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:
Merge - to the university. The secondary sources both on the article and listed here, are transactional in nature, rather than the detailed sources that are required to show notability. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting for more opinions. So, is what being suggested by one editor a Merge to University of Prince Edward Island? It helps if you provide a link to the target article as there might be several articles that exist on the same overall subject. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!22:34, 3 September 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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Redirect or opposition to one? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!05:14, 3 September 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.
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 result was delete. I'm on the fence regarding G5, but as the AfD has run its course, and there's a consensus to delete, there's no need to adjudicate on the speedy aspect. Owen×☎12:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedy delete in accordance with WP:G5. This article existed as a many-times-declined (and recently rejected) Draft:Felix LaHaye. After I indef-blocked the creator Isabelle Blake as an undisclosed paid editor, a long-dormant account Captanhook77 suddenly "woke up" the same day and unilaterally copied the draft to article space. This just smells suspicious. If the same person isn't controlling both accounts, it's possibly a group of undisclosed paid editors working together. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no connection to Isabelle Blake, and am not being paid to do this. I am an esports aficionado from Quebec. As we are a small bilingual nation there is not a lot of people in the esports space, and Felix LaHaye has a strong degree of notoriety here, hence my willingness to help create this page.
The Isabelle Blake article clearly did not meet the criteria, so when I saw it rejected, I decided to create a better article by doing research to find strong sources to support, which I confident I did.
Lastly, the article seemed to have been accepted, with close to a dozen contributors participating, until it was recently moved to Draft after 6 months. I assumed this was an error, as not reason was then provided, and I simply moved it back. Captainhook77 (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but this is important to our community.
Lahaye is one of the very few Quebecers that has achieved this level of success in this industry. Just listen to the interviews and see.
This is important for us, and he definitely matches the criteria. Maybe you don’t know of him, if you are not French Canadian and that’s perfectly ok, but saying he does not is simply inaccurate. I also personally think asking to write about something else because you don’t like the topic is rather rude and inappropriate and does not seem to respect wikipedias mission and criteria for positive discussion.
Importance to your community is irrelevant to Wikipedia. What matters is our policies and guidelines for inclusion. This discussion has nothing to do with not liking the topic; the nominator and other participants here are indifferent to the topic, we are concerned about compliance with policies and guidelines. The only person making an WP:ILIKEIT argument is you. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Journal de Quebec and La Presse are both top 5 newspapers in Quebec, which both created profiles on LaHaye, including in print. Similarly, some of the TV coverage highlighted is on Radio Canada, and TVA, in prime time slots, on the most watched programs in the nation. These are some of the main points supporting notoriety criteria being met.
While other elements are more in the realm of "mentions" those are solely provided to support specific elements of activity, which are frequently conducted under the organizations LaHaye leads.
Lastly, the article seemed to have been accepted, with close to a dozen contributors participating, until it was recently moved to Draft after 6 months. I assumed this was an error, as not reason was then provided, and I simply moved it back. Captainhook77 (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
The article has strong sources that are at the top of reputability in Quebec, from the most read newspapers to prime time television coverage. Captainhook77 (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't want to do a full source assessment table, but I assume these are the sources Captainhook77 is talking about:
Journal de Quebec: is not just an interview. Whilst Felix LaHaye is frequently quoted, the most significant facts about Lahaye himself are given by the journalist, whilst LaHaye comments on the evolution of the industry itself.
I am having a hard time understanding how these high notoriety publications would not meet the independence and notoriety criteria, as they are fact checked by the editors. Whilst self interviews, should not "count" as meeting the criteria, it seems clear that given the scope and notoriety and from the direct responses from the journalists there is no doubt here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainhook77 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of this article, like the others, is made up of LaHaye's quotes. That's why it can't be used for notability -- it's primarily him talking about himself, not other people talking about him. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree.
As someone from Quebec familiar with those programs being a frequent guest and having print features does validate a strong degree of notability. Seeing how they talk about him and to him also a strong indicator in my eyes.
