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:
KEEP - Wikipedia has numerous articles on wildlife rescue, rehabilitation and and preservation. Whole categories of such articles, in fact. Suggesting these articles, any of them, are created for promotion is uninformed. And saying the author has a vested interest in the subject is equally misguided. If you believe you have evidence of such, than link it, don't just toss accusations around.
— Maile (
talk)
21:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:BLP of a crypto entrepreneur, not
properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for businesspeople. As always, CEOs of companies are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to establish that they pass
WP:GNG on third-party coverage and analysis about them and their work -- but five of the eight footnotes here are
primary sources that are not support for notability, such as his own company's press releases and his own self-created YouTube videos and a "staff" profile on the self-published website of an organization he's directly affiliated with, and one more is an unreliable source crypto-news forum. And what's left for reliable sources is one Forbes article that just briefly namechecks him as a provider of soundbite and one Forbes article that completely fails to contain even a glancing namecheck of Peter Wall at all, and instead is just here to tangentially verify stray facts about a company. As always, Wikipedia is not a free LinkedIn alternative for tech entrepreneurs, so nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this.
Bearcat (
talk)
12:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I complete understand your reservations about Peter Wall, and it was never my intention to sound like a Linkedin profile. Maybe I did not do due negligence when sourcing my references but the entire of the article was becuase he is a notable man both in Canadian media and in bitcoin. Can I nominate that we move the article to a draft while I source for other sources which do exist on the individual concerned and am sure when you searched online you will find that Peter Wall is extensively covered.
LynnEditor.Nam (
talk)
14:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Historical nonsense moved disruptively to mainspacecreated by a paid contributor first, and then moved to mainspace a second time by an editor who should know better, who was informed about the scientific nonsense, and moved it into the mainspace without even tagging it. Highly irresponsible. Should be moved back to draftspace and completely checked and rewritten to be based on actual science.
Fram (
talk)
10:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It was first moved to mainspace by AfC reviewer
Garsh2, who as far as I can tell is not a paid editor. And to be clear, the content you object to is the "claims of 13th c. Bretons in Canada" (from your edit summary)? –
Joe (
talk)
13:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks, I meant "proposed for the mainspace", I have struck and corrected. And I object to that, to the prehistory section which is very lengthy to end with, paraphrased, "but for none of this is there any evidence from Caraquet", and to the whole of the article, which seems to need thorough, thorough checking. For example, there are two sections with "1711" in the header. There is no mention of 1711 anywhere else... Source 2 is used 8 times to verify claims. Source 2 is
this, and the description of the source in the article doesn't help. So this is an unusable source. The article is also extremely outdated and seems to be written in 2008(!), with a 2007 source for "There are still rumors of a complete reopening" of the hospital, or "By the end of the year, they plan to build a $15 million, 9,000 m2 appliance recycling plant. " (about 2008). Other "current" parts are also a decade out of date apparently, e.g. "The current city council was elected in the May 14, 2012, quadrennial election." The section header there, "21st century: between disappointment and hope" is a NPOV failure. Spot checking other sources, I get "Mentioned in the Vinland article on Wikipedia. This information seems to come from the book The Norse Atlantic Sagas, by Gwyn Jones (To be verified)." and many no longer available sources (due to the age of the original article)
[1] or unidentifiable sources ("Coup d'œil 2001-05-31 (in French)."), which seems to indicate that the paid translator has not checked any information or sources but blindly copied what was there. When spot checking reveals so many issues, the whole article needs thorough checking before being acceptable for the mainspace. Whether until then it is draftified, stubbified, deleted, ... can be decided here.
Fram (
talk)
14:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I will interject that I am indeed not a paid editor. I did not quite realize the nature of this article at the time and apologize for the mistake. I now understand to look out for this in future reviews.
Garsh (
talk)
15:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If some parts of the article are poorly sourced or contested, why not just delete these rather than the whole article?
