Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Canada

Canada

Canada articles for deletion

Samson Mow

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

promo nonsense about a dude who has a job with lots of fancy wikilinked words, but no meaningful independent coverage of him or his companies - in any language. It's all PR and passing mentions, if Mow is even mentioned at all. BUNNYDICAE🐇 20:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, China, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe Fisher-Rozenberg (Memory Pearl)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looked at the first block of reference and a WP:BEFORE. No indication of significance. Lots of passing mentions. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 09:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 10:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hagersville Secondary School

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local high school without coverage in RS, does not seem to pass WP:NSCHOOL hroest 17:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. hroest 17:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to the school board mentioned in the lede of the article per WP:ATD and longstanding practice. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole White

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of an activist and unelected political candidate, not properly sourced as having a strong claim to passing inclusion criteria.
The attempted notability claim as a politician is that she was the first out LGBTQ candidate in a provincial election in her province, while the notability claim as an activist is that she was one of the several people who challenged Saskatchewan's marriage laws in the short time between Halpern and the Civil Marriage Act. But as always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, and have to show that they were already notable for other reasons independently of the candidacy.
However, the "first LGBTQ candidate" thing is completely unreferenced and unverified (and note that we have seen more than one case in the past of people who were claimed as "first member of X minority group to do a thing" who turned out, upon investigation, to have been preceded by other people the article's creator just hadn't heard of, so we can't just take random internet users' word for it without sourcing), so that's not an instant notability freebie that would exempt her from having to pass WP:GNG on her sourcing — and it's questionable whether it would even be all that historically significant even if it were verifiable, given that her province had already elected at least two out LGBTQ municipal councillors (and one MLA who admittedly wasn't out at the time but came out later) before her.
Meanwhile, the same-sex marriage lawsuit is referenced solely to a brief glancing namecheck of her existence in a magazine article about the overall case, rather than any significant coverage devoted specifically to her own personal role in it, and the rest of the referencing here consists entirely of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all. And, for added bonus, none of the other plaintiffs in the lawsuit have Wikipedia articles at all (not even the one who was also one of the city councillors whose time in office preceded White's campaign), and this article does absolutely nothing to demonstrate that White was somehow more individually notable than any of the others. And even on a WP:BEFORE search, about all I can find is a small blip of WP:BLP1E coverage upon her recent reception of an award that still isn't highly meganotable enough to confer an instant notability freebie in and of itself on a person who's otherwise poorly sourced.
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) 20:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep it seems this is the same person that got this award? It seems just this Governor General's Awards would make her pass GNG. It also seems like she is notable for In 2021, Nicole’s tireless advocacy during her pregnancy resulted in the removal of the requirement for parents to be biologically related to be listed on their child’s birth certificate, aptly named “Alice’s Law” in honour of her daughter. I also think the profile in Sasktoday is enough for WP:RS. --hroest 16:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Passing GNG requires quite a bit more than just one reliable source, and the Governor General's Award in Commemoration of the Persons Case is not the same thing as the high-level Governor General's Awards in literature or the performing arts. It would be a valid notability claim if the article were well-sourced, but it is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt a person from having to have a lot more than just one GNG-worthy source. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I think this is the same person [1], but it alone isn't enough for notability. Rest of the sources now in the article aren't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Branny Schepanovich

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography of an unelected political candidate, not properly sourced as having any strong notability claim.
As always, unsuccessful candidates for political office are not notable on that basis per se, and get articles only if they can be properly demonstrated to have established notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article on those other grounds anyway -- but this basically just says that he had a law career without saying anything about it that would constitute a meaningful notability claim as a lawyer, and is "referenced" solely to his paid-inclusion obituary in the local newspaper rather than any meaningful reliable source coverage about him and his work.
A prior deletion discussion in 2011 landed "keep" on the grounds of claims that he had sufficient RS coverage to pass WP:GNG, but the sources brought to bear in that discussion consisted entirely of sources that namechecked him, mostly as a party spokesman providing soundbites to the media in articles about the party, rather than being about him in any meaningful sense -- but we've long since deprecated that type of sourcing as not contributing to notability, and none of it ever actually found its way into the article at all anyway.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable without GNG-worthy sourcing for it, but we need to see sources in which he's the subject of the coverage, not just sources that quote him as a spokesman, to deem him as passing GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails in WP:NPOL and lacks WP:V. Svartner (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment he is described as a prominent Alberta Liberal and he was on the board (?) of Air Canada, however I could not find an obituary in regional newspapers as one would expect for such a "prominent" figure. It seems he was never elected in the party or party leader, but head of many internal committees. --hroest 16:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Hanly

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a smalltown (pop. 6K) municipal councillor, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, politicians at the local/municipal level of office are not inherently notable just for existing, and have to show a substantial volume and depth of reliable source coverage and analysis about their work to demonstrate a reason why they should be considered special cases of more nationalized significance than most other municipal councillors -- but this essentially just states that he exists, and is referenced almost entirely to sources that are not support for notability, such as the self-published websites of the town council and his own campaign, and a single glancing namecheck of his existence in an article about the municipal budget vote.
The only source that's actually both independent and about Mike Hanly is a single profile in a minor community newspaper, which isn't enough coverage to get him over WP:GNG all by itself if it's the only substantive source he's got.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass NPOL #2 on a lot more substance and better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am in agreement with the nomination and will note that I checked the newspapers in Category:Newspapers published in Edmonton and found no coverage that would meet WP:GNG.--Mpen320 (talk) 02:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Clover