Then please listen to the interviews and read the articles. They are not primarily about what he says. They are mostly high notoriety profiles that match the publication’s formats.
I understand that a lot of it is in French, and if you don’t maybe speak French then it is harder to grasp and that’s ok.
But saying it doesn’t match the notoriety is inaccurate.
I don’t understand why would want to remove something when it is clearly well known in Quebec and that there is more than significant evidence to prove it. Captainhook77 (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:Golden Rule. Interviews do not count toward notability. Being famous or well known in a local region doesn't matter without significant coverage that is independent of the subject. Notability on Wikipedia isn't the same as famous. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Captainhook77, it's not a good sign that you have made no improvements to the article since this discussion was started. You should be listening to the critique and respond by improving the article to address these problems. LizRead!Talk!00:32, 2 September 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.
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.
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 — note, for comparison, that most winners listed in the Miss World Canada article are unlinked names, and only a few of them actually have their own standalone biographical articles independently of the list. 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. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 25 August 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.
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.
Agreed, an entry into such book is an argument, and I did write "successful", didn't I? nothing in the article indicates why he is better than tens of thousands of other minor retail store owners. But I may be mistaken in my opinion. --Altenmann>talk18:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Plenty of coverage in Canadian sources, [2], [3], [4] and he has a plaque in London [5], but he's more notable as a local person than anything national... I don't know, he opened a store in London an was well known, but is that enough for a wiki article? Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 31 August 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.
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 result was delete. Page creator is advised to review WP:RS to better understand what is mean on Wikipedia by "reliable sources". It's very specific, it is different from the common lay opinion of what is meant by "reliable" and it is required for articles on this project. LizRead!Talk!01:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Bearcat (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We require reliable sources, not just any web page you can find with the organization's name in it. Reliable sources means journalist-written media coverage and/or books, not the self-published websites of directly affiliated entities. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate your vigilance in enforcing a certain degree of verifiability to the references provided, I believe your inference that the ample links and references provided are 'unreliable' is unwarranted. The identity of all supplied sources is eminently verifiable and the information is 100% accurate. Emmajp377 (talk) 15:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sourcing means third party coverage about the organization in media that is fully independent of the organization. The definition of a reliable source is not "it was published by people with inside knowledge because they're directly involved", it's "the source represents a journalist independently writing and publishing media content that covers the things the organization does as news". Bearcat (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All sources in the article are either non-independent (the organization, a parent organization, someone the organization partners with talking about their partnership) or they quote the organization on something. No source given appears to describe it other than one giving a one-sentence statement not saying much more than that it's a cybersecurity organization. Did a search to see if I could find any independent sources that discuss it in at least a couple paragraphs, but couldn't find anything, other than press releases. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your decision that "a couple of paragraphs" of descriptive text must accompany any "independent source" is arbitrary. If you found even one of these references to be inaccurate or misleading, then say so. If not, your assertion that "all sources are either non-independent or provide an independent quote" do not establish the organization's lack of credibility. If you however believe that this organization and its mission are either not important or obsolete, then state it as such. Otherwise why trivialize the important work that this federal non-profit organization does? Emmajp377 (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An independent source is either a media outlet or a book writing about the organization's work journalistically and/or analytically. It is not (a) anything that the organization or other people or organizations directly affiliated with it wrote and published themselves, or (b) the organization's founder being briefly quoted as a provider of soundbite in an article about something else. Bearcat (talk) 22:21, 3 September 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.
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 result was keep. I'm persuaded by Mr Serjeant Buzfuz's argument. But even if you dismiss claims of a U.S.-centric bias, there seem to be ample sources demonstrating notability. And Serjeant's point that news sources are accepted when they cover news stories like the attempted assassination of Donald Trump but rejected for this article, might be worth a fuller discussion on a policy talk page. LizRead!Talk!23:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lockout lasted less than a day, with arbitration occurring right now. This information could be covered in a different article. Natg 19 (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article can and should cover the entire crisis, including the arbitration. It is a massive event and coverage abounds despite the lockout lasting less than a day.--User:Namiba19:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Canada is a huge country and depends on the rail system for its supply chains. The arbitration process is important, as is the fact that the federal government has intervened in a labour dispute between private companies and their employees. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, there have been some developments, with a formal strike notice from the Teamsters with respect to CN, and statements by labour experts in the media that the federal government cannot order binding arbitration; it can refer the issue to the labour board, which then must determine if the situation warrants binding arbitration. i will update the article on this point. There's also the point that there is a political aspect: three premiers have spoken out on the issue, worried about the economic impact of the shutdown. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Latest news is that service has not resumed on CPKC; union is considering a constitutional challenge to the minister's direction for binding arbitration; the NDP, which has supported the Liberal minority government, has harshly criticised the referral for binding arbitration. This isn't over. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete/merge: concur with the alien. the broader labor dispute is probably notable, but this doesn't need its own article. ... sawyer * he/they * talk00:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the guideline is just the opposite. See : WP:RAPID, under the heading “Don’t Rush to Delete Articles”:
Articles about breaking news events are often rapidly nominated for deletion. As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge, which may make a deletion nomination unnecessary.
No, that wasn’t in Wiki NewSpeak. It was simple English. This is premature, and it is journalism, not history. Nuke it til it glows. Qwirkle (talk) 03:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point, Moxy. According to TheBigUglyAlien, those are primary sources and therefore not sufficient; only secondary sources can be used in support of this article. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the comments for deletion, made above. I think the article clearly should be kept, and want to set out my thoughts in more detail. First, I think the comments about primary v. secondary sources are a red herring; that's not really the issue. Second, I think that what is really at issue here is a question of notability, hidden behind the discussion of primary sources. Third, I think that what we are dealing with here is Wikipedia:Systemic bias on the part of American editors, who do not think what is happening in Canada is notable.
First, let's look at two recent news stories: Attempted assassination of Donald Trump and 2024 Democratic National Convention. Check out the references for those two articles: 500+ for the Trump article, 200+ for the DNC. And almost all of them are primary sources: news sources. There's the big three tv networks; there's the NYT and WaPo, plus major regional papers; there's YouTube, Slate, and other internet news sources; plus international news sources, like the BBC, the Guardian, the CBC, the Globe & Mail, just to name a few. I've not gone through them in full detail, but my skim shows that the references for these two articles are almost entirely news sources. But is anyone calling for those two articles to be deleted on that ground? Of course not. They are notable articles, and for current events like that, the news media are the natural, and likely the only source, to provide information about those notable events. So, articles on current events, based entirely on primary news sources, are not automatically deleted, as seems to be the theme of those who are calling for deletion here. Notability is the important issue for inclusion in Wikipedia, not that primary sources, such as news media, are the major sources used for an article about a current event, possibly the only sources available for a notable event.
Second, is the notability requirement met here? I think there is no doubt that it is:
As soon as the shutdown occurred, the Prime Minister of Canada advised the country that the federal government was "on it";
The premiers of three of the largest provinces expressed their concern over the shutdown, and urged the resolution of the issue, either by federal legislation or back to the bargaining table;
Moody's International estimated that the Canadian economy could lose $341 million dollars a day if the shutdown continued;
The two railways are the sole real transportation mechanism for Canadian manufactured products, agricultural products, mining products, to reach international markets, and Canada's economy is largely export-based;
Commuters in three of Canada's largest provinces (BC, Ontario, and Quebec) are having their lives disrupted, because the commuter trains have stopped running in some areas;
Less than 24 hours in, the federal Minister of Labour issued a directive to the federal Labour Relations Board, either directing or requesting that the Board consider ordering binding arbitration;
In response, the NDP, which is propping up the federal Liberal government, expressed their outrage with the interference with bargaining rights;
Although CN has tried to re-start its operations, the Teamsters have served a formal strike notice, that takes effect Monday (how that interacts with the Minister's directive is unclear);
CPKC has not been able to re-start its operations, as its workers have not returned to work;
Teamsters has indicated that they may bring a constitutional challenge to the minister's directive, rather than comply.
