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:
merge? It's on the national map, and it does appear to be claimed by the
Smith's Landing First Nation, and that is the entirety of what I could find other than some very minor data. At this point I think it makes the most sense for the list of reserves for this first nation to be converted into a table with data from the official Canadian sites, as there's not really enough on any of them to make a separate article that I can see.
Mangoe (
talk)
06:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Has an entry in a major music encyclopedia, which is copiously referenced in the article already. If it's covered by other encyclopedias, it should be covered in this one.
Chubbles (
talk)
17:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I have carried out
WP:BEFORE on this article about an artist, and not found any references from reliable, independent sources to add. I do not see that he meets
WP:GNG,
WP:ANYBIO or
WP:ARTIST. NB an earlier version of the article says the artist has worked on cover art for sci-fi books, so have sorted this in to that category.
Tacyarg (
talk)
21:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - This illustrator does not meet WP criteria for inclusion per GNG ANYBIO, BASIC nor NARTIST. A "before" search revealed sources for an economist who shares the same name (who actually may be notable per WP guidelines), however this François Vaillancourt is non-notable.
Netherzone (
talk)
23:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Project and organization both appear to lack notability, especially under
WP:NORG. Article lacks sourcing and I was unable to find significant coverage via research.
Brandon (
talk)
01:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails GNG: The only candidate who used the "radical Christian" label is Rousseau, and contemporary coverage about him is not significant. Newspaper coverage shows that the three candidates in 1967 actually represented the
Ralliement des créditistes, with the label "Créditiste".
Helpful Raccoon (
talk)
20:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
All the coverage in the article is from February 2024 when she left the entertainment company
Nijisanji. Beyond that, I've found two reliable sources that do not cover this topic (
Siliconera 1,
Siliconera 2). Wikipedia's notability criteria discourages articles on
people notable for only one event, which this article seems to cover. Most of the content featured in the article also seems to be a
content fork of the article
Nijisanji. I suggest deleting the article or turning it into a redirect to the Nijisanji article.
ArcticSeeress (
talk)
08:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ambassadors are not inherently notable. He gets a mere 3 google news hits and article is unreferenced. His involvement with
Maher Arar can be covered in that article. The 2 CBC news articles quoted at end are dead. Fails
WP:BIO.
LibStar (
talk)
04:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - as I pointed out last time, there are in-depth articles about the show, in national media coverage from the turn of the century.
National Post ... actually the earlier more complete version of the article on the front page of the
Montreal Gazette would be the better reference.
Nfitz (
talk)
22:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
First article (National Post) is a hype piece centered on the 2 broadcasters that guest starred in an episode. It is not a review or indepth coverage of the show itself. Second article is just the same article, but more complete (as you stated). I don't think either support notability for the show. The article might be useful in the pages for the 2 broadcasters, but I feel it does nothing for an article on the show.
DonaldD23talk to me00:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
And the article also contains four other footnotes, from the Waterloo Record and the Ottawa Citizen and Maclean's, which you seem to be either overlooking or deliberately pretending they aren't there.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'd like to hear from more, hopefully experienced, editors. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Any unit with a 113-year history is likely to be notable. Lack of independent references is not a good reason for deletion. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
13:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep As one would expect for such an old unit, there's numerous references to the unit in the media throughout the wars. Even a
1946 book, and discussion in numerous other books about operations in both World Wars as they participated in battles like Vimy Ridge and on Juno Beach on D-Day. The German execution of three captured prisoners (2 from this unit) at the hands of
Wilhelm Mohnke in 1944 gets media attention, such as
ProQuest239462705 and also discussed in
a book.
Nfitz (
talk)
16:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:BLP of a crypto entrepreneur, not
properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for businesspeople. As always, CEOs of companies are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to establish that they pass
WP:GNG on third-party coverage and analysis about them and their work -- but five of the eight footnotes here are
primary sources that are not support for notability, such as his own company's press releases and his own self-created YouTube videos and a "staff" profile on the self-published website of an organization he's directly affiliated with, and one more is an unreliable source crypto-news forum. And what's left for reliable sources is one Forbes article that just briefly namechecks him as a provider of soundbite and one Forbes article that completely fails to contain even a glancing namecheck of Peter Wall at all, and instead is just here to tangentially verify stray facts about a company without providing any evidence that any of those facts have anything in particular to do with Peter Wall. As always, Wikipedia is not a free LinkedIn alternative for tech entrepreneurs, so nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this.
Bearcat (
talk)
12:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I complete understand your reservations about Peter Wall, and it was never my intention to sound like a Linkedin profile. Maybe I did not do due negligence when sourcing my references but the entire of the article was becuase he is a notable man both in Canadian media and in bitcoin. Can I nominate that we move the article to a draft while I source for other sources which do exist on the individual concerned and am sure when you searched online you will find that Peter Wall is extensively covered.
LynnEditor.Nam (
talk)
14:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: current sourcing is Canada C3 Coast to Coast describing him as a team member (non-independent), a coworking space review mentioning his company but not him, two sources by him (non-independent), and two sources mentioning him joining and leaving as CEO without saying much about (providing significant coverage of) him, one short source about an IPO not mentioning him, and the bitcoin mining rush source which includes a quote from him and says basically nothing else.
Mrfoogles (
talk)
08:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Draftify as suggested: nominator is being unnecessarily harsh by calling it "not a free linkedin alternative" but I cannot find sources googling that are not associated with him, by him, or coverage that does not go into detail of him being in various positions.
Per
Wikipedia:Notability, significant coverage (at least a paragraph specifically talking about him and who he is) from at least two reliable, independent (not affiliated with, employing, employed by, working together with him) sources is necessary for an article so that it can be written sufficiently independently and in-depth.
Mrfoogles (
talk)
08:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: This isn't a notable person. This is about the best
[1] and it's a PR item. A video journalist is just a "grunt behind the camera", to be blunt, and isn't notable. He's reported on things that happened, which is what videographers do. The crypto connection isn't helping notability. There is a real estate person in Vancouver that has coverage (with the same name), but it's not this person.
Oaktree b (
talk)
00:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The article contains one reference which is not from an independent source. The subject of the article does not appear to be notable.
PercyPigUK (
talk)
17:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This could also be said about the separate extant articles on 2, 3, 4, and 6 Intelligence Company though. Why single out just this one for being amalgamated up? Anecdotally, in terms of actual personnel numbers it's actually one of the largest of those five currently. 90% of the content of those other articles is just Intelligence Corps history, repurposed (the 2 Int entry reprints basically two other Wikipedia articles on Pickersgill and Macalister)... at least the 7 Intelligence Company entry is humble enough not to pad itself out with redundancy.
It's also somewhat problematic that we've recently privileged the Canadian Intelligence Corps, which is currently a notional/paper organization with no responsibilities and zero staff of its own, with an article, over the Canadian Army Intelligence Regiment, the working unit which comprises most of the working military intelligence personnel in the Canadian Forces. While the names are similar, this construct makes more sense for the British Intelligence Corps. In the Canadian context it just looks silly.
BruceR (
talk)
20:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The article should certainly be somewhere (here or merged). It's a reasonable search terms given the media reports of sexual assault - for example it's mentioned 7 times in
this article.
Nfitz (
talk)
01:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes. Just seems to me we've privileged all the other articles for exactly comparable things that engaged in shameless entry padding over the one article that didn't and kept itself factual.
BruceR (
talk)
13:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply