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.
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.
11 years after the last AfD, a search for sources today yielded very little despite claims he gets significant coverage. Nothing in google news and only 1 line mentions in google books. Fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 06:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even looking in Canadian sources, I can only find an obituary in Gnews, then in general Gsearch, this wiki page, gov't websites and social media. Nothing to suggest notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:08, 22 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.
After a quick Google search, believe this list does not meet WP:NLIST criterion of "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", therefore nominating for deletion. Ueutyi (talk) 06:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not collect buildings that are notable in themselves, the city is not known for having tall buildings, and there is a lot of precedence for deleting this 2000s-early-2010s-type of Wikipedia content. Geschichte (talk) 06:49, 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.
Comment: The article is a stub, but notability is also not based on what sources are currently there. Here's *some* coverage (though I'm also not sure whether it needs an article):
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.
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.
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: [7], [8]. 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.