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to Wikimedian of the Year. I am not persuaded that the The Guardian source is enough to meet WP:GNG/WP:BLP1E nor be able to actually create a biography. I am unable to find anything else online to add to the sources already present in the article. The existing article isn't really a biography, but rather a brief recap of her edit history. The existing detail can be (and for the most part is) covered in the list Wikimedian of the Year. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 02:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Internet. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 02:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikimedian of the Year, not enough coverage to establish notability, fails WP:GNG. jolielover♥talk 06:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JackFromWisconsin: Did you look at the other two sources in the article? The three combined make up the GNG coverage, it's not just The Guardian. One is from a magazine, the other is a newspaper. The magazine gives the coverage outside of WP:BLP1E because they wrote the article this March. While they definitely bring up the point that I was awarded Wikimedian of the Year, the piece is not substantially about that, and goes into significant detail about my editing in general. It currently meets the threshold of Wikipedia:What BLP1E is not. The author was a journalist that happened to attend a meetup I went to this January with the intention of covering it for their magazine, and we had no interactions before that.
There's significant coverage of me in all three sources. They're reliable and they're all independent. I agree that other than that I'm relatively low profile, but I have no issues with a biography if one exists. I nominated the article for deletion myself the first time around (which was two sentences for people new to the discussion and right after I won the award) when there was only the PelhamToday source. There was a bunch of !keep votes then on the basis on WP:ANYBIO. My rationale was mainly based on notability grounds in that I didn't meet GNG at the time. I personally think I do now.
By the way, I really should have been officially notified about this AfD. No one left a talk page message or even a ping. I also think that if source analysis and notability debates are the type of thing one is passionate about, there's lots of articles at List of Wikipedia people that have much weaker sourcing than this one. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm at it, everyone from the previous AfD should probably be notified. I'm obviously aware of it so no need to tell myself. Courtesy notice to Dclemens1971, Another Believer, Lajmmoore, Reywas92, Elli, Md Joni Hossain, Carrite, Hemiauchenia, Yngvadottir, Iggy pop goes the weasel, Rjjiii, Barkeep49, Ipigott, Hey man im josh, ScottishFinnishRadish, Randy Kryn, Szmenderowiecki, BennyOnTheLoose, Tuhin, Schazjmd, Let'srun, Just Step Sideways, Ahri Boy, MAL MALDIVE, Queen of Hearts, JPxG, BusterD, Sohom Datta, Nadzik, David Eppstein, Red-tailed hawk, and Balph Eubank. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
fix pings to @মোহাম্মদ জনি হোসেন and @Beeblebrox charlotte ^👸♥ 07:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update – I have personally changed my mind after the discovery that CanCulture is a student source (missed that beforehand) per WP:RSSM. That makes what would be 3 SIGCOV reliable sources into 2, which isn't really enough for a standalone article from my perspective. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and salt per above. One source is not enough. Just wait for more news sources to cover the subject. Ahri Boy (talk) 09:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The Guardian coverage, combined with local news reports, creates an accurate portrait of a young Wikipedian who has taken to editing the encyclopedia as a service to humanity. The sources meet GNG, although there should be much more coverage if the Foundation public relations department were on task and realized that promoting the Wikimedian of the Year is a perfect opportunity to connect Wikipedia with its readers through interviews and public appearances. This would reach young and older readers who would otherwise think of Wikipedia as a public utility, like a sidewalk or the telephone (it's always there, no need to wonder where it came from or who created it). Some dismiss articles about Wikipedia as something called "navel gazing" without taking into account that the project itself is notable, present, and necessary in everyday life. The Wikimedian of the Year's recipients receive enough media to justify yearly articles, and Clover's is simply a page about the recent winner of an encyclopedically-worthy award. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This argument veers into speculation of what Wikimedia Foundation 'should' be doing; decisions should be made based on what coverage currently exists, not what should exist. There aren't multiple, independent articles on the subject. My little source review:
- The Guardian article: One small paragraph about Clover, mentions she is the youngest 'Wikimedian of the year' and 75% of her edits were on a mobile device. This source isn't completely independent since she was interviewed by the article's author, and is a small mention in the article overall.
- CanCulture: Small, independent magazine, interview with her; not independent.
- Pelham today: Local news site, article is dedicated to her.
- Wikipedia user profile: well... don't need to explain this one, it's a primary source that doesn't establish notability.
What many people think of Wikipedia is irrelevant when it comes to an AFD about notability, and from the sources, there is a clear lack of it. jolielover♥talk 10:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally wouldn't say the CanCulture source is an interview. It includes some quotes from me, but it's not similar to anything I've seen counted as an interview in AfDS before. Those are usually more Q&A like in nature. I agree that an AfD isn't nessecarily the best place for speculation on what the WMF should be doing, and if PR-based sources existed they wouldn't really count towards notability anyways. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The PelhamToday source is completely about me and is about 11 small paragraphs. The Guardian piece dedicates 2 of its 7 paragraphs to me and provides a bit more detail than suggested above, specifically about how I'm a younger editor and also that I used to edit on my work breaks at McDonald's. CanCulture dedicates about 46 lines to me. I also dispute that it isn't independent simply because it quotes me. I say lines rather than paragraphs but there's a lot of line breaks and I didn't want to mischaracterize what is actually there. Then there's a fourth source that covers me (an interview with BBC Techlife that was briefly mentioned in the last AfD), but as an actual interview it wouldn't count towards notability at all. I'll also mention that the PelhamToday source is technically a republished version of a ThoroldToday source (not cited in the article and not included as part of the 3 that contribute to GNG) and that the brief quotes included in the piece are the journalist quoting me from the awards ceremony (which was uploaded to YouTube). I didn't actually talk to him. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but there's still hardly enough to establish notability as of yet. Like I said, CanCulture is a really small independent magazine, PelhamToday is a local news source, and The Guardian source isn't about Clover, focusing instead on generational gaps between editors and bringing Clover in as an example. Per WP:GNG, sources must offer "significant coverage" that goes beyond routine announcements or trivial mentions. I definitely see The Guardian's article as a trivial mention. jolielover♥talk 10:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we just disagree then. I know what SIGCOV is and I think that these sources do indeed meet it. I guess time will tell what other editors think. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, "PR based" simply means that the Foundation's public relations office would put together a press kit for television, radio, press and influencer producers alerting them to the Wikimedian of the Year's availability for media interviews, and those interviews would apply as sources. If this logical action is being done on a yearly basis already, my apologies for bringing it up. Yes, The Guardian mention, combined with local and other coverage, arguably meet GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Additional Comment) I was looking at the deletion discussion for Newyorkbrad and really think that we should take better care of our BLPs, especially Wikimedia related ones. To quote 28byte of that discussion, "problems with piecing together a biographical article about someone about whom no proper biography has been written in reliable sources. You get woefully incomplete and outdated scraps of information that do not cohere into a proper, comprehensive narrative about the man’s life and career." Facing it, there is no real narrative about Clover's life written in the sources. The few sources that do exist all cover her winning the award and one goes a bit further in depth and also looks at her mobile editing.

