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.
Article that was previously soft-deleted at AFD due to limited participation, and was then WP:REFUNDed following a request by its creator, but has not actually seen any further improvement to actually address the reasons why it was deleted in the first place: it's still not properly referenced as passing Wikipedia inclusion criteria for this type of topic. Things like this might be valid article topics if they were well-referenced, but are not "inherently" notable just because they exist -- but except for one "article" (really just a reprint of a press release) in Canadian Architect magazine, this is otherwise still referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as content self-published by the city and content self-published by the Ontario Association of Architects, with not a single new source having been added since the refund to strengthen its notability at all. We already have articles about many of the individual buildings involved here, which can already cover off virtually any content we would actually need about this, but the "master plan" itself would need much better sourcing than this to become notable enough for its own standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, it never went anywhere... [1]. I can confirm the Superstack is being torn down (I have family in Sudbury, so hear about it from time to time), but this "master plan" was really only ever a big idea. Downtown still looks exactly the same as it did before the Plan happened, and nothing has happened since it was "dusted off" in the article above. If you want to add a few lines to the main Sudbury article, that's fine... Ten plus years on, this thing never happened, so I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already at AFD before, not eligible for Soft Deletion again. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!17:36, 18 December 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 technology writer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for writers. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their work exists, and have to pass certain concrete benchmarks of significance (noteworthy awards, third-party attention by critics and reviewers, evidence of their work having had a verifiable impact on the field they write about, etc.) supported by third-party reliable sources independent of themselves -- but the only notability claim in evidence here is that she exists, and the article is referenced almost entirely to primary sources (staff profiles, directory entries, her own writing metaverifying its own existence, podcast interviews, etc.) that are not support for notability, with just one footnote (#10, "Silicon Republic") that represents an independent source writing about her. And while it's questionable as to whether even that counts as a WP:GNG-worthy source at all, one hit of RS coverage isn't enough all by itself even if we do give it the benefit of the doubt. It also warrants note that the article has been tagged for suspected WP:AUTOBIO editing by the subject herself. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No help with AUTHOR notability, this was the only sort of a review [3] and she's only written a chapter for the book. No book reviews, no articles that aren't written by the subject. I don't see a notability pass here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 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: I couldn't find much of anything in Canadian media about this person; certainly a local legend, but that's about where it stays I suppose. Not enough coverage to have a wikipedia article. Oaktree b (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Last comment in the prior AfD wanted time to analyze the thousands of hits that came up in the newspaper archive, none of which were ever added here. Leading me to believe that this is not a notable individual for our purposes. The article has stayed pretty much the same when you look at the history back to 2018; having a prize at the local schoolboard is nothing notable here, the Blues Society prize would be too local for notability as well. Oaktree b (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't have newspapers.com access at the time of the first discussion, so I couldn't review what the final commenter claimed to have seen, but I do have that access now — so I can confirm that once the search is sufficiently constrained to ensure that you're only hitting Brian Murphy the CHEZ-FM radio host from Ottawa and not other unrelated Brian Murphys, it consists predominantly of radio program schedule listings, which aren't support for notability, and what there is for substantive WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him doesn't surpass the purely local at all, and doesn't really add up to enough to make him markedly more notable than other local radio personalities who don't have articles. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 11 December 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 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 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.
Does not meet notability requirements. There is nothing in the article to establish notability of this student newspaper, and there is no coverage in non-local sources. Note that The Lance published its last newspaper issue in 2019. The official website (which was updated in a 2020 edit) is for a student news blog with the same name. Johnj1995 (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for a Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!07:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Windsor. This is an old holdover from a different time in Wikipedia history, when media outlets were basically handed automatic presumptions of notability, regardless of sourcing, so long as their existence was verifiable — but that's long since been tightened up, so that a media outlet now has to be able to pass WP:GNG on coverage about it. But per WP:STUDENTMEDIA, university and college media outlets which are deemed non-notable should always be retained as redirects to the schools that they serve. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Biography of a recently deceased writer and activist, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for writers or activists. As written, this is based entirely on primary sources (the self-published websites of non-media organizations and people whom he was directly connected with) that are not support for notability, with not even one reliable or WP:GNG-worthy source shown at all -- but even on a WP:BEFORE search for better sources, I just haven't found anything of use: Google's just turning up the same primary sourcing, while ProQuest is giving me a mixture of accidental text matches on other unrelated Tony Clarkes and hits where this one is briefly namechecked as a provider of soundbite in an article about something else (which also isn't support for notability), but no discernible evidence of coverage about this Tony Clarke. I'm sure he was a lovely man, but Wikipedia is not here to memorialize people who can't be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability, and I just can't find the sourcing to get him over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. With a little effort, many media reports about Mr. Clarke and reviews of his books can be found. He was an important figure in Canadian political analysis and activism for several decades. At least wait for the reactions to his passing to decide whether or not he deserves to be included in Wikipedia. 173.206.73.235 (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Reactions" to a person's passing aren't necessarily WP:GNG builders in and of themselves. We would need to see journalist-written news articles about his life and work and death in real WP:GNG-worthy media, not things people might say about it on Facebook or Xitter or Bluesky or death notices from the newspaper classifieds.