7804j (
talk)
06:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Article is just directly translated from the French article. I’m certain that it can be re-created manually so that information is properly sourced, cited, and verified. B3251(talk)23:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, if not draftified. It should probably have been left in draft, but since it is in the mainspace, keeping it seems dubious. "A giant's skeleton was discovered near the lighthouse on Caraquet Island in 1893 by the keeper's son" is not mainspace material, and does not give me confidence in the rest of the text. Lots looks like it might be plausible, but it definitely needs checking and many sources are not immediately accessible.
CMD (
talk)
08:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
...in French. So what you're basically saying is that editors aren't allowed to translate articles from other Wikipedias unless they also fix all outstanding problems with that article? I don't think there's any policy support for that. –
Joe (
talk)
12:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't know which parts are verifiable, I have not checked the sources. If you have, please note the verified parts so the rest can be cleaned up.
CMD (
talk)
16:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. The topic is clearly notable. All the problems brought up so far can be addressed through regular editing and last I checked
WP:PRESERVE is still a policy. Most of the article is fine and certainly a lot better that what we had on this topic on enwiki before (
Caraquet#History – much less and detailed almost completely unreferenced). Draftspace is optional and I don't see how moving it there is going to make it any more likely that these problems are fixed. Deleting it obviously won't. –
Joe (
talk)
09:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Would the Canadian Border Control as a source do the trick? It may be a small article but if you could find a source, it might not be worth deleting.
JustAPoliticsNerd (
talk)
03:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Sourcing doesn't really matter as long as the content can be easily merged to the border crossing article: there's no reason to split it into one article for each side of the crossing, and another for the crossing itself. It just splits the sources.
Mrfoogles (
talk)
07:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm glad you also included the information at
Moyie River, but I don't think this should be included here or that it justifies this article. This is not significant coverage, it just identifies the place, which is the border crossing area. They have
199 locations where water was tested, and this primary source data isn't the sort of thing that belongs in the articles of each sampling site. The border crossing article should certainly mention it's along the river though.
Reywas92Talk15:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The article contains one reference, which is not from an independent source. The subject of the article does not appear to be notable.
PercyPigUK (
talk)
18:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The article contains one reference which is not from an independent source. The subject of the article does not appear to be notable.
PercyPigUK (
talk)
17:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment we can agree that
Jonathan Pageau is not world famous. At all. However within a specialist sphere of religious communities interested in orthodox and catholic art, as seen by treatments in various religious journals, the artist has received significant coverage. Hence the artist's thought and work is discussed in the following reliable sources:
And there are also primary sources that have been used in the current iteration of the article, but they are not needed to establish notability, rather they seem to be used for descriptive statements of facts. I believe from the above sources that it's established the subject is notable, albeit within a very particular field of endeavour.
MatthewDalhousie (
talk)
01:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
One perspective is clear: while Pageau's outlook is primarily religious, much of what he has done is applicable to secular art as well. It is erroneous to characterize his impact as only 'religious' (personally, I find such characterization as typical of the non-NPOV shown by people hostile to religion).
I found the concluding pages of his Snow White and the Widow Queen - a non-religious text, I might add - to be clever and original. More books in this series of fairy tales are still to be published.
Yes, I can see where people might conclude that
WP:TOOSOON might apply, but he already has a substantial published body of work - well, more substantial than my four unpublished books (ha!). Also, he has been interviewed over and over by and collaborated with people judged to be notable such as
Jordan Peterson,
Robert Barron,
Paul Kingsnorth, and
Gavin Ashenden: they think he is notable.
I think it comes down to: do YouTube videos count as much as printed material? If so, then Jonathan Pageau IS notable, despite the fact that the sources are primary and not secondary. Again, personally I find him to be far more notable than many others.
Tfdavisatsnetnet (
talk)
04:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Don't think you need to point youtube videos. More relevant to point to places where known thinkers are writing about Jonathan Pageau, which certainly includes:
An update I did a comb through the article today, and removed material from the Orthodox Arts Journal as the subject is a member of the editorial team. Turns out everything from that source was found in better sources, which I've now added. So, the article now leans on:
'
The American Conservative', particularly its article "Portrait of the Artist as Iconographer: Searching for meaning in the postmodern wasteland" by Bradley Anderson
The journal, 'Modern Age' and its piece from 2022 by Grayson Quay, "The Perils of Re-Enchantment: Beyond the end of materialism, G.K. Chesterton and Darren Aronofsky see nightmares: Modern Age".