I honestly don't know what more could be said at this stage to establish notability of this article, at least from a Canadian perspective. This shutdown has already started to have effects nation-wide, could have a major economic impact, and could upset the political alignment that is keeping the federal Liberal government in office.
Third, so what is the problem here? Regretfully, I think it is systemic bias; American Wikipedia editors do not appear to take seriously an issue like this, happening in Canada. Wikipedia is supposed to be an international encyclopedia, not an American one, but when there are such dismissive comments about a major economic and political issue happening in Canada, I am forced to the conclusion that it is because American editors apply an American lens, and don't see the importance of this issue to Canadians, so don't think it should be in Wikipedia. But if Wikipedia is truly an international encyclopedia, with a mission to contain the world's knowledge, the question of notability can't be viewed solely with American eyes. If something is notable in one country, then the residents of that country should be able to come to Wikipedia and read an article about it, written from the perspective of the importance of that issue to them and to their country. Readers in that country shouldn't have to hope that American Wikipedia editors have concluded that something is notable. It should be sufficient that the editors from their own country have demonstrated notability. Moxy, I agree with the point that you made about international recognition of this story, but I don't think that is necessary for an assessment of notability. Residents of countries other than the United States shouldn't have to show notability at an international level to get an event written about in Wikipedia, just as residents of the United States don't have to show international notability for events in the United States to get an article about those events into Wikipedia. The notability of an event in a country other than the United States should not have to meet the gracious approval of American editors to be included in Wikipedia. To rebut systemic bias, there has to be a willingness by all editors to give particular weight to the views on notability of the residents of the country who are most affected by the events.
Keep per Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (below). What's especially salient for me is their last point about US editors not taking seriously events in other countries. US centrism is a serious issue on Wikipedia.-- Earl Andrew - talk12:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the railway shut-down also involves issues such rail safety and the issue of when is a service essential enough to justify suppressing the right to strike. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the shutdown was somewhat brief (Thu 22 to Sun 25 Aug 2024), it could resume depending on how legal efforts and negotiations play out. Implications for the rail industry, labor unions and employees in general, and the economy of Canada (and elsewhere) are significant. I would keep the article and revise it as developments occur. This does not seem like a 4-day "one and done" event. Indeed, the build-up prior to last Thursday could be better explained and set in context. Rail labor issues are usually long and contentious; recent agreements at CSX are the exception and not the rule.2601:645:4300:A990:D036:4B10:B9E7:B250 (talk) 03:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respectuflly, @SportingFlyer, its not just news, it is causing an economic impact (as the trains still aren't fully up and running again and won't be for another few weeks), and the systemic bias argument is valid to an extent, as Wikipedia is edited by mainly Americans. This is an unreasonable reason for deletion. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 03:11, 30 August 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.