Also interesting how you say many media reports about him and his work can be found "with a little effort", except that you didn't actually undertake any effort to show any of that, while I did undertake some effort and actually found a lot less than you claim. It's not enough to simply assert that more GNG-worthy media coverage existed than anybody's been arsed to actually cite — you have to actually prove that by actually showing specific examples of media coverage that's been overlooked (preferably by actually adding them to the article, but at minimum by listing specific examples here). Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I don’t see any obituaries in mainstream sources or even Sierra Club. Please ping me if something bigger is published. Bearian (talk) 02:55, 7 December 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.
Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. Looked at all of the references and could not find even one near-GNG source. Using the reference numbers circa this post, #1: entry on a list of products. #3, #9, #12, #13, #18.. info by a trade organization which they are a member of, and info looks like self-written PR material. #4, #5 announcements of a personnel appointment, 6 writeup and award by a company who is a supplier to Fabuwood, #7 & #8 real estate announcements, #10 dead link, info about an event which mentions them as a sponsor, #14 #15, #16, #17 product reviews, mostly by people who sell their products. Tagged by others as promotional since February and for notability since October. North8000 (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. If you are going to argue that some sources are reliable, please identify the ones you believe are, especially if other participants disagree with your assessment. Be specific. LizRead!Talk!02:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article about unnotable 10-year old canadian web series which has no significant coverage from media. All sources in this article are just brief mentions of this show and do not prove its notability. Please do not be confused with Pop Team Epic, it is a completely unrelated series. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 10:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only bring up Pop Team Epic, which is a different thing than this. Sourcing used now in the article are blogs, imdb and other non-RS. Delete for a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see a few sources that are independent and significant coverage including critical appraisal and they were published in reliable media. -Mushy Yank. 21:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 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.
An unnotable ghost town in British Columbia. The sources in this article are broken. I was unable to find anything about it online. There is currently no evidence of it existing, and even if it does exist, it is not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article description doesn't make any sense. This is Lodi lake - there is no Ahbou lake near it. There is an Ahbau lake about 7km south of it, but not "the other side of a road". There is also no sign of any settlement near Lodi Lake. Unless there's some explanation (am I looking in the wrong place?) I'm leaning delete on this. FOARP (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:V in addition to WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND. The cited location is too vague to verify, and I can't find any other information besides the cited source. BTW, the citation is mangled; this appears to be the book cited, and it seems to be self-published. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:18, 5 December 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.
"Football" player? Clearly you did your research before nominating this article! Anyway, after a quick google search, it seems there are RS for him. He also played in two Olympics, which helps. So I vote keep-- Earl Andrew - talk14:26, 5 December 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.
Relies almost entirely on primary sources and almost no indication of notability. It is worth mentioning that this is the second nomination of this page for deletion. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Relies entirely on primary sources (mainly Bandcamp links) that cannot establish notability per WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources demonstrating broader impact or recognition in the music industry. A catalog of releases alone does not establish notability for a record label. Madeleine961 (talk) 21:49, 5 December 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 see 3 reliable sources (1. BC government, 2. IB, and 8. sports), although whether those are significant coverage is debatable. Please convince me one way or the other. Bearian (talk) 07:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - found a couple of sources covering this school. Here's a couple of examples:
Dress code controversy at school in 2021 - 123 from CityNews Vancouver
I was not aware of this "usual thing" about merge/redirect, I am not editing schools, I have no recollection how this one caught my eye. Redirecting looks reasonable to me. --Altenmann>talk17:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is one excellent source (Coleman & Love, 2004), which has a portrait of a principal, Hoberly Hove, under heading "Succeeding with Diversity". The piece discusses the school at length from pages 59-66. We need multiple sources, but this is very definitely one. I am !voting keep, because I believe more sources are likely, but would suggest that until more are demonstrated, there is an IAR aspect to this !vote.