Acknowledging that that secondary sources like the above are what we use to settle
WP:GNG I believe we now have the sources required, following the outline in such as are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject, as per
WP:BASIC. When it comes to primary sources, following the guidance, only a few have been used and only with regards straightforward statements of facts, these include
In short, revisions and edits are concluded for now and I submit the article has been improved and reasonable concerns about the notability of the subject have been addressed.
MatthewDalhousie (
talk)
06:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Having become well aware of Pageau through both the religious and public intellectual worlds and watched/listened to him on various platforms, I am very surprised that this article is marked for possible deletion. The article itself and the discussion above show that there are numerous reliable sources establishing notability. This article should definitely exist, and of course it can always be improved, as all articles can be!
Alex IslaCara (
talk)
17:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm just a casual Wikipedia reader and was surprised as well. Never heard of this individual until yesterday and I didn't want to immediately launch into his YouTube videos, so I'm glad there was a Wikipedia page I could read. Please don't delete it.
2600:8800:49B:7800:3418:2EA0:3C86:BCCC (
talk)
21:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep given the subject's notability is established by wide coverage. On top of being discussed in specialist journal articles (such as 'Modern Age') Pageau has received coverage in reliable sources
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
herehere and
here.
MatthewDalhousie (
talk)
Keep - Just because the references are from niche publications, does not diminish them from going towards GNG, which this person meets.
Onel5969TT me10:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - Jonathan Pageau is the only Orthodox icon carver in Canada, and he's received significant coverage for that in reliable publications such as the
Catholic Art Institute , where he was featured artist. Other than being a distinguished artist, he also is active in teaching iconography and the methodology of Orthodox art, by appearing in important religious organizations such as the Institute of Sacred Arts of the
St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary. Because this is reported, the subject is notable.
MariaMKorn (
talk)
This fails
WP:NORG all sources primary, or simply statistical in nature there is no indication this was ever notable and they sure aren't now since being deregistered.
McMatter(
talk)/(
contrib)03:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Another referral from
WP:BLPN. This article is a product of
original research and synthesis. As titled, this concept or topic is not a phenomenon covered as such within multiple
reliable sources. This is an agglomeration of scandals of merely topical relation (to a non-notable topic). As an additional consideration, the
WP:BLP-applicable contents have been and stand to remain consistently problematic. A list article would stand a better chance, but most of the scandals covered here are not independently notable.
JFHJr (
㊟)
01:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
How are scandals that involve serious breaches of public trust on multiple occasions (e.g. Dalhousie Dentistry scandal, multiple privacy breaches) and 6-7 figure lawsuit payouts not notable? One of the bullying scandals even led the victim to making a TEDx talk about workplace bullying:
If the title needs to be changed, that's one thing. Or making it a "list article", whatever that means. But I don't agree that the scandals are not independently notable. And they are related - several of them raise that there are systemic issues that recur, for example:
And others as referenced. Feel free to read the original news articles in detail, if I perhaps did not summarize them well, but I definitely see them pointing to systemic issues repeatedly - the articles themselves, not me as doing "original research and synthesis".
As a new editor on Wikipedia, getting excited about making an article about all the medical scandals in our province and the toxic workplace issues that we all hear about the medical system all the time, and being shut down quite harshly repeatedly instead of welcomed and kindly shown how to refine things, I am so demoralized that I'm frankly just done with editing. No point if this is what this community is like.
Delete Hello MrHaligonian, and welcome. You, me and everyone else are compelled by the
rules of the project. Some of these scandals may be
notable in and of themselves, but creating an article listing them all under a common banner is a form of
synthesis called
original research, which is disallowed.
Draken Bowser (
talk)
08:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep because we have an editor willing to Split it into two My knee-jerk reaction is that this is probably notable enough to keep. Now to read with care... Okay, the main complaint is OR, right? The first two sources cited look RS at first blush, but they do not actually state the information they're cited to support. The source has to say the thing! Continuing...
