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.
Speedy Keep GNG/N is easily met, and we don't delete articles for films either based on revenue or awards acclaim, and for most current theatrical films, two weeks of press is incredibly standard. This is a very poor nomination and I'm just going to say you don't read French so you didn't do in-language WP:BEFORE work, which must be done before nomination. Nate•(chatter)22:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going mostly by what is written on WP:NFILM here. When it comes to how long coverage should last, it says that movies can be considered notable if they are subjects of "at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release." The notability page, on the other hand, says that "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability, as described by notability of events." I don't know, a few weeks of coverage only by French-language sources does not seem to be enough to cut it. Badbluebus (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When it comes to top-level national film awards such as the Canadian Screen Awards, NFILM does not require the awards to have been won, and only requires award nominations. And "at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release" is just one option, out of several alternatives, for how a film's notability can be demonstrated, not a core requirement that all films always have to meet — most films that do have articles can't meet that, in fact, because most films don't ever get any significant new coverage again once they've aged out of current theatrical release. So that's one option out of several for getting a film over the notability bar, not any sort of "base requirement"; a film that doesn't pass that particular notability criterion can still pass several other notability criteria, such as receiving nominations for top-level national film awards. Bearcat (talk) 02:03, 20 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.
This article has been nominated before for deletion and nothing was decided. There still exists issues on citations and page updates. Google searches of this "conference" offer no notable references or sources. The talk page for the article even indicates discussion back in 2006 on the lack of noatibility amongst the university sport groups. I propose deleting the article. User:R.schneider10121:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – It's a case that doesn't seem to me to have any independent coverage. If it is possible to locate sources that determine some relevance, because as it is a university competition that does not have notability in itself. Svartner (talk) 21:54, 18 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.
Article about a dance music band, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The attempted notability claim here is that they had a single chart in specialty charts, like RPM Dance and Billboard Bubbling Under, that are not the primary national hits charts for the purposes of NMUSIC #2, and thus do not constitute an instant notability freebie in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about the band -- but the only other source here is an unreliable source that contradicts some of the claims in this article (compare our "MTS was a Eurodance project formed in Canada" to ""MTS was an American eurodance project created in Miami, Florida"), and a WP:BEFORE search found absolutely nothing else: apart from more unreliable sources, the only thing I found was a brief glancing namecheck of the song's existence as a song getting played on a radio station in an article about that radio station. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to be better than it is, especially given the conflict about whether they were Canadian or American in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with the conclusions of the thorough before research by Bearcat. The fact that "In 1997, they released a studio album." is [citation needed] and the studio album isn't even named speaks volumes. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 13:25, 18 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.
Redirect to Sandy Bay First Nation#Notes: this article is clearly written to meet the looser, non-GNG "inclusion standards" of ~15 years ago that were more about existence of a license (notwithstanding that, as ever, existence is neither notability nor proof of it) than significant coverage. Considering that the GNG was confirmed as the actual notability barometer here in 2021 and the article was only created this month (and all articles from any era are required to comply with current policies and guidelines in any event), that's a problem. The existing brief mention in the First Nation's article is more than enough. WCQuidditch☎✎06:56, 18 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.
Based on what??? Embassies are central institutions in bilateral relationship so the first thing we should look at with embassies are the bilateral relationship articles. Are the embassies covered there, to what extent, is a SPINOFF justified? Bilateral relationship articles often are short, making the SPINOFFs usually unjustified. Prodding is never an option, deleting is rarely an option. An AfD for an embassy without ATDs at the very least debated (usually these should be suggested) is sloppy. gidonb (talk) 01:26, 18 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.
Keep. I found a single review on newspapers.com (strangely already clipped). More reviews from Canadian publications on proquest ([1][2][3][4]. This might also be a review but I don't have access. The Globe and Mail review is probably the best one, especially since it's a paper of record. All very Canadian but a non-terrible article could be built from this, and it's far over NBOOKs anyway. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:10, 16 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.
Nominated as there is nothing here to assert notability, despite the WP:RS. Now, this is my accessment of sources, ignoring all WP:PRIMARY as they do not count for notability.
One by Sail Canada concerns about the team captain winning about an award and his role in the team
One by Scuttlebutt Sailing News is about the team advertising for a new captain as that captain has been released from his contract
Two by CTV news and another by CBC News is about the event in Halifax, less about the team
Keep Thank you for taking the time to review this page. I agree and take your point regarding this page relying heavily on WP:PRIMARY and currently only having four WP:RS. This risks the page failing to meet notability standard based on Wikipedia:Common_sourcing_mistakes_(notability). However, there exists plenty of notable and reliable secondary sources that would address the concern regarding WP:GNG. I am advocating that this page is not deleted but rather has a template appended giving editors opportunity and time to remedy the concerns raised and improve the article.