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 result was redirect to Wikimedian of the Year. Consensus here is that WOTY is not itself sufficient to confer notability and other potential sources to sustain an article do not exist. Congratulations in any case, Clovermoss, for the award. (I should also note that I have interacted with Clovermoss off-wiki before, but she did not ask me to participate in any capacity, and as such I do not believe I have a COI.) Complex/Rational18:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm honoured that someone was enthusiastic enough to create an article about me, I think it might be a bit premature. I doubt I meet WP:BASIC at this point in time. There was a brief shared interview that was present in an episode of BBC Tech Life. It starts at 20:20. Then there's the newspaper cited in the article. While this piece quotes me, it is not an interview, and appears to have been inspired by this. That's the extent of any secondary sourcing available. I think a redirect makes the most sense for now but I will be alright if consensus comes to a different decision. I mostly just think that a discussion about notability should be had here and I figured that by starting it myself no one would have to worry about offending me. Clovermoss🍀(talk)17:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikimedian of the Year. Since you won't be offended, in the absence of other coverage I think that WP:BLP1E applies here. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE also applies since there is no strong case for keeping a standalone article. (I get that one could make a case for WP:ANYBIO criterion 1, but I think that the subject's request for redirection supersedes that in the absence of any other evidence of notability.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really requesting deletion per se. Like if people genuinely think ANYBIO applies I don't think the fact that I was the one to start the AfD should be noteworthy, even if I understand why BLPREQUESTDELETE exists. Clovermoss🍀(talk)18:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Congratulations Clovermoss!! However Wikimedian of the Year is obviously not well-known or significant outside of our own community so Anybio is not met. Reywas92Talk19:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor. While I understand that some might not see Wikimedian of the Year as a particularly significant award... this is Wikipedia. We're allowed to think of ourselves as significant and important, and even if the coverage here is borderline, since most people who have won the award seem to pass GNG, it's reasonable to have articles on all of them as a set. (Noting that I do know Hannah personally, but she did not ask me to comment here, nor do I think that I have a COI in wanting her to have an article -- I'd make the same argument no matter who won the award.) Elli (talk | contribs) 20:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Even if Wikimedian of the Year is significant enough to qualify for ANYBIO - and I would suggest were we not all Wikipedians we'd all be skeptical that a person of the year from a 180 million USD nonprofit is a well-known/signficant honor or even notable enough to have a list page just showing how we all have a COI and all the problems that come with it when editing abotu Wikipedia - that would just indicate a likely notability. Clovermoss has demonstrated how the sourcing is not sufficient to meet notability standards in actuality; in other words (even if this award is enough for ANYBIO) it might be likely but it still didn't happen. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If we make this a redirect, she will be the only person listed on Wikimedian of the Year without an article. I suggest we look for further coverage and expand the article. Even if it is connected with Wikipedia, this is an important award and all winners deserve biographies.--Ipigott (talk) 09:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh:: Thanks for your useful reaction. I suggested keep as a basis for trying to expand the article. If this is not possible, then I agree we should go back to redirect but I still think we should see how things evolve over the next few days.--Ipigott (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ipigott: Hey no worries, I'm definitely not trying to convince you to change your vote, and I respect your intentions. I just like to mention it so that an argument can possibly be refactored to better express one's point. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few other articles that are fairly weak on sourcing, and I think people just made them because they appreciate other Wikipedians, not because they really passed GNG with them. While for the most part recipients have gotten coverage in one way or another that justifies an article, this award alone is very simply not well known enough for standard GNG expections of significant coverage to be thrown out. Reywas92Talk15:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I disagree that WP:ANYBIO is met with this award. I do not believe there's currently enough independent WP:SIGCOV of the individual to justify a standalone article. Frankly, a number of the other articles for past winners should also be redirected, but nobody wants to be the one to do. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, saw this last night and have been mulling it over. You know, Wikipedia is not just another website, it is the world's foremost encyclopedia, the "go to" place for information on and for search engines such as Google, and is a household name simply because almost every household on the planet either uses it or gains from it, a large percentage of them on a daily basis. This ain't beanbag, as Yogi Berra probably said while playing beanbag. Wikipedia has settled into its niche as a major 21st century communication and knowledge tool. There has never been a civilizational collab project such as this except in wartime. Its volunteer editors are not navel-gazing when judging its self-referential articles, but are accurately encyclopedically reporting on an unprecedented and ever-growing cultural tool and educationally-based phenomena. Articles for its Wikipedians and Wikimedians of the Year fit that rational. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect No barnstar, internal award or other Wikipedia badge make a person automatically notable. Basically WP:NPEOPLE, section "Articles on Wikipedians" says that essentially articles about these people should pass GNG, and this article simply doesn't. WP:ANYBIO requires a significant and famous award - ask random people on the street what awards Wikipedia gives. Ehhh... ehhh... *crickets*. It's not like Wikipedian of the Year is like being inducted in the NFL Hall of Fame, getting an Oscar or a Fields Medal, or even close to that.
Also, when the subject themselves do not want an article or doubt about their notability, I'd strongly consider just not creating the article in the first place.
Redirect. WP:ANYBIO is additional criteria that is preceded by People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. So even presuming that Wikimedian of the Year qualifies as a well-known and significant award or honor, that doesn't mean there must be a stand-alone article on this person. In this case, when there is an absence of significant coverage, the redirect to and listing in Wikimedian of the Year suffices for encyclopedic purposes. (Separately, congratulations to Clovermoss!) Schazjmd(talk)16:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per all the above arguments. While I am am sure Clovermoss is deserving of the honor as a great Wikipedian, I don't think Wikimedian of the Year meets ANYBIO as it is given purely at the whim of Jimbo Wales, as opposed to vetting by the community and/or the foundation, and it recieves very scant media coverage. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today02:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Just Step Sideways: It's a bit more complicated than that. While Jimmy Wales is indeed the person who has the final say, I was one of five shortlisted candidates. The process before that involves some degree of vetting from the foundation and they seek input from others on who to consider (apparently I was a very popular choice and a name they heard often). Clovermoss🍀(talk)02:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO. As long as the person is given attention by multiple sources, there's no need to delete it. Your contributions have drawn attention to the public. Ahri Boy (talk) 07:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahri Boy: I don't really have multiple sources though, that's the whole point of me starting this AfD. I think it's premature when the only SIGCOV is a single newspaper article (see my nomination statement). I would've felt like a hypocrite if I hadn't started this, I don't think I deserve special treatment. It's possible that more sources will exist someday and then I'd change my mind. But the way things stand now, I think the redirect should probably be reinstated. Clovermoss🍀(talk)14:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Although this is not a BLPREQUESTDELETE, I would not consider WotY a "well-known and significant award" for ANYBIO, and probably also a NOPAGE fail, seeing as the list presently has more information than the article and I don't see much room for expansion beyond WotY. Queen of Hearts(talk)05:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per all of the arguments above, mostly Clovermoss, explicitly not per the arguments where people have come here entirely to blow off their big bazoo in re whether Jimbo is based or cringe, comma. jp×g🗯️09:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The passive-aggressive comment was meant to vaguely indicate slight displeasure with more than one comment, in approximately equal amount for each.
I did not intend to convey active and severe disapproval, so I did not explicitly name the commenters. My intention was to make them feel mild disapproval for about five seconds and then move on with their day, not to publicly castigate them. jp×g🗯️05:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Unless our Clovermoss can come up with RS for that school kindness award, this is BLP1E. Fails ANYBIO. There are a trillion reasons why being a wikipedian and having a BLP1E article about oneself are a bad combination. My redirect assertion in this case in no way spoils my delight in seeing this award go to a hard-working North American Wikipedian this year. BusterD (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't. I brought it up to add a bit of humour to the situation. No one outside my school cared that I won the kindness award and I'm probably the only person who even remembers that I did. To those not familiar with Ontario's education system, I was 7 years old in grade 2. Clovermoss🍀(talk)03:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/weak delete. Congratulations on the award, but I think some other things are needed for an article. Good luck! Nadzik (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikimedian of the Year. This is a clear case of WP:BIO1E; very little sourcing exists about this human outside of the context of her winning an award. And, as WP:PAGEDECIDE notes, there are times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic. With respect to WP:ANYBIO, I take both the view that Clover is presently better covered in the broader article that provides more context regarding that award than her two-sentence biographical entry would (i.e. that PAGEDECIDE would advise against an article if she were notable), and also the view that the Wikimedian of the Year award does not meet the threshold of being a well-known and significant award or honor that would automatically warrant inclusion (i.e. that she is not presently notable). — Red-tailed hawk(nest)23:32, 27 August 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.
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 result was keep. I see a consensus that there are adequate sources that help establish GNG. Thank you for putting together the source assessment table. LizRead!Talk!03:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 -- WP:NFILM is looking for 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 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 in any GNG-contributing sense), this is otherwise referenced entirely to primary and unreliable sources that are not support for notability at all. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have a stronger notability claim, and better sourcing for it, than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Article was at a misspelling of her name: I moved it to Jia Rizvi (as on her website and in other sources), then realised one isn't supposed to move an article during an AfD and moved it back again. So as I type it is at the wrong title. PamD
Keep: there seem to be enough articles about her as film-maker. It was a badly-written article but I've cleaned up some of the problems - use of forename, curly quotes, lack of links, overlinks, etc. PamD09:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. She’s won some accolades in smaller film festivals, but not the bigger ones like Cannes (which actually isn’t that difficult to get into). Right now, the sourcing isn’t up to the level we usually expect from significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'd welcome more participation here and review of sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does anyone else find it odd that someone with no other edits uploaded her photo and arranged for copyright permission to be emailed a few days before another editor began writing this article? Reviewing sources, nothing seems secondary or significant. jwtmsqeh (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I still stand by my week keep with at least two sources (and possibly more) constituting WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. Did a quick source assessment table:
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Furthermore, the "delete" !votes are not engaging at all with the sources presented or all the potential guidelines of notability. We're not here to determine whether the article was created by a conflicted editor (I bet it was, but that doesn't matter as other editors are fixing it). The quality of film festivals she's gotten into doesn't have bearing on whether WP:GNG is met. I agree that she doesn't pass WP:NDIRECTOR, but the sourcing is clear that she does pass GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As I can see, most of the reliable sources covered her for her efforts in the justice system and the filmmaking is just part of that effort and hard to say it is just single event. Instant History (talk) 06:46, 6 September 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.
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.
Delete and/or redirect. This can be mentioned in Conestoga College's article, per WP:STUDENTMEDIA, but with the article being referenced entirely to the topic's own self-published content about itself rather than any evidence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about it in reliable sources, it has not been established as notable enough to have its own standalone article at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 29 August 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.
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.
On the face of it someone put in a fair bit of work into this, but as about half of the entries are unsourced, with very old citation needed templates, we are left with a page that is not very accurate on a subject that is not very notable, and not very likely to ever get finished. The leadership election of the Canadian liberal party in 2006 is almost certainly notable, but a list of who endorsed whom is not. What it is, is original research. If someone has put together this list and it is referred to in a secondary source, then it is notable but could be mentioned on a page about the election. If this collection does not exist anywhere, then it is not notable and the curation here is WP:OR. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tilt Keep, it's fairly easy to verify most of the citation needed claims- just my computer isn't able to handle editing the article. Searching the name of the person and then the candidate often gives results. Using Allan Armsworthy as a example, I found this article from The Casket which confirmed the endorsement. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Resolving the sourcing for the endorsements does not explain why a list of who endorsed whom in that election is independently notable for a page. Is this established as a collection anywhere, per WP:LISTN? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an example of the kind of thing that seemed like a good idea in 2006 when the leadership convention was current news, but is not important historical information that would pass the enduring significance test now that we're almost 20 years removed from the event. Basically, it's a WP:NOTNEWS issue: even if some of the referencing can be improved with better sources, what's lacking is a reason why readers would actually still be looking for this information at all anymore. And note that this sort of thing has not been maintained for any of the other leadership conventions that Canadian political parties have held since 2006, either, so it's not part of any comprehensive set. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 29 August 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.
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.
I don't believe this should be deleted. There are other tours like this that have articles with one or two sources and they still remain. We're talking about a tour here, not a whole article. This will be starting in almost two months and more sources will definitely be added. You could tell me what other information I can include and I'll be able to do it. Thank you! 64.189.246.115 (talk) 03:16, 12 August 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.