Darkfrog24 (
talk) 21:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC) Okay, I did a source sampler on the article talk page. I propose that we Refocus the article to "Medical professional scandals at Dalhousie University": 1) The article's sources are mostly RS, but I did not see any that said "We're talking about the specific concept of medical professional scandals in Nova Scotia." The claims made in the lede that NS has a pervasive culture of harassment need to be backed up by sources that say exactly that or almost exactly that, and the sources just don't say that. 2) A big chunk of the article focuses on scandals that happened at Dalhousie University specifically and almost all of the statements made by sources do support what happened there. A few explore why in good detail. The case can be made for notability. I say we snip off that section at the bottom about the health service and repurpose these editors' hard work as a DU article. I didn't go into as much depth on the sources covering the Health Authority, but if the sources are of the same quality, then we could
WP:CONTENTSPLIT the article in two.
Darkfrog24 (
talk)
21:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you so much for taking the time to read the sources and come up with a creative idea that allows my hard work to be kept. I agree with you that it's mostly Dalhousie University problems, because as far as I can tell, everything that happened at Nova Scotia Health Authority also happened at Dalhousie University as all were employed as trainees (medical students, residents, fellows) at Dalhousie, or they were doing research there. The only part that has nothing to do with Dalhousie is the part about repeated privacy breaches, as the news media only says it was healthcare professionals looking at hundreds of records that they weren't authorized to, and the lawsuit had NSHA pay out $1 million with a new lawsuit & allegations of negligence as of last month. I would be good with having the majority of the sources moved into a Dalhousie University article by someone who knows how to write this better/quote the sources better (maybe you, Darkfrog24) and I don't know what to do with the NSHA-only parts.
For the record, I originally had another section on private practice scandals that someone felt violates BLP so it was removed. That further pigeonholes this article into being mostly about Dalhousie and less about the whole of Nova Scotia.
MrHaligonian (
talk)
12:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
as far as I can tell,
There's your kicker. It's not about what you can tell or what I can tell. It's about what professionally published sources can tell. The article has sources that say "medical scandals are a specific thing in Dalhousie" and "medical scandals are a specific thing in the Health Authority," but it's
WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH to add that together as yourself-the-Wikieditor and say "therefore they're a thing in Nova Scotia." Even if you are a professional investigator of this specific issue IRL, you have to wait for a pro to publish. That's true throughout project Wiki: Chemists aren't allowed to write chemistry articles without sources even though they're experts. Historians aren't allowed to write history articles without sources even though they're experts. We all need sources, and those sources have to say the thing that the article says or strongly implies.
The kind of source you'd need for "Medical professional misconduct scandals in Nova Scotia" would be something like a newspaper article analyzing multiple scandals and talking about what it is about Nova Scotia specifically that made them happen or made them happen the way they did.
Darkfrog24 (
talk)
20:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Ah I see, thank you. It is possible such an article exists and I just haven't found it yet. I did find, in another search, 4 more articles about serious scandals in Nova Scotia Health Authority. So this would provide more material for an NSHA article if we were to proceed with splitting a Dalhousie University medical scandals article off from an NSHA article:
I think the entirety of my article up to, and NOT including, my last paragraph about privacy breaches, can be transitioned to a DU-specific article, since everyone in the paragraphs above the NSHA privacy breaches were training or doing research at DU and DU is therefore significantly involved even if NSHA ended up being the one getting sued. For example, the Dr. Horne case involved her doing research at DU and older colleagues demanded to receive undue credit on her research, which is very much a DU culture problem, but NSHA suspended her privileges so it was NSHA that got sued. The fact of toxic culture issues at DU remain in that case though, along with all the other cases where DU was involved. I am actually now starting to realize that the toxic culture issues are primarily a DU problem, and NSHA problems are of a different nature entirely, more along the lines of disregard for privacy and medical mistakes, rather than being a "toxic workplace" issue. My goal with this article was to primarily comment on toxic workplace issues because that's what we constantly hear about from medical professionals in this province.
So I'm thinking to split the articles into 2:
1. Dalhousie University Medical Scandals (or some such name to refer to the toxic workplace issues that repeatedly recur) and
As this relates to article deletion, I think we can all take this as evidence that there is a Wikieditor willing to do the legwork.
