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:
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.
Weak delete. This engineer has done nice work, but has not attracted enough attention to his work through citations to meet WP:NPROF. There is press coverage, though - is there enough for general notabilty? If so, I'll change my recommendation. Qflib (talk) 18:40, 17 July 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.
Project and organization both appear to lack notability, especially under WP:NORG. Article lacks sourcing and I was unable to find significant coverage via research. Brandon (talk) 01:12, 11 July 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.
Fails GNG: The only candidate who used the "radical Christian" label is Rousseau, and contemporary coverage about him is not significant. Newspaper coverage shows that the three candidates in 1967 actually represented the Ralliement des créditistes, with the label "Créditiste". Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability standards for political parties don't confer any "inherent" notability freebies just because the grouping existed as a name on a ballot per se, and require the organization to pass WP:ORGDEPTH on reliable source coverage about it, but that's lacking here and there's not much else turning up. Bearcat (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Found basically nothing relating to Radical chrétien, only Jean Chrétien. Just because somebody decides to run under a certain party name, doesn't necessarily mean that that party name is notable. ❤HistoryTheorist❤19:05, 19 July 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.
All the coverage in the article is from February 2024 when she left the entertainment company Nijisanji. Beyond that, I've found two reliable sources that do not cover this topic (Siliconera 1, Siliconera 2). Wikipedia's notability criteria discourages articles on people notable for only one event, which this article seems to cover. Most of the content featured in the article also seems to be a content fork of the article Nijisanji. I suggest deleting the article or turning it into a redirect to the Nijisanji article. ArcticSeeress (talk) 08:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you found two other reliable sources, User:ArcticSeeress , for different events, and this "event" has significant international coverage (has anyone checked in other languages?) in major publications, such as in India], then surely GNG applies, and WP:1E doesn't apply? I feel I'm missing something. Nfitz (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you found two other reliable sources - Maybe I should have worded my opening statement better. I only found one reliable source (Siliconera) that talks about the subject beyond the single event, per WP:GNG: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability".
and this "event" has significant international coverage (has anyone checked in other languages?) in major publications, such as in India, then surely GNG applies, and WP:1E doesn't apply - I'm not sure I understand this. WP:1E makes no reference to the geographic breadth of the sources. The coverage being international does not change the fact that most of it is about a single event. Also, I could not find sources in any other languages; sources generally also have the original word in Latin writing, so I'm certain you could find them pretty easily by searching "Dokibird". ArcticSeeress (talk) 16:11, 24 July 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.
Ambassadors are not inherently notable. He gets a mere 3 google news hits and article is unreferenced. His involvement with Maher Arar can be covered in that article. The 2 CBC news articles quoted at end are dead. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 04:17, 9 July 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 This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 10:00, 16 July 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. Views to retain the page carry more weight than those to delete or redirect, not to mention being more numerous. Owen×☎20:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as I pointed out last time, there are in-depth articles about the show, in national media coverage from the turn of the century. National Post ... actually the earlier more complete version of the article on the front page of the Montreal Gazette would be the better reference. Nfitz (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First article (National Post) is a hype piece centered on the 2 broadcasters that guest starred in an episode. It is not a review or indepth coverage of the show itself. Second article is just the same article, but more complete (as you stated). I don't think either support notability for the show. The article might be useful in the pages for the 2 broadcasters, but I feel it does nothing for an article on the show. DonaldD23talk to me00:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the article also contains four other footnotes, from the Waterloo Record and the Ottawa Citizen and Maclean's, which you seem to be either overlooking or deliberately pretending they aren't there. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment....I concur with Donaldd23 and share his concern....six footnotes, yes, some from reliable media...but none of them seems to be focusing on the series except one (and only to mention it broadcast in Spain, which is significant but is it enough?)! One (Ottawa Citizen) is even an article from ...September 1998 (when the series premiered in October 1999....). (The article in The Record Kitchener is also dated from one month before 1st broadcast....) The Gulf News article just mentions the name of the series....And this cruel lack of content clearly shows in the article itself. And if the page cannot be expanded, a redirect is a better outcome....since when is the number of footnotes considered enough?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)20:48, 20 July 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 This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Most of the sourcing focuses on interviewing the founder and contains no "Independent Content" beyond what has been provided by the company and/or execs. HighKing++ 17:23, 16 July 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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'd like to hear from more, hopefully experienced, editors. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:49, 14 July 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.
Poorly maintained and deeply-context deficient list with significant maintainability problems. For starters, it just indiscriminately lists women in one common omnibus list, regardless of whether they served in a federal or provincial/territorial cabinet, which isn't particularly helpful -- if there's any value to this, it would be far better served by either splitting the list up into separate subsections for each individual government, or actually creating full standalone spinoff lists for each individual government, for clarity of context, because federal and provincial/territorial cabinets are different beasts. For another thing, it's actually missing far more names than it's including -- a quick WP:AWB comparison between this list and Category:Women government ministers of Canada found 326 women in the category who are not in this list, compared to just 135 women who are in both places. This list hasn't been updated with any new names since 2017, so no woman who joined a Canadian government cabinet in the past seven years has ever been added here at all, and even in 2017 it already wasn't particularly complete, because the creator basically aimed for at-the-time comprehensiveness only for the federal and Ontario cabinets, and bunked off nearly the entire rest of the country. In other words, this list is deeply incomplete, and isn't organized in a way that would actually be helpful or valuable to a reader -- and since we already have Category:Women government ministers of Canada as it is, it's not entirely clear that it would be worth the time investment to actually fix this list. I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody actually is willing to put in that time, but it's not serving readers to hold onto a deeply incomplete and poorly organized version that isn't actually being repaired. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - also, is the name correct? Woman is not an adjective. I suppose it could be a noun phrase - but where's the hyphenation? Nfitz (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previously at AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:26, 11 July 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.
Keep. Any unit with a 113-year history is likely to be notable. Lack of independent references is not a good reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As one would expect for such an old unit, there's numerous references to the unit in the media throughout the wars. Even a 1946 book, and discussion in numerous other books about operations in both World Wars as they participated in battles like Vimy Ridge and on Juno Beach on D-Day. The German execution of three captured prisoners (2 from this unit) at the hands of Wilhelm Mohnke in 1944 gets media attention, such as ProQuest239462705 and also discussed in a book. Nfitz (talk) 16:31, 9 July 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 crypto entrepreneur, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for businesspeople. As always, CEOs of companies are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to establish that they pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage and analysis about them and their work -- but five of the eight footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability, such as his own company's press releases and his own self-created YouTube videos and a "staff" profile on the self-published website of an organization he's directly affiliated with, and one more is an unreliable source crypto-news forum. And what's left for reliable sources is one Forbes article that just briefly namechecks him as a provider of soundbite and one Forbes article that completely fails to contain even a glancing namecheck of Peter Wall at all, and instead is just here to tangentially verify stray facts about a company without providing any evidence that any of those facts have anything in particular to do with Peter Wall. As always, Wikipedia is not a free LinkedIn alternative for tech entrepreneurs, so nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I complete understand your reservations about Peter Wall, and it was never my intention to sound like a Linkedin profile. Maybe I did not do due negligence when sourcing my references but the entire of the article was becuase he is a notable man both in Canadian media and in bitcoin. Can I nominate that we move the article to a draft while I source for other sources which do exist on the individual concerned and am sure when you searched online you will find that Peter Wall is extensively covered. LynnEditor.Nam (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: current sourcing is Canada C3 Coast to Coast describing him as a team member (non-independent), a coworking space review mentioning his company but not him, two sources by him (non-independent), and two sources mentioning him joining and leaving as CEO without saying much about (providing significant coverage of) him, one short source about an IPO not mentioning him, and the bitcoin mining rush source which includes a quote from him and says basically nothing else. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as suggested: nominator is being unnecessarily harsh by calling it "not a free linkedin alternative" but I cannot find sources googling that are not associated with him, by him, or coverage that does not go into detail of him being in various positions.
Per Wikipedia:Notability, significant coverage (at least a paragraph specifically talking about him and who he is) from at least two reliable, independent (not affiliated with, employing, employed by, working together with him) sources is necessary for an article so that it can be written sufficiently independently and in-depth. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This isn't a notable person. This is about the best [2] and it's a PR item. A video journalist is just a "grunt behind the camera", to be blunt, and isn't notable. He's reported on things that happened, which is what videographers do. The crypto connection isn't helping notability. There is a real estate person in Vancouver that has coverage (with the same name), but it's not this person. Oaktree b (talk) 00:48, 9 July 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. There is a clear consensus against deleting the page. Discussion about a potential merge can continue on the relevant Talk page. Owen×☎17:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains one reference which is not from an independent source. The subject of the article does not appear to be notable. PercyPigUK (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This could also be said about the separate extant articles on 2, 3, 4, and 6 Intelligence Company though. Why single out just this one for being amalgamated up? Anecdotally, in terms of actual personnel numbers it's actually one of the largest of those five currently. 90% of the content of those other articles is just Intelligence Corps history, repurposed (the 2 Int entry reprints basically two other Wikipedia articles on Pickersgill and Macalister)... at least the 7 Intelligence Company entry is humble enough not to pad itself out with redundancy.
It's also somewhat problematic that we've recently privileged the Canadian Intelligence Corps, which is currently a notional/paper organization with no responsibilities and zero staff of its own, with an article, over the Canadian Army Intelligence Regiment, the working unit which comprises most of the working military intelligence personnel in the Canadian Forces. While the names are similar, this construct makes more sense for the British Intelligence Corps. In the Canadian context it just looks silly. BruceR (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article should certainly be somewhere (here or merged). It's a reasonable search terms given the media reports of sexual assault - for example it's mentioned 7 times in this article. Nfitz (talk) 01:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Just seems to me we've privileged all the other articles for exactly comparable things that engaged in shameless entry padding over the one article that didn't and kept itself factual. BruceR (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article can probably be kept but needs to be improved. The articles on companies 3 and 6 may need attention as well. Vacosea (talk) 16:43, 17 July 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.