While we're possibly at a bare minimum for an inclusionist, I think we should take more care for BLPs of our editors (if not all BLPs) and prioritize creating articles when its possible to make a decent article. Looking closer at the sources, like what User:jolielover did above, shows that what exists may not be even enough to count for notability. Currently, I feel we are a still a way off. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 12:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep as I said the previsou discussion, Wikimedian of the Year is a serious international award, and I would suggest that being a recipient is enough for notability Lajmmoore (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I missed that it was a student publication. Hmm. That does change my mental gauge of things a bit. I will say that the Guardian article is fairly short to begin with, so two paragraphs is slightly under half the piece. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the percent of characters, 24% (1492/6270), to the chart. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's a good idea. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Percent of text doesn't matter. If there was a 200 page book, and something got two pages in it, that would count. Also, the Toronto WikiClub at One Yonge Community Centre has no connection to Toronto Metropolitan University, so I don't see why CanCulture can't count towards notability. I don't see any indication it's not reliable for this subject. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect "Wikimedian of the year" is not that significant of an award. I still don't think the sourcing is good enough to warrant a standalone article. Local news coverage of local people counts much less for notability than coverage in high profile national newspapers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I don't think enough has substantively changed since the last AFD to justify an article – the coverage is not in-depth enough or with a wide enough audience. Our own organization's award is by no means well-known and anyone who asserts it passes ANYBIO is wildly overestimating our significance and reach, regardless of the fact that people from many countries have received it and we think our colleagues deserve recognition. Reywas92^Talk 14:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reywas92, kindly pointing out that instead of others "overestimating our significance and reach" that you may be underestimating it? Wikipedia as a cultural phenomena built on existing and expanding technology is a significant influence that explains available information in a unique and important way. To pick one person out of the pool of editors to honor as a named example of its production is backed up by the notability of its, amazingly to many, ongoing existence without falling prey to the IP vandals. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If that wasn't clear, it's overestimating the significance and reach of internal activities like volunteer awards, not the encyclopedia as a whole...and its contributors, even the best ones, do not inherit the project/organization's notability or influence. Reywas92^Talk 15:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the 'our' caught me in its all-or-nothing trap. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's important to be humble and be cautious when writing about Wikimedia topics. Yes, our website is incredible and the way we've been able to build an encyclopedia free to all is amazing. But we also need to be realistic and not give ourselves undue attention. Let other publications do the talking. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 15:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing undue about viewing Wikipedia objectively. I'll try to not unduly comment in this discussion again though. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikimedian of the Year per jolielover and their source analysis. Fails WP:GNG. Some1 (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikimedian of the Year as was done last August. This Guardian article tells us next to nothing new since the last AfD resulted in a redirect. I don't see how it contributes in any meaningful way towards notability of a living person. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 17:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Barely passes GNG. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. I'll admit to having felt uncomfortable about this page since it was (re)created, but I didn't want to stir up a fuss. Given that the editor whom the page is about now says above that she has changed her own "mental gauge" about notability, I think we should be cautious about keeping a standalone page. Like other editors, I feel that we have to be careful with BLPs about Wikipedia editors. Partly, this is because it can get too easy for us to create and keep such pages out of good will, even when the amount of independent coverage would tend not to support a BLP about someone active at some other website. I think that is the case here. Perhaps she will become a notable (by our definition) person in the future, but we don't know that yet. I'm not seeing enough independent sourcing to support a standalone bio. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on subsequent comments here, I want to add to what I originally said, by saying that I disagree strongly with the contention that being Wikimedian of the Year is a de facto demonstration of notability. I'm not saying that to throw shade on Hannah Clover, or on any other winner, but I think we are falling deeply into navel-gazing if we establish that as a notability criterion. We don't automatically confer notability on someone who is given something like "the keys to the City" by some city. A college professor doesn't pass WP:PROF by winning "teacher of the year". Notability can arise from having an award or honor, but it has to be an award or honor that reflects some widespread notice, and we assess whether that's the case by examining independent secondary sources. If there are enough independent secondary sources to tell us that this is a big deal, then we have notability. As I said above, I think that here we don't have quite enough to demonstrate that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with three independent reliable secondary sources which together offer significant coverage. I don’t see where policy states that established university newspapers and magazines don’t count towards notability as long as they are independent of the subject. IMO this article meets WP:BASIC. Nnev66 (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I asked at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Question about student media and got linked to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 46#Are student-run college newspapers considered reliable sources?, which seems to lean towards your interpretation. I've personally never seen this rationale used before, although I haven't participated on every AfD discussion out there. But my general impression was definitely the opposite conclusion, that it's very much discouraged as a source for notability. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It just depends on independence. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's one thing to say it's a reliable source, but another to evaluate how much it contributes towards "significant coverage" for the purposes of notability. I would argue that, unlike The Guardian, the other two sources strike me as "local coverage". For me, that pulls them a little bit below where they would need to be, in order to have three sources that, together, firmly establish notability. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Toronto is 120 km away from where I live. That pushes the boundaries of local coverage a bit, doesn't it? But then you have the factor of the piece was inspired by an event in Toronto so maybe it's local in that context. Also before I forget, courtesy ping to Aaron Liu who dug up that old discussion there. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, right, I meant that in terms of the event, not where you live. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why would "local" matter? These two sources you mention completely satisfy WP:WHYN. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because evaluating sources for the determination of notability is a judgment call, not an algorithmic process. In effect, the determination of notability comes down to the degree to which the world has taken notice of whatever or whoever the page is about. If someone has been noticed locally, does that automatically disqualify? No. Is it as strong a case as when the notice is national or international? No. I'm weighing the strength of the case, not making a binary decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but ultimately, one does have to make a binary ruling on the case, even though notability is the latter and not the former. Is there harm in including someone based on ⅔ local coverage if that coverage adds to the sum of all information significantly, neutrally, independently, and without original research, allowing an article to develop and mature and accord to our policies and guidelines? And in response to WP:HARMLESS: how are articles with this much "local" sourcing bad articles? Sure, they're not the best sourcing, but it's not bad sourcing either. I don't see why we shouldn't include articles that just have this much local sourcing, assuming "Canadian arts and culture" is indeed a local scope. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've said enough in this AfD, so I don't want to continue this discussion at length, but I'll just repeat that this is a subjective call, and you and I have reached different conclusions. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Guardian article and Wikimedian of the Year together are sufficient to establish notability Coldupnorth (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there are sufficient sources to meet Wikipedia:Notability so GNG is met. Honestly folks, come join us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles and see what notability is all about! Coldupnorth (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RedirectWikimedian of the Year is not significant enough to qualify for ANYBIO - I think it much less likely anyone would make the case 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 were it not for our collective COI. I also think our collective COI shows why we're trying to stretch these sources into meeting GNG. Hannah is a borderline subject and I agree with the idea above that we need to take good care of our BLPs and in this case I think we can cover the encyclopedic content readers most want in a list page. This protects the BLPs in two ways: first it lets there be more eyes on a single page and thus more likely someone notices and catches BLP issues in the future and second narrows the cahnces for information that is "off topic" to the source of notability to be included. My own disclosure: I take regularly and privately with Clovermoss and certainly have a COI when it comes to her, but will note that this position is consistent with my stance in AfD1 when I wasn't in such communication and with other Wikipedian AfDs. I disclose this however so that the closer can choose how to weight my comments. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to note that my argument relies the meaning of "presumed" set by the GNG. As the definition of that notes, even if an article has sufficientsignificant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (and for me it's borderline whether or not she does either way) the GNG does not require we keep an standalone article. Instead it gives us discretion to make an editorial judgement about how best to cover the topic and for the reasons I suggest above I think it would be best to cover this topic with this state of sourcing with in the list rather than as a standalone article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In all sincerity, I am finding it very difficult to believe that the Wikimedian of the Year award is not significant enough to be considered WP:ANYBIO #1 pass. Wait, it says it can either be an "award" or "honour". As a regular, I mean very regular, AfD participant, I have seen articles kept for being nominated for awards not even close to the weight of a "Wikimedian of the Year". I have seen politicians who blatantly fail WP:NPOL being kept because they have bare mentions in the media of their works as politicians; some, I even disagreed. I do not think I can ever think a "Wikimedian of the Year" is not a notable person and does not pass ANYBIO #1. What are the qualities considered before these people are announced for this award? Why does it have to be specially announced? What does WP:CREATIVE #1 say in part? that the person is regarded as an important figure... Is a Wikimedian of the Year regarded as an important figure? A Wikimedian of the Year is surely generally regarded as an important figure within the Wikimedia movement. I accepted this from AfC, BTW. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not to disparage anyone's contributions, but I very much doubt that anyone outside of the Wikimedia projects knows or cares what that is. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very well the same way a professor from Nigeria might not really care about what The Headies is about. We're looking at different field of works here and how their awards are considered significant to them. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there reason we should consider awards significant to Wikipedians for notability? Having a barnstar created in one's name is definitely a significant honor, but does that make an article more likely to conform with our content policies? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but winning a Headie does not mean the recipient is notable just because of that, recipients need additional coverage to qualify for an article. The idea that our organizational award is well-known and significant is laughable. It is not like the Grammys or Oscars or other televised awards that are actually indicative of notability by themselves. The average person has never heard of Wikimedia, and this award does not exempt anyone from needing actually significant coverage. Reywas92^Talk 15:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me go further: I think most people active in the music industry could tell you who won Record/Album/Song of the year at the Grammys. I do not think most people active in the Wikimedia "industry" could tell you who won Wikimedian of the year. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's very productive to focus this AfD on whether WOTY meets WP:ANYBIO because the last AfD came to a consensus the award by itself does not. What's changed since then is that there are now three reliable sources that can be cited (there was only one in the previous version of this article). I think what matters this time is whether or not that's sufficient for GNG. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I'll ping the few people above who seem to be relying on ANYBIO for part of their rationale because it's unclear if they believe the article also meets GNG: Coldupnorth, Lajmmoore, and Vanderwaalforces. I notice Randy has already clarified his !keep vote to say that he think it does and another two commenters only used GNG in their keep !vote to begin with. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note: I think it's misleading to frame this as whether it makes a difference whether one argues for ANYBIO or GNG in terms of notability. The point that WOTY does not meet ANYBIO does not imply that it could meet GNG. If someone feels that the sources satisfy ANYBIO, they can still make that case without having to change ANYBIO to GNG. Given your COI, I think you should hold off on pinging editors in this way. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt people will change their mind simply because I asked them to clarify their position (especially given the last afd, which some may not be aware of). I was mostly trying to make this clearer for whatever poor soul has to close this. I'm not asking anyone to vote in a particular way and I don't particularly care on a personal level one way or the other. I find this more interesting on a nitty gritty policy level, if anything. It's always interesting to read people's arguments no matter where they land. Anyways, I didn't ping any of the redirect !votes because they've already made their reasoning clear and thorough on why this doesn't meet GNG. But I understand your concern about the COI and will refrain from commenting further here unless someone directly asks for my input. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PurpleDOG Post Production