Darkfrog24 (
talk)
00:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Split into two I don't know if I can vote on my own article, but of course I vote to keep it. If it helps, I understand the opening sentences were seen as "synthesis", so I took the feedback from Darkfrog24 that the sources have to specifically say the thing, and I reworded the opening to specifically say the thing. Also noting Dalhousie University is the largest university in the Maritimes (covering 3 provinces - NB, PEI, NS) and that would add to the notability. It's also one of the oldest universities in Canada, though I didn't add that because I am not sure if that makes any difference.
MrHaligonian (
talk) 20:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC) • Note: Double vote stricken by de-bolding in favor of newest vote.
JFHJr (
㊟)
02:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I also wonder how to make it a "list article", so that it's basically a summarized list of all the scandals, instead of "original research" and "synthesis". I don't know what the criteria are for making it a list. As it stands now, with the opening sentences revised, I feel like this is just a list of scandals at Dalhousie, and a list of scandals at the provincial health authority, and both of those fall under the realm of "Nova Scotia". If it's considered "synthesis" to combine them in 1 then I understand the content split argument, though the 2 articles separated would be basically stubs, and also there is considerable overlap between the two as it's not possible for someone to be a medical trainee at Dalhousie without also being a Nova Scotia Health Authority employee, and most NSHA employees involved in the scandals were also training or doing research at Dalhousie. But the privacy breach scandals with a $1million class action lawsuit payout and a new class action lawsuit pending seem to have no link to Dalhousie. This is why I think it's good to have them both together under 1 article, but if it is "synthesis" to identify that Dalhousie and NSHA together fall under the umbrella of Nova Scotia, then I guess splitting is the only option...
MrHaligonian (
talk)
20:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
A list article requires discrete events to list that have articles (are
independently notable by
themselves). They generally stand in the same
WP:CATEGORY in some way. It substitutes for a genre-type article where no source (presently) supports one. What we have here is an article that's knitting together topics from apparently one or more discrete categories without the IRL support for tying them together. Completely unsarcastically,
MrHaligonian would be a great journalist, and I bet local publishers would publish a synthesis like this. It's okay for them to do that, just not us. It takes three or more willing publishers though, so perhaps save this article's raw code locally and bring this to media attention if you care about the issue. FYI I usually ravage BLP related articles especially, either before or during AfD, but I didn't here in case you wanted to
sandbox or
WP:DRAFT this. Cheers.
JFHJr (
㊟)
03:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the explanation and the compliment. We did end up removing the BLP-related private practice one and I haven't brought it back in. The scandals listed in the article now are less about living people and more about the institutions. The living people are just being quoted/mentioned, very similar to the source material and not synthesizing them. If you're going to ravage this at some point, please compare with the original articles and be gentle. The point I was trying to get across was what the institutional/cultural problems are, not biographing living people. There is a lot more to say about Dr. Gabrielle Horne per information about her online, but I'm not biographing her and just included the news article information about how DU/NSHA did her dirty.
MrHaligonian (
talk)
21:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'll wait for this AFD to take its course before considering offering a scalpel or cleaver. Thank you for your efforts in addressing the BLP concerns. Cheers.
JFHJr (
㊟)
01:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
You're totally allowed to vote. You're what we call the "first major contributor" to the article. That means you get to set a few precedents for the article going forward, but other than that it's not treated as yours per se. (So you get to vote and aren't treated as inherently biased just for having made said contribution.) I like to think of it as as soon as I hit "publish changes," I've given the content to the Wiki as a present.
Darkfrog24 (
talk)
20:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Your vote is allowed, welcomed, and reasoned (which is important, thank you!). You can also change it if you want, or add a "Strong" or "Weak" if you're feeling so. Decisions here are ultimately by
WP:CONSENSUS, so generally comments and votes here get considered according to what you say and not who you are. Deletion is a drastic question but we aren't drastic about it I hope.