The 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 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 sources are vetted and from the Indian government (2 articles), neutral sources (1 article) or press (2 articles).
Beyond the article,
I moved the page to article, ghostofdangurrey moved it to draft, I removed an uncited sentence and moved it to article (which I assumed was the best way to work based on the details from the help articles). While I understand if there is room for improvement, gatekeeping editing and using words like move-warred (when I apologized for moving it following a comment), is an interesting way to moderate. Researchmoreorless (talk) 12:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I feel like Detective Columbo right now. Wait, what was that last thing? Covering up an international assassination plot and getting you and your cute family deported and expelled from a country famous for its super nice diplomatic culture? I think that’s more than BLP1E. This is the stuff of which procedurals are made. Bearian (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC) I would not oppose a murder merger to Canada–India diplomatic row. Bearian (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Arguments for deletion carried more weight, P&G-wise, and were more numerous than the mostly weak arguments for retention. Calls to "Userspace draftify", which I interpreted as Userfy, were not supported by an offer from any user to improve the article, and in any case would be better handled as a regular draft. I also saw no valid basis for the call to salt the page. Owen×☎18:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
I say keep. While I agree the article could be improved, I think there are enough sources currently including news coverage and a PLOS ONE study that demonstrate some notability. Since it has significant coverage from independent sources, I don't see how deletion would be warranted under WP:GNGUrchincrawler (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Ground News is trying to fill an important function for us, there is always controversy about the news, bias in the media, pollution of the discussion. Let's not be excessively critical of this organization for their imperfections, we can all post comments throughout the unsociable media and call attention to places where we see room for improvement. If this article needs more sources, let's find some, not throw away what we have now. Bartimas2 (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC) — Bartimas2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Please write in your own words why you'd like the article kept; first edit ever is to an AfD so it's likely definite this is not your first rodeo here. Nate•(chatter)21:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable news aggregator; doesn't offer any coverage of its own and the sources read as PR rather than examining the product neutrally. Nate•(chatter)21:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the service goal is valuable, they have a unique methodology. Methodologies can always be flawed and enough information and articles exist on them already. It is an actively changing news aggregation source and is worth watching. Fxober (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay, now type out a rationale in your own words, not whatever Gemini or Co-Pilot wrote for you. This is not a sentence written by a human, and I suspect by this account's past contributions that the creator is no longer controlling it. Nate•(chatter)21:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: So basically, 2 people here who said keep (Sal2100, and Urchincrawler) made some good points over the fact that there's enough reliable sources (per WP:RS) and coverage to make it clear it was/is able to be to pass WP:GNG and therefore is able to be kept. Now is there stuff to improve in the article? Yes, there are stuff to improve on, but my opinion here still has some credibility. mer764KC / Cospaw⛲️ (He/Him | 💬Talk! • 📦Contributions) 21:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.WP:NCORP applies to this page, so the bar is a little bit higher than just passing GNG (and even if it wasn't, I'm still not convinced that this page would pass GNG). This source [14] is reliable and covers the subject in some depth. This other one [15] discusses Ground News among multiple other products/companies, but it doesn't focus on it enough in order to indicate that it is notable (WP:ORGTRIV). This one [16] sounds exceedingly promotional, which is especially suspicious because this website has a big demographic of technology-interested potential customers for the product that Ground News is offering, it seems to fail WP:ORGIND. Badbluebus (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will say that I see WP:ORGIND as being a bit perplexing as there's no evidence I can find of a corporate relationship between these two companies. However DigitalTrend looks like churnalism to me so I'd rate its reliability low anyway. Especially for establishing notability. Simonm223 (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to Keep per two citations found byCharlieMehta below Talk toSageGreenRider 15:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC) Delete It seems like an interesting startup but I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON unfortunately. (If the decision is delete, and if the original contributor doesn't speak up and/or claim it, can someone WP:USERFY it into my sandbox? I'll check on new refs periodically. It is a good starting point if more sourcing appears in future.) Talk toSageGreenRider23:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Badbluebus. Fails NCORP and corresponding article is promotional like the press releases and other WP:DEPENDENTCOVERAGE it cites from. Of note, users voting Keep should probably be discarded if they do not provide a useful policy-focused decision. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*Ping@DV79, do you want to move it to your sandbox?
Draftify Delete and salt. Until more reliable sources are found, the notability is not enough for now. Better just wait for half a decade. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does this meet WP:NCORP? Only one could be construed as addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth and its independence is questionable (I worked with Ground News to implement this experiment ... Ground News was not involved in the analysis of these data, but has had the chance to review this manuscript to ensure that their products and business are accurately described.). WP:MULTSOURCES says A single significant independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization.CFA15:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think these sources will do for an article where WP:NCORP applies. The National Press article is mostly people associated with the company talking about it, not very independent. And the same applies to the IEEE interview. Badbluebus (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest not deleting the article about "Ground News" because my 15 minutes of online research just now found 3 articles, in reliable sources, with more than tangential coverage of the topic:
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.
Neutral - old edit -COI hasn't been discussed on the talk page, as the COI box suggests should happen. Late edit - it has been discussed as I hadn't looked in the archives. Almost all of the refs are self referential, and as discussed in the archive the trade mag article is just a rehash of the company's PR. 21:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Speedy keep with WP:NPASR. No valid deletion rationale has been offered, nor has evidence of a WP:BEFORE been provided. There is no reason provided why any COI that may be present cannot be addressed editorially. The WP:WEBHOST policy primarily applies to userspace and is thus not a rationale for deletion, and WP:COIEDIT is not a reason for deletion since such edits are not prohibited (just strongly discouraged). I would encourage the nominator to renominate with a valid rationale and evidence of a BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Ref. 2 is significant, independent coverage. I'm having a hard time finding more but I assume more must be out there since the company has won some innovation awards. If kept, the article needs to be radically chopped, since it's almost all sourced to press releases and passing mentions. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with above; this entire article, at least as an outsider, reads like an advertisement. I find it hard to believe it passes WP:ORGCRIT; even if one source contains significant independent coverage, ORGCRIT requires multiple. To me it doesn't seem like it could be significantly improved even in the future. Beachweak(talk)09:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but I could also go the other way. I removed a lot of the non-independent sources and much of the "products" area. There are still two sections that are un-sourced (History and Robot manipulators). The main thing in favor of this article is the development of Bixi, which appears to be significant. However, the links here re Bixi do not mention Robotics Design. I found one newspaper article with a mention that attributes this company to Bixi, and a few other very brief mentions. Since this is a Canadian company perhaps someone has better access to Canadian sources (which you would think we would find alongside the US ones, but that doesn't seem to be the case.) The other products have some decent sources. Lamona (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, unsourced content in corporate COI articles should be exterminated without mercy. I have removed all (tagged) unsourced content accordingly. Toadspike[Talk]08:23, 18 December 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:BLP1E. This person is only notable for his 9-month imprisonment by the Turkish government, the news coverage of him mostly starts and ends within that period. Being one of about one hundred political prisoners caught in a government crackdown in a country that has been experiencing a democratic backsliding for over ten years now is not a very solid claim of notability. Badbluebus (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not sure getting arrested for your beliefs is notable. Certainly doesn't meet academic notability. Coverage is about the arrest, but I don't think that's enough for an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I notice there is some book coverage in google books by some major academic presses. For example: [17], [18], [19] The diversity of the sources and prolonged coverage over a couple years suggests that the arrest, imprisonment, and release of Cihan Erdal would pass WP:NEVENT. Perhaps repurpose this an event page instead of a WP:BLP?4meter4 (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that these sources are enough. Erdal was cited as a contributor in the second source, so it's no independent. He is also cited in the "acknowledgments" section of the third source, so the same thing applies. The first source appears to mention him only very briefly. Badbluebus (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Source eval for the newly found ones would be appreciated. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:56, 1 December 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.