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not finding enough sources to meet WP:GNG/WP:ORG. All of the sources listed in the article fail in significant coverage. Additionally, an internet search did not turn up anything else of note. Maybe a Canadian film editor knows of more sources? JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 03:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tatiana Auguste

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created for an assumed victor of an MP race in the 2025 Canadian federal election. A recount later confirmed that this candidate in fact lost the seat to the incumbent, and since Canadian MP articles are only created for actual race winners, this article no longer meets the wikipedia notability standard. The simple fact that this person was initially assumed to have won the race for three days does not change this. This info can be reflected on the incumbent's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchMonth (talk • contribs) 20:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - as per above. Rushtheeditor (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which WP:CSD does this fall under? -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. It will go to an automatic recount - this first flip was from an initial validation for obvious errors - and there's a possibility of it flipping again. Better to have this in the drafts than outright deleting. @ArchMonth and Rushtheeditor: If we have agreement on this can be out of mainspace now instead of waiting for the AFD to close. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This would be what happened to Draft:Honveer Singh Randhawa when Surrey-Guildford was initially called by some outlets then flipped after all the votes came in. WP:G13 would apply eventually if nothing happens. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The judicial recount in question hasn't yet taken place. What happened was the pre-recount numbers being updated during an Elections Canada validation process, so it could end up being reversed again once the recount occurs. I'm not sure offhand if there is a precedent for pending situations like this. If the recount confirms Sinclair-Desgagné's victory, I would be fully in support. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 01:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see @Patar knight's comments while writing mine, I agree with draftify. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 01:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: seems fine, if this person wins, the article goes live; if not, we don't quite have enough for notability. Could be a brief mention in the riding article if needed. Oaktree b (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Canada, and Haiti. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draft It is appropriate to send to draft space if the discussion closes prior to knowledge of the official result. --Enos733 (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draft is perhaps the best choice for now, and a final decision can be made next week! --ArchMonth
Draft per above. The initial count showed a very narrow LPC victory, whereas the recount yielded a Bloc win of 44 votes. As another recount is under way, it remains possible that the LPC might take back this riding. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 12:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hold until the judicial recount. The results that flipped the riding are "validated" results, which means counted by the district's returning officer. The election night live count is "preliminary" results (counts submitted by poll workers), then each district's returning officer submits an official validated count, which often change vote counts slightly and also include the rejected ballot count. Every riding eventually posts validated results, but it takes a while (about a third are reporting now). Next, any district where the margin of victory is less than 0.1% of the votes cast automatically goes to a judicial recount, which is what will happen with this district but has not happened yet, so we don't actually know what the final numbers will be. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 12:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draft No notability, but the judge hasn't stuck a fork in it yet. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify for now, so that we can restore it if she wins the recount and delete it from draftspace if she loses. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Normally I would not go with the draftspace as an option, as a reviewer on AfC. However, this is an example of where it works. I agree with Bearcat, move the article to draftspace until after the judicial recount, and then if she loses, delete from draftspace per NPOL. I think that also gives opportunity to editors to find additional sources for Auguste while in Draft. Bkissin (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and wait for the recount. Moondragon21 (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I think we should use Draftify more often as an option. This is a good example for it. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery Community College

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page since 2013. Nothing much to suggest that this sub-degree level private education provider would meet the notability standards for inclusion. JMWt (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Canada. JMWt (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: After taking some time to look for sources that could be used to satisfy notability, I found nothing of substance. There seems to be a couple of CBC articles referencing WP:ILLCON and not much else. – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 20:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Hard Keep: I found 3 great sources to prove notability. I cleaned up the article significantly. They were involved in a controversy that the CBC covered - this is more than enough to keep this article. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 00:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Also no chances for expansion. Lorstaking (talk) 03:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it doesn't appear to be what most of our readers would call a community college, but rather a private vocational school. So it's not automatically notable, and the coverage isn't significant. Bearian (talk) 07:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no real coverage in WP:RS except the lawsuit which isnt really enough to base an article on, see also WP:ILLCON. --hroest 16:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: changed my mind based on comments above and WP:ILLCON. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 23:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clark Boulevard Public School

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to Peel District School Board. Elementary school with no indication of notability. Sources are all local routine coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Canada. JTtheOG (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Peel District School Board All routine outside the mention about school attendance, which is in no way a defining characteristic for a K-5 school article. Nathannah • 📮 21:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. No non-routine coverage found. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 05:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 07:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect works well in a table or Wikidata item, no reason for an individual article. Also of note, there are probably notability issues with a lot of entries in Category:Peel District School Board. --hroest 17:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anaida_Poilievre

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Anaida Poilievre

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not believe this page meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for a biographical entry. It should also be noted that spouses of Canadian opposition leaders who did not become prime minister do not generally have articles by virtue of that status alone. The-Canadian-Historian (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pierre Poilievre There's just nothing here that justifies a full BLP, a regular political wife doing regular political wife things. Nathannah • 📮 17:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pierre Poilievre, not independently notable. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 21:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pierre Poilievre. Notability is not inherited just because their husband is leader of the opposition. On her own merits, political operatives rarely meet notability requirements, though there are exceptions. The sources cited do appear to provide SIGCOV, but it doesn't appear to be independent of her role as a wife to Pierre. Bkissin (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed. This page does not meet notability guidelines for a biographical entry. Subject was not a politician, and page seems to exist by virtue of her husband. It should be deleted. Husskeyy (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anaida Poilievre was a notable person at all rallies, often answering questions so this article should remain 76.64.106.255 (talk) 00:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Sounds pretty gay to be crying about someone you don’t like not meeting your subjective popularity metrics. 2600:1014:B009:AF76:8C5:16D8:2609:5245 (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)~~ m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 23:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There was previously a discussion on this article here. Pinging interested editors, @Bearcat: @Moxy: @Darryl Kerrigan: @CT55555: -- MediaKyle (talk) 10:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pierre Poilievre. Subject is not notable independently, and WP:NOTINHERITED. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 20:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pierre's page per WP:NOTINHERITED, while her husband is extremely notable, and maybe should would have become so had he been elected, he was not and so this is unlikely to change any time soon too. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - we do the same with the wives of deposed German dukes, too. Bearian (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per WP:NOTINHERITED, there isnt anything independently notable about her. --hroest 18:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except that Anaida's background and both their families were brought up at every rally. This description was part of his platform as it was used to introduce various conservative initiatives. She also responded to reporters. I do not recall any other spouse actually taking the stage and being part of every single rally.Therefore Anaida is obviously part of the election process for Pierre Poilievre. 76.9.206.98 (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Alexandre

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Some videos of her have been added to "best video essays" list articles:

Otherwise I find passing mentions. Considering these articles don't cover Alexandre herself in much detail, I believe it would be best to either delete the article or else merge it into Nebula (streaming service) ―Howard • 🌽³³ 08:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Sexuality and gender, and Internet. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 08:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Link is a passing mention, Prospect is a passing mention, BFI is 2 sentences in a list of 181 videos, the Xtra article is written by Alexandre herself. Hyperallergic and The American Conservative appear to be the most in-depth sources available, and neither one goes into much detail. hinnk (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 12:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG - there's no allegation of notability. Bearian (talk) 08:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I dont see anything except an Internet Poll that she came in the top results. --hroest 18:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Hartley

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think a great deal has changed since the previous AFD which I closed as G5, but was clearly going to end in delete otherwise. I'm unable to find any sources that come close to meeting WP:BIO and with an h-index of 10 it's unlikely that WP:PROF is met. SmartSE (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. SmartSE (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2025 (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.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Keep Appears to be notable enough with his media presence and recognition. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid rationale. Where are the sources providing substantial, independent coverage? SmartSE (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt. Far WP:Too soon for WP:Prof. No GNG as few sources are independent of the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:07, 1 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Far WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF for this current PhD student. I guess there could be a case for WP:NCREATIVE with the podcast, but I do not see the reviews or other signs of impact (anyway, that would tend to make a case for a redirect to an article on the podcast). No other notability is apparent; in particular, I am not impressed by inclusion in listicles. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding on my delete rationale. The subject has published several papers, some of them in good journals, as in the GS profile. All academics publish papers, and this in itself is WP:MILL: we look for impact for WP:NPROF notability. At first glance, the first paper is highly cited, but the citation count combines a paper of the subject (which has no citations) with a paper of some of his coauthors. The second item also combines several papers, although less abusively. In a high citation field, I don't think that this demonstrates the needed impact: it would be surprising for a PhD student to have the necessary notability. Authoring pieces in the popular press is similar; we do not consider reporters to be automatically notable. For WP:NPROF C7, I'm seeing a small number of quotations in a quotable field, and I think this also falls short. GNG notability appears to hinge on whether inclusion in a listicle contributes enough. Past discussion has been fairly skeptical of this. My view is that it contributes only slightly. I also wish to comment that I am concerned about a pattern where relatively new accounts that have not previously shown an interest in AfD leave a "keep" !vote here approximately halfway through a string of 10-20 AfD discussion !votes. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia:Notability (people) says :"Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources."

Hartley is recognised as "notably influential" within the realm of ideologies, extending beyond his biography as a subject of secondary sources. His contributions to various news outlets, along with his role in conducting interviews with contemporaries and prominent figures AND being interviewed by them for his research, underscore the significance of his work in the field

1. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-:inflation-canadian-government-borrowing-billions/

2.https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jon-hartley-trudeau-should-listen-to-elon-musk-on-productivity

3.https://conversableeconomist.com/2024/03/13/interview-with-stephen-levitt-my-career-and-why-im-retiring-from-academia/

4.https://capitalismandfreedom.substack.com/p/episode-28-steven-d-levitt-freakonomics

5.https://americancompass.org/critics-corner-with-jon-hartley/

6.https://johnbatchelor.substack.com/p/the-future-of-canada-with-jon-hartley

I created this page because I believed his information was fragmented across various sources on the internet, and it would be worthwhile to compile it all in one place on Wikipedia.

Another criterion under WP:NACADEMIC states that a subject must "have had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." This criterion seems to apply to Hartley, given the influence of his research published in journals such as...

1.Journal of Financial Economics https://static1.squarespace.com/static/568f03c8841abaff89043b9d/t/660506eb488a1777a90db94a/1711605484880/HartleyJermann_2024_JFE.pdf

2.Publications under Harvard Business School https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=67312

3.Publications under Economic Letters https://static1.squarespace.com/static/568f03c8841abaff89043b9d/t/63eabdb744edb5235541b0b1/1676328375934/HartleyEL2021.pdf

4.Publication under Jurnal of Urban economics https://static1.squarespace.com/static/568f03c8841abaff89043b9d/t/63eabcff916adf2105c011b0/1676328191950/GyourkoHartleyKrimmel_JUE_2021.pdf

Fenharrow (talk) 10:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that this meets the 7th criteria of WP:NACADEMIC due to his publications in the Journal of Financial Economics and his appearances/contributions to mainstream media sources and think tanks. He seems to have been frequently interviewed by prominent institutions, the Wharton School as an example. This also seems to be notable since he has been covered in various RSes such as The Globe and Mail, National Post, and more. Lastly, there are lots of professors who have fewer or a similar amount of RSes, content, and notability and remain on Wikipedia and are not being nominated for deletion. Examples include but are not limited to Herman Clarence Nixon, Daniel Nugent, Thomas Sakmar, Avery Craven, James L. Fitzgerald, Lawrence M. Friedman, H. Gregg Lewis, Guy A. Marco, and more. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gjb0zWxOb Sorry but I dont see how writing a couple of articles in newspapers qualifies for NPROF#7, can you specify what exactly his impact was? If such an impact was indeed present, then it should be possible to find WP:RS to cover this impact, without such sources I think NPROF#7 will not apply. While he did write articles in Globe and Mail and NP, he was not covered by these outlets as far as I can see (see WP:JOURNALIST), the coverage would have to be a profile about him to count towards notability. Most of the people you listed had a long and illustrious academic and public career and were notable due to their academic impact as indicated by experts in the field, not really comparable to here (actually making the point here that this is WP:TOOSOON. --hroest 14:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete clear case of WP:TOOSOON, likely notable in a few years. Writing/publishing articles does not make a person notable by itself, see WP:NPROF and WP:NJOURNALIST so I dont believe that the listing of articles above contributes to notability. --hroest 20:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article seems to have been deleted previously due to a lacking of sources that were acceptable by our standards at the time of its prior publication on Wikipedia. However, as of 2025 there seems to be more than enough reliable and independent sources covering the subject of the article. In the two plus years since the prior AfD, sources for the subject appear to be better and more relevant and independent. The subject is pretty clearly active and well established in academia. WP:SIGCOV easily passes. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - winning a made up in one day Forbes award for an up and coming but run of the mill academic. WP:NOTFB. I'm willing to change my mind about this if evidence of full tenure or high citation numbers is added. Right now, he's a fellow at a think tank that has long ago become subject to donor pressure. Ping me. Bearian (talk) 09:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Jon Hartley meets the criteria for notability under WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC, and concerns about WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTFB do not seem to be applicable in this case. His research appears to have been published in reliable journals such as the Journal of Financial Economics, Journal of Political Economy: Microeconomics, and Economics Letters. A Google search reveals Hartley to have been featured in sources including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, USA Today, and National Post. The sources demonstrate significant coverage and in reliable, independent sources, meeting WP:GNG. His recognition by Forbes in their 30 Under 30 list for Law & Policy in 2017 further demonstrates notability. Unclasp4940 (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Publishing papers is what every academic does - it definitely does not confer notability. Similarly, the articles in reliable sources are written by him, not about him and that is a crucial difference - the coverage is not about him. SmartSE (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just publishing stuff contributes nothing to notability. It is having the publications noted (cited) by others that gives notability through WP:Prof#C1. There is nothing like enough of that here. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Meets GNG so the arguments about the SNG (which I did not analyze) are not relevant. IMO exceeds the norm for GNG compliance, including several GNG references. Article really needs expansion using material from those references, but that's an article development issues rather than one for here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
North8000, I respect your opinion and experience on AfDs, and I always aim to be persuadable. Would you perhaps detail how you think the sources meet GNG and SIGCOV? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've done several thousand NPP reviews and will tell my overall "take" on it. I look at it holistically, including the multiple relevant guidelines and policies combined and the normal community standards of applying them. Using the reference numbers in the article version as of the date of this post, IMO #2 and #5 meet the norm for GNG interpretation, even if not 100% bulletproof. The Forbes listing (with bio) bolsters that. High ranking places providing his bio are not GNG but also reflective. Same with what's in some of the other sources. As noted I don't think that the academic SNG is needed, (and I've not analyzed that) but at quick glance some strong and detailed arguments have been presented that he also meets the SNG which would be a "belt and suspenders" thing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a lot of experience with the SNG, and I do not think he is very close to meeting WP:NPROF C1 (the main criterion). WP:NPROF C7 is pretty consonant with GNG. Of course, a pass of GNG suffices. As far as that goes, the Wharton piece (#2) fails independence, and I do not place weight on Forbes. I agree that source #1 should be given some weight, although it is an WP:RSOPINION by the subject. I will mull over. Thank you! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The "Forbes 30 Under 30" designation is not made-up per WP:MADEUP. It involves a thorough vetting process by industry experts too, not just journalists. Overall, the subject's work meets WP:PROF's first stated criterion, and his Google Scholar profile shows a strong body of work in economics that has been cited extensively. The page can be improved, but it's worth keeping in my view. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AIC Limited

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources (e.g., reputable news, academic coverage) to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG, relying on limited promotional material AndesExplorer (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Canada. AndesExplorer (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AndesExplorer: per WP:BEFORE, what is your assessment of the abundant Google Books results for this company? --MarioGom (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian economic crisis (2022–present)

British Columbia Conservatory of Music

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

COI or UPE editing of institute with not enough in-depth coverage to show that they meet WP:GNG. C4 was declined, but still fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Education, Schools, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to List of colleges in British Columbia#Applied institutes as an ATD. Yes, it is named wrong. It likely should be "List of learning institutions in British Columbia". That is a discussion for that article though. -- Otr500 (talk) 05:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show proof of COI or UPE editing? Nkj01 (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COI claim lacks evidence. Cited references seem to be from institutes that are separate entities and not from the institute itself. It also has some recognition from a government source as well as other separate sources. 2604:3D08:948B:CD00:90C7:DA08:33D9:C950 (talk) 05:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply can you provide the best 3 sources which significantly meet WP:GNG. Thanks. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think people might take assertions likeCOI claim lacks evidence more seriously if they didn't come from a local IP who had already set off the edit filter trying to remove the AfD notice from the article. Just saying. -- asilvering (talk) 03:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True, but should that make a difference anyways if the COI claim lacks evidence Dwas92 (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as we have no significant notability and significant independent coverage, merge as per the above suggestion of Otr500. WP:ATD. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to List of colleges in British Columbia#Applied institutes. Nothing found on EBSCO and google. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 13:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, silviaASH (inquire within) 13:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Neiszner

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a hockey player, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for hockey players. The leagues he played in, the American Hockey League and the ECHL, are specifically listed in WP:NHOCKEY as conferring notability only if the player "Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top-10 career scorer, first-team all-star)" -- but there's no claim being made here that he ever achieved any such thing in either league, and he hasn't been shown to pass WP:GNG either as the article is referenced entirely to content self-published by the teams he has played or worked for rather than any evidence of independent coverage in third-party media sources.
The article has, additionally, spent 18 full months with WP:BLP-violating nonsense like "He is currently an ambulance driver in Alberta. He once smiled, but really didn't like it. Chris also had the pleasure of providing the Rebels staff with water in their mouths." in it until I found and poleaxed it just now, which isn't a deletion rationale in and of itself but does speak to how many responsible editors have actually seen the article.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable without much more and better sourcing for it than this. Bearcat (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Whenever I see an AfD on a article on an obscure hockey player such as this, I tend to flicker my gaze to the top of the screen to see if Dolovis -- an editor eventually community-banned from new article creation, and responsible for creating thousands of articles on NN subjects, often in direct defiance of notability guidelines -- was the perp. Bingo! In any event, there's never been any iteration of NHOCKEY under which this player, whose career was multiple rungs below top flight, has been considered presumptively notable. Ravenswing 12:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Red Deer Advocate gave extensive SIGCOV of him, e.g. 1 2 3 4 5 6. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Also this story from the Las Vegas Review-Journal. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are four significant article about him provided above. 1 4 5 6. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 12:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Local coverage in the home market of the team he played for isn't sufficient in and of itself to give a minor-league hockey player a GNG-based exemption from WP:NHOCKEY. We'd have to see nationalizing coverage, not just the Red Deer Advocate alone. Bearcat (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

coverage isn't sufficient ... [for a] GNG-based exemption from WP:NHOCKEY – ?? NHOCKEY is an inclusionary criterion, not an exlusionary one (and a broken one at that -- if you meet NHOCKEY, you may be notable if you pass GNG; if you do not meet NHOCKEY, you may be notable if you pass GNG). The only thing that matters is whether he meets GNG, and national coverage is not necessary for that. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as a distinction between "inclusionary" and "exclusionary" SNGs. GNG does not just count up the number of media hits and keep anybody who's surpassed an arbitrary number, without considering the context in which the media hits exist — as I've said more than once, if GNG just concerned itself with the number of sources a person had, and didn't care about whether the context of what the person was getting covered for was actually of any broad or sustained public interest or not, then we would have to keep an article about my mother's former neighbour who once got a blip of media coverage for finding a pig in her front yard. (Hell, if all GNG cared about was the number of media hits that could be found, and didn't measure for whether the context of what those hits existed for passed any notability criteria or not, then I would even be able to claim that I qualified for an article.) So media coverage doesn't just have to hit some arbitrary number of clippings, and also has to verify passage of one or more notability criteria. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sport-specific sub criteria is just leftover stuff from before WP:NSPORTS2022 that wasn't participation based (all of the participation criteria was removed). None of the individual sport guidelines have been updated with replacement criteria so we're pretty much just left with skeletonized guidelines that offer unhelpful advice like likely to be notable if they've been inducted into the hall of fame. There's isn't even any guidance currently on football, gridiron football, or baseball. In regards to NHOCKEY, the only NHL guidance mentions first-round draft picks, which is obviously too strict given all of the blue links at 2017 NHL entry draft (and there's never been an overabundance of hockey players anyway). ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Right now, it looks like Wayne Gretzky fails NHOCKEY. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He does fail NHOCKEY. I suggest an AfD. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV does not exclude local coverage, and makes no mention of national coverage. Flibirigit (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Local coverage isn't excluded from usability, and I never said it was. But local coverage is not necessarily enough to hand a person a GNG-based exemption from normal inclusion criteria all by itself — unelected candidates are not exempted from NPOL just because they can show a handful of local campaign coverage in the local media of the area where they were running without any evidence of broader significance, actors who don't otherwise pass NACTOR's achievement-based criteria are not exempted from them just because they can show a handful of "local aspiring actor gets first bit part in movie" coverage in their hometown media without any evidence of broader significance, high school and junior league athletes are not exempted from the inclusion criteria for their sport just because they can show a handful of hometown local coverage without any evidence of broader significance, local bands are not exempted from having to pass WP:NMUSIC just because they got a few hits of "local band plays local pub" in their local newspaper without any evidence of broader significance, and on and so forth.
If a person is properly established as passing an SNG on an actual inclusion criterion, then we genuinely don't care whether their sourcing is "local" or "national" — but if a person's coverage isn't establishing passage of any specific inclusion criteria, and instead you're trying to argue that they get over GNG purely on the number of media hits that exist in and of itself, then a local vs. national coverage test does come into play, because lots of people can show some evidence of local coverage in contexts that don't pass encyclopedic standards of permanent international significance. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON and WP:WALLOFTEXT may apply here. Flibirigit (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the only coverage were a couple of articles from Neiszer's home town of Craik, Saskatchewan stating that he made it to a WHL team, I'd probably agree that he does not meet GNG. But he has much more extensive coverage from Red Deer, Alberta, which is not his home town (or even his home province) plus significant coverage from Las Vegas, Nevada, which is not even his home country. That's not to mention a lot of insignificant coverage in other newspapers in other ciites. So he actually has not only national coverage, but international coverage. Rlendog (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Red Deer Advocate is a perfectly acceptable source for demonstrating significant coverage for notability, which has no "national coverage" requirement, and the Las Vegas Review-Journal provides an additional source of significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment while not really an international outlet, there are at least 6 articles from the Red Deer Advocate here which would count towards notability. However, my problem is that they do not seem to be very in-depth which makes me wonder whether there is enough material to write an interesting article that goes beyond the Hockey stats. --hroest 19:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources seem quite limited and I don't think it passes WP:BASIC. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG with multiple sources of SIGCOV listed above. NSPORT doesn't have any reasonable sport-specific guidance on stuff anymore since WP:NSPORTS2022 so this is all we have to go on. Just following the rules. Can't have it both ways. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer This is due for close or relist today, but I don't see any source review. Could we get a relist to do that properly. My first observation is that 6 of the 7 sources come from the same newspaper, and so these would only count as a single source for purposes of GNG. The links have ot been set up through the Wikipedia library so I will need to do a bit of work to review them, but that is at most one source. The other, the Las Vegas Review, is a report on their return, but is primarily an interview, so the biographical information is not independent, and is primary. I think this needs more work. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 09:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Foresters House

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about an office building, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for office buildings. As always, buildings are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis of their architectural, historical, social or cultural significance -- but this doesn't make any meaningful notability claim over and above existing, and is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability. The only reliable source present here at all is an insurance industry trade magazine, which is here solely to tangentially verify the name of the company's CEO rather than supporting any information about the building in its own right.
Since it's the headquarters of a company that does have an article under WP:CORP terms, any information we need about its head office can easily be contained in the company's article -- but in order to qualify for its own standalone article as a separate topic from the company, it would need a much stronger notability claim, and much better sourcing for it, than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not appear to have sufficient notability to pass WP:NBUILD. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 23:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not appear notable, could not find any meaningful sources. silviaASH (inquire within) 06:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles about designated heritage buildings is something that we should be expanding on Wikipedia. This is a prominent and very well-known building - you even see mention of it in fiction, such as [ short stories] by Austin Clarke. There has been coverage over the last half-century, such as this significant trade article when it was sold in 2022. There was national media coverage when it was constructed, such as in the Globe and Mail (ProQuest 1270450320). Even if the article isn't deemed worthy of inclusion, it's most certainly should be merged and/or redirected to Foresters Financial. Nfitz (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is a designated heritage building then it passes WP:GEOFEAT. But I can't see any evidence