JFHJr (
㊟)
04:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as I don't see a consensus. The closing options in AFD are limited to Keep, Delete, Redirect, Merge or No consensus. This can't be closed with an order to Split this article as editing is voluntary and a closer can't order an editing task to occur. So, if this article is to be Split, you first have to vote to Keep it. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep or Redirect Based on the above discussion, I suggest we keep this with a plan to split into two: Dalhousie University having their own page on their medical scandals, and redirect the NSHA-specific
redirect pages to
Nova Scotia Health Authority by copy & pasting the small section on NSHA scandals into a new small section on scandals at the bottom of that existing
Nova Scotia Health Authority article. Alternatively, if it's not felt that Dalhousie University Medical Scandals should be its own page, then the same can be done with the DU scandal material by copy & pasting that section into the bottom of the
Dalhousie University Faculty of Medicine article as a new scandals section - which may work out better if JFHJr will continue with the threat to take a "scalpel or cleaver" to the material and thus shorten it significantly. Note that if removing BLP-related content, please try to maintain as much of the scandal-related material as possible, even if removing names of the people involved. The only hitch on this is that the Dalhousie Dentistry scandal, while technically falling under the umbrella of a "medical" scandal, is its own faculty separate from the Faculty of Medicine (it's the Faculty of Dentistry) so if all of that is being redirected to
Dalhousie University Faculty of Medicine then some rewording would be necessary to point out how the Faculty of Dentistry scandal is closely related but from a separate faculty that appears to not have their own Wiki page. --
MrHaligonian (
talk)
16:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Heads up, you've made it look like you voted twice. That's not that big of a deal since both statements are signed, but this paragraph belongs in the thread with your original post, right under J's comment about not being drastic. This way, people reading the thread quickly won't mistake you for two people. (Feel free to remove this statement of mine when you move this post.)
Darkfrog24 (
talk)
19:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The reason I voted again is because this was relisted because of no consensus. My original vote was skewed toward "split into two" and that is apparently not an option. Your vote was also "split into two" and I think they're saying that they want something that is either Keep, Delete, Redirect, Merge or No consensus. I get the sense that we should both remove our original votes and put a firm, allowed vote here below the relist? I removed my original "keep" and just left the incorrect "split into two" for the arguments there, but my final vote is Keep or Redirect with the material being split.
MrHaligonian (
talk)
22:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
MrHaligonian, you can't "vote" more than once. Please strike the vote you no longer have or another editor might strike out one of the votes on your behalf. It's better that you choose which one. LizRead!Talk!06:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
See where I went back and changed the bold text of my vote? Do that. You can make a crossout by writing "strike" in format like this: <strike>Split into two</strike> Keep. It's okay that it's located above the relist notice. People know to look for it there.
Darkfrog24 (
talk)
15:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
MrHaligonian: Relisting just means the voting period was prolonged. It doesn't mean we all (get/have to) vote again. AfD would be even more of a madhouse. If you don't do so yourself, I'm inclined to strike your first vote because your second one appears to be a somewhat substantive departure from your original vote, and appears intended as an update or refactoring. I'd like to have this discussion represent your position accurately but only once. Please revert me and strike tour second vote if I'm wrong.
JFHJr (
㊟)
02:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm going to bow out of editing on Wikipedia. If the ultimate decision is to keep or redirect, hopefully someone else will do it based on whatever the consensus is on the best way to move around the material! Ciao.
MrHaligonian (
talk)
22:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia can be frustrating and you're not the only person to decide that your time and energy are better spent elsewhere. Good luck and maybe see you later if you change your mind.
Darkfrog24 (
talk)
16:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: References don't appear to be accessible at all: the URLs just link to home pages. The titles do appear to indicate press releases on the most part, coming from
Cision, a public relations company.
Keep: The sources provided by BeanieFan11 are more than suitable for meeting the
WP:GNG, as they each provide in-depth coverage of the subject in reliable sources.
Let'srun (
talk)
14:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Not enough
WP:SIGCOV from reliable, independent sources to meet the
WP:GNG. There are recent articles about him being inducted in the HOF of his school, but that is mostly local coverage which is still not notable enough.
