet NCORP standards. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Delete. As always, unelected candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — the inclusion bar at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, while unsuccessful candidates get articles only if they can be shown to already have preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacy. But this article as written is not properly demonstrating his notability as a non-profit executive, either: it's based almost entirely on primary sources that are not support for notability, such as content self-published by directly affiliated organizations and pieces of his own writing, while the only reliable source in the batch is just a glancing namecheck of his existence as a provider of soundbite in an article about something else rather than any evidence of coverage about him. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP PAGE: you make incorrect assertion that it is "self published" and I listen to CBC regularly and his contributions are important information where is is asked questions and Lang responds. I found other articels on CBC, CTV BNN wbesites with Lang interviews and panels discussions. Many third party sources for Lang and his activity in the community Kmitch0987 (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are not notability-supporting sources. We're not looking for references where he's speaking about other things, we're looking for references where he's the subject that other people are speaking or writing about. But also, you're misunderstanding what I said: "self-published" wasn't referring to the interviews, it was referring to things like his leadership of YES being "referenced" to YES's own website rather than news articles about his work with YES, his board service for the Rotary Club being "referenced" to the Rotary Club's own website rather than news articles about it, and on and so forth. That's not support for notability either: we're not looking for simple verification of facts, we're looking for evidence of the newsworthiness of said facts. So notability is built by referencing the claims to journalistic reportage treating his activities as newsworthy, and not by interviews or content on the websites of organizations he's directly affiliated with. Bearcat (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which of these sources are you claiming is about Timothy Lang? We're not looking for sources in which he's doing the speaking about other things, we're looking for sources in which he's the subject that other people are speaking or writing about, which applies to none of these. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Timothy Lang is a prominent Canadian who speaks to Media weekly on important issues of employment and other leading issues that is very relevant to Canadians. (See CBC for long list of media interviews and important information. Interviewed and asked to sit on panels and quoted regularly). Timothy Lang leads Canada's leading not for profit that helps tens bof thousands of disadvantaged youth and helps change lives.
-Past politician and strong associations to many Wikipedians entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.197.108.14 (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
agree with above and Lang and importnat addition.. incorrect assertion below and media speaks to Lang regularly and he is a regular contributor on important issues that matter, especially regarding the economy and employment in Canada. CTV, BNN, Global, CBC etc. Kmitch0987 (talk) 05:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Could remove "politician" part of article, as appears to be a small part of Lang bio, while his not for profit leadership and media presence is more important and meets notable guideline and there are hundred of third party sources Kmitch0987 (talk) 06:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As above: sources that quote him as a provider of soundbite in an article about something else are not support for notability. We're not looking for sources in which Timothy Lang is speaking about other things, we're looking for sources in which Timothy Lang is the subject of coverage and analysis by other people. Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the news conference below, featuring Ontario Premier Doug Ford commenting on Timothy Lang, is highly relevant to establishing his notability. Public acknowledgment of Lang’s contributions by someone of Ford’s stature in a high-profile context demonstrates the significant impact Lang has made.
The Cable Public Affairs Channel (CPAC) is an independent, not-for-profit, commercial-free, bilingual media organization that connects Canadians to their democracy. This recognition by a prominent figure, featured on a reputable platform like CPAC, aligns with Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for public figures whose actions and achievements receive acknowledgment from authoritative and independent sources.
Being mentioned in a press conference still isn't what we're looking for. We're looking for sources written by journalists, not politicians, in which his work is the subject of detailed analysis, not just mentions of his name, and we need several sources that fit that description. YouTube is never acceptable reliable source support for anything. Bearcat (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Timothy Lang has hundreds of articles "about him" that are from political activity, but more recently several government announcements or appointments, as per references. Still, when someone like Lang is appearing in media thousands of times, that surely is an example of this notable status. Not sure if comments here are from people who know Canada, but he is well known in GTA, Canada, and many notable circles. Timothy Lang certainly contributes more as a not for profit leader and spokesperson for those in need than thousands of other wiki articles. This individual and article are important for context and content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.59.143 (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Single news event, in November an elephant was euthanized. Fails WP:EVENTCRITERIA #4 - a routine kind of news event, and WP:SIGCOV - multiple newspapers publishing the same story. Further "in 2014 a zoo acquired some elephants" sources added also seem to cover a routine news event. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Having coverage from 2014 and 2024 establishes lasting notability. You claim that the coverage is "routine", but the vast majority of elephants don't receive widespread news coverage like this one, even when they die. If all elephants had this level of coverage it could be considered routine/normal, but they don't. EVENTCRITERIA also doesn't apply here because Kamala is an elephant, not an event. Even if this article was about the event of her death (which it is not), it still wouldn't be "routine coverage" because elephants with the same name as a major political figure dying within hours of a major political event and causing massive social media buzz is not a regular or common event. Di (they-them) (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obituaries don't make someone (or something) notable. Day to day news announcements from a zoo do not add notability. The "major political figure" angle is a WP:NOTNEWS/WP:SYNTH of a report from before the election combined with a report of who won after the election. Shows the story hit the internet "water cooler" but there would need to be SIGCOV after the election. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge per above. The 2014 news event is routine, and, while the 2024 one isn't, the fact that the coverage wasn't sustained makes me doubtful of the elephant's long-term notability, especially since there isn't an expectation of renewed coverage in the future as the election has already ended.Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and I'm very much opposed to redirecting an article about an elephant who lived in Canada for four decades and achieved notability there to an article about an American zoo or American program. Now that that's out the way, I think Google is bringing everybody to the 2024 election coverage. Looking through newspapers, however, and I'm finding several articles about Kamala and her artistic career. Specifically, "Artists come in all shapes and sizes". Medicine Hat News. The Canadian Press. May 2, 1995. p. 2.,"Designer boots for Kamala". Medicine Hat News. The Canadian Press. January 14, 1991. p. 2., "The Picasso of Calgary Zoo", Alberta Report, vol. 1, no. 39, December 9, 1994 are my three sources that provide signifigant coverage of Kamala and, in my mind, should completely re-assure anybody concerned about WP:NEVENT. I'm still finding sources, however, so wish me luck! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 10:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Calgary Zoo. Rewrite seems to link her notability to there. Debated this with a switching to "week keep" but it seems to fall to WP:GEOSCOPE - verifiable references are to local interest / reported only by the media within the immediate region. Claimed coverage nationally or internationally is unverifiable re: no direct verification of a CBS's 60 Minutes or ABC's PrimeTime Live story and/or its depth, an indirect (regional byline) story shows it was 30 year ago[5], and the fact that all current reports missed that aspect points to it not demonstrating long-term impact. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion nomination counts as a delete vote, you cannot vote a second time in the same discussion. I have struck through this comment so that the closing admin doesn't interpret it as a new vote. Di (they-them) (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding even more sources later this evening, talking about Kamala's importance to the Sri Lankan elephant breeding program in North American, and her fundraising for the 2004 tsunami, (it turns out elephant paintings do not regularly sell for $6000) so hopefully those will make you even happier. But just to respond to a few points- WP:GEOSCOPE applies to events, not everything. While I understood why you'd have that concern when the coverage was focused on her death, as you've pointed out, the article has now changed to being about Kamala as an elephant. NEVENT really doesn't apply anymore. Did you mean to refer some other policy? And, as a second point- congratulations, you're one of today's lucky 10,000! UPI isn't regional Canadian news - it's an American news agency. At their height last century, they rivaled Associated Press, Reuters, and Agence France-Presse. They remain large enough, even today, to have reporters all over the world, writing about news and selling it internationally. That's what the Calgary in the byline refers to. (And bylines typically don't tell you were the story was run.) It's not that the story was only distributed in Calgary, or Canada- it was written by one of their reporters in Canada to be published by newspapers all over the world. That's also why some of the news stories appear to be more regional than they are- if your search engine had let you do a proper WP:BEFORE, you'd have found that many of the Canadian Press-supplied stories I cited were run in newspapers across the entire country. I tended to cite the Medicine Hat News versions, because I have access to their archives and, being in Alberta, they tended to run pictures and add additional information to the caption. But one last comment- I don't think you mean "Claimed coverage nationally or internationally is unverifiable". It is verifiable- I can point to independent, reliable, and secondary sources that tell me she did receive international coverage. That's about as verifiable as anything on Wikipedia. Did you mean a different word? And as for all current reports missing her history- they didn't[6], but yeah I was thinking most of those news reports were an example of American centric reporting at its finest. Good thing though that notability isn't temporary, right? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unverifiable as we can not see the source 60 Minutes or PrimeTime Live to judge whether its trivial or in depth. Re: "newspapers across the entire country", both WP:EVENTCRITERIA and WP:SIGCOV consider multiple news sources restating the same information as a single source, not an indication of depth, see #4 and note 4 respectively. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly it's kinda weird that you're still arguing for deletion at this point, the page has been expanded significantly and goes above and beyond the threshold of having sustained notability. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not quite sure what you're arguing for here. I made no claim about the significance of the 60 Minutes or Primetime Live episodes- I merely saw that secondary, independent, reliable sources state she appeared in them. So I stated she appeared in them. I don't understand what's not verifiable about that. I also don't understand why I'm meant to judge this article by any of the event criteria anymore. But I suppose we all have different ideas about what qualifies as an event. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 06:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Its allot of digging in an echo chamber to sort something like this. And AfD is there because sometimes it takes a judgment call, otherwise. a bot would do it ;) Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Speedy redirect Unnecessary duplication. I think only two of them changed in the entire history of the province; a simple paragraph could describe their functions and history. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article that was previously soft-deleted at AFD due to limited participation, and was then WP:REFUNDed following a request by its creator, but has not actually seen any further improvement to actually address the reasons why it was deleted in the first place: it's still not properly referenced as passing Wikipedia inclusion criteria for this type of topic. Things like this might be valid article topics if they were 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 still 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, with not a single new source having been added since the refund to strengthen its notability at all. We already have articles about many of the individual buildings involved here, which can already cover off virtually any content we would actually need about this, but the "master plan" itself would need much better sourcing than this to become notable enough for its own standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, it never went anywhere... [7]. I can confirm the Superstack is being torn down (I have family in Sudbury, so hear about it from time to time), but this "master plan" was really only ever a big idea. Downtown still looks exactly the same as it did before the Plan happened, and nothing has happened since it was "dusted off" in the article above. If you want to add a few lines to the main Sudbury article, that's fine... Ten plus years on, this thing never happened, so I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP of a technology writer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for writers. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their work exists, and have to pass certain concrete benchmarks of significance (noteworthy awards, third-party attention by critics and reviewers, evidence of their work having had a verifiable impact on the field they write about, etc.) supported by third-party reliable sources independent of themselves -- but the only notability claim in evidence here is that she exists, and the article is referenced almost entirely to primary sources (staff profiles, directory entries, her own writing metaverifying its own existence, podcast interviews, etc.) that are not support for notability, with just one footnote (#10, "Silicon Republic") that represents an independent source writing about her. And while it's questionable as to whether even that counts as a WP:GNG-worthy source at all, one hit of RS coverage isn't enough all by itself even if we do give it the benefit of the doubt. It also warrants note that the article has been tagged for suspected WP:AUTOBIO editing by the subject herself. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No help with AUTHOR notability, this was the only sort of a review [9] and she's only written a chapter for the book. No book reviews, no articles that aren't written by the subject. I don't see a notability pass here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet notability requirements. There is nothing in the article to establish notability of this student newspaper, and there is no coverage in non-local sources. Note that The Lance published its last newspaper issue in 2019. The official website (which was updated in a 2020 edit) is for a student news blog with the same name. Johnj1995 (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for a Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!07:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Windsor. This is an old holdover from a different time in Wikipedia history, when media outlets were basically handed automatic presumptions of notability, regardless of sourcing, so long as their existence was verifiable — but that's long since been tightened up, so that a media outlet now has to be able to pass WP:GNG on coverage about it. But per WP:STUDENTMEDIA, university and college media outlets which are deemed non-notable should always be retained as redirects to the schools that they serve. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article about unnotable 10-year old canadian web series which has no significant coverage from media. All sources in this article are just brief mentions of this show and do not prove its notability. Please do not be confused with Pop Team Epic, it is a completely unrelated series. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 10:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only bring up Pop Team Epic, which is a different thing than this. Sourcing used now in the article are blogs, imdb and other non-RS. Delete for a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see a few sources that are independent and significant coverage including critical appraisal and they were published in reliable media. -Mushy Yank. 21:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see 3 reliable sources (1. BC government, 2. IB, and 8. sports), although whether those are significant coverage is debatable. Please convince me one way or the other. Bearian (talk) 07:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - found a couple of sources covering this school. Here's a couple of examples:
Dress code controversy at school in 2021 - 123 from CityNews Vancouver
I was not aware of this "usual thing" about merge/redirect, I am not editing schools, I have no recollection how this one caught my eye. Redirecting looks reasonable to me. --Altenmann>talk17:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is one excellent source (Coleman & Love, 2004), which has a portrait of a principal, Hoberly Hove, under heading "Succeeding with Diversity". The piece discusses the school at length from pages 59-66. We need multiple sources, but this is very definitely one. I am !voting keep, because I believe more sources are likely, but would suggest that until more are demonstrated, there is an IAR aspect to this !vote.
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.
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.
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]
Neutral - old edit -COI hasn't been discussed on the talk page, as the COI box suggests should happen. Late edit - it has been discussed as I hadn't looked in the archives. Almost all of the refs are self referential, and as discussed in the archive the trade mag article is just a rehash of the company's PR. 21:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
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]
Weak Keep: Ref. 2 is significant, independent coverage. I'm having a hard time finding more but I assume more must be out there since the company has won some innovation awards. If kept, the article needs to be radically chopped, since it's almost all sourced to press releases and passing mentions. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with above; this entire article, at least as an outsider, reads like an advertisement. I find it hard to believe it passes WP:ORGCRIT; even if one source contains significant independent coverage, ORGCRIT requires multiple. To me it doesn't seem like it could be significantly improved even in the future. Beachweak(talk)09:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but I could also go the other way. I removed a lot of the non-independent sources and much of the "products" area. There are still two sections that are un-sourced (History and Robot manipulators). The main thing in favor of this article is the development of Bixi, which appears to be significant. However, the links here re Bixi do not mention Robotics Design. I found one newspaper article with a mention that attributes this company to Bixi, and a few other very brief mentions. Since this is a Canadian company perhaps someone has better access to Canadian sources (which you would think we would find alongside the US ones, but that doesn't seem to be the case.) The other products have some decent sources. Lamona (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