@Vonkiegr8: Hi there! My concern with this is the lack of non-primary coverage of the subject in general. Looking through various search engines, the vast magority of WP:RS are not actually talking about the candian team, they are talking about races in canada. These sources are simply trivial mentions of the subject.
Delete. Looks like a similar case as the USSailGP Team; mostly primary and self-published sources. And lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources to prove notability. Sadly, not much improvement can be done on the page since it is already seen that there is no WP:SIGCOV. Prof.PMarini (talk) 17:26, 19 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.
No evidence that this music festival meets WP:GNG. There is no sourcing on the page, and the only sources I can find on Google are self-published and promotional websites, along with WP:NOTRSMUSIC sources like Setlist.fm and random blogs. All I can find that comes anywhere close to notability is that popular Canadian artists performed at the festival, but just because multiple performers on the bill charted and went platinum does not mean this festival inherits notability. With no independent notability presented whatsoever, fails WP:NMUSIC. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(weak?) Delete. Festival only ran for two years. Google brings up nothing, but ProQuest has a few dozen articles mentioning it, most of which failing WP:NEWSPRIMARY or WP:SIGCOV. This peice detailing the festival's demise does have substantial detail. If nothing else, I doubt a festival that only lasted two years meets WP:LASTING. Mach6112:23, 21 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.
Article about a shortlived (2007-09) magazine, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for media. The only notability claim on offer here is that it existed, which is not an automatic inclusion freebie in and of itself -- the magazine would have to be shown to have received third-party coverage about it in sources other than itself to pass WP:GNG, but the only "reference" here is its own self-published content about itself rather than independent validation of its significance. Bearcat (talk) 05:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Canadian Wildlife Federation. That article should have a "publications" section. There is apparently independent coverage: [5]. [I think I should point out that "self publishing" is when an author pays the cost of publishing his book. The usual objection to self publishing is that, if you have to pay someone to print your book, that implies that your book is unmerchantable and unsaleable because it is of low quality. I do not see how that logic can be applied here. The fact that a source is primary, non-independent, or even autobiographical, does not make it ipso facto self-published or necessarily completely unreliable for all purposes.] James500 (talk) 13:09, 20 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.
Fails WP:NCORP. Couldn't find any significant coverage of the magazine at all. An AfD closed as no consensus in 2009 but there was no actual evidence as to how this meets GNG/NCORP. Nothing has changed since then. CFA💬16:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, they've suspended publication [6].. This appears to be a trade publication, which generally can't be used for establishing notability; I can't find anything else about this publication in other media. It all hits on the American band of the same name. I wonder if Kenneth has found that frequency yet... Regardless, nothing for notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 18:34, 14 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.
There are quite a few articles on physical embassies. In addition, delete is usually not the right solution for embassies but redirect or merge are. Prod does not provide for ATDs. It's trivial to see in the Embassy AfDs a debate is to be expected. Exactly when one should NEVER prod! gidonb (talk) 02:23, 20 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.
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.
The page is a slightly spammy product description of a vodka product. The only claim to notability is an unsourced one that it won the 2006-07 Golden Icon Award for Best Vodka. But what is this award? There is an eponymous entertainment award, but searching for an award by this name for vodka only leads to this product. The page claims this is the Travolta Family Entertainment award, which is not the same, as far as I can tell, as the show business award. Travolta Family Entertainment is a quickly abandoned trademark [7], and I suspect the award was invented so that it could be given to this vodka. Certainly no evidence to the contrary. If that is correct, this is unashamed product spam. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:51, 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.
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.
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.
Copying part of my comment from the other AfD: I don't see sigcov of this local arena here. I think it probably exists somewhere in a newspaper archive, so someone might be able to make an article on this topic, but I don't think we're going to turn it up during this AfD, if ever. Here's the two local news websites: [8], [9]. They're not great. -- asilvering (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nom comment: a merge to the article on the town was proposed on the Uxbridge AfD and would work for this one too. I went ahead and merged the content in already, so I could withdraw this nom and WP:BLAR the article, but I strongly suspect the BLAR would be reverted, so I'd rather let this AfD play out in full. -- asilvering (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting for more comment. I'd prefer if editors didn't carry out Merges or Redirects before an AFD has been closed, it defeats the purpose of having a community decision and could have happened without opening an AFD discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, I believe we have more than one Merge target suggested. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:13, 19 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.