Prof.PMarini (
talk)
07:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No consensus yet. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per Dclemens. Some of the books linked go into a decent amount of detail. A non insignificant figure in Canadian white supremacist groups it seems.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
11:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete The author of this is a now-blocked sock puppet. The article has been here for 17 years, and only has 3 sentences. He doesn't even qualify as
WP:SINGLEEVENT. We know he participated in one event where a cross was burned, but gives no details. He could have been just a spectator - or anything - we are not told. Given that the article claims, "he led Aryan Nations's Canadian branch and staged a major rally and cross burning in Provost, Alberta", sourced details are needed here.
— Maile (
talk)
01:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Did you look at the sources I linked above? We aren't evaluating the condition of the current article but all sourcing that's available.
Dclemens1971 (
talk)
05:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Again, agree with Dclemens. Appears significant academic discussion of his role. Definitely seems notable and significant. Article should be improved with those sources, not deleted.
Flatthew (
talk)
16:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - The article is a mess. I believe the subject is probably notable, but I could make a case for good old TNT without prejudice towards recreation.
Carrite (
talk)
04:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, please review sources brought up in this discussion along with any in the article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete I disagree with some of the keeps; it doesn't meet
WP:GNG because none of the sources are reliable sources, and there's no significant coverage in any of them. The first mentions the subject, not what he's about, when he was born, what he did in his life, and none of that (which should be a common start in a Wikipedia article). The second one links you to a Google book without telling you what it's about. There is no significant coverage in sight in that link. The third source is not specific; it just points to a list of books without telling you what the subject is about, like all others. Based on what I've viewed with the links and research, there aren't enough sources to meet
WP:BLPS; since the person is living, precise sources are needed. Have a look at
WP:NPF and
WP:PROVEIT.
Normanhunter2 (
talk)
14:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Also, all of the links Dclemens1971 has sent are all broad, they don't really lead anywhere specifically and I think since this person is living, more precise sources are needed.
Normanhunter2 (
talk)
20:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. Source analysis, since no one else felt like doing it:
Atkins: This is an encyclopedia of the far right, contains a full length entry on Long. Describes him as "one of Canada's leading" far right figures.
That Wasn't The Plan, couldn't find a copy of this, but from the Google Books preview it seems to discuss Long in depth, going into his plans for racist groups in Alberta in some detail.
Perry & Scrivens seems to be passing mentions
Kinsella seems to have at least two pages of coverage on him on 135-136, as well as 158-159.
Bartley contains sigcov throughout the book, describing Long as a "huge benefit" to recruiters for the KKK, and generally his involvement in these circles.
I dont find these sources satisfy GNG, for a number of reasons. For example all of them are old and local, and the
project died decade ago. -
Altenmann>talk
please don't cherry-pick / red-herring: the nom was nn dead. Of course we have on plenty of out-of-business articles. A bit below I also replied why I think it does not satisfy GNG. -
Altenmann>talk22:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Defunct or not, I don't see this enterprise as meeting notability. The sourcing isn't helpful; an interview, a primary source and a non-Rs blog-type website. This is all I could find
[2], still lacking enough RS to cover this in order to get an article here.
Oaktree b (
talk)
20:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:MUSICBIO. No discography or chart activity, and no third-party independent coverage. Sources are all primary, consisting of promotional interviews, press releases, and subject's hometown publication (Ottawa Citizen).
💥Casualty• Hop along. •04:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: I created the article but I'll comment anyways. Meets
WP:BASIC. There are at least two in-depth Complex articles (
[3][4]) - Complex is a recommended source at
WP:A/S and is independent of the subject. There are many in-depth HipHopCanada articles (
[5][6][7][8][9][10][11]) which are independent of the subject. There are multiple in-depth HotNewHipHop sources (
[12][13][14][15][16] ) - HotNewHipHop is also a recommended source per
WP:A/S. This isn't including the many Ottawa Citizen articles which are all independent and reliable, or any of the interviews that add little additional commentary. Doesn't have to meet a SNG if it meets GNG/BASIC. I don't see how this is controversial. CFA💬21:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
A non-neutral tone is not a reason for deletion, though. It can be fixed through editing. I think it’s pretty clear the subject meets GNG, regardless of any SNGs that might apply. CFA💬10:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion by Clearfrienda that together shows significant coverage to pass
WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view,
Atlantic306 (
talk)
22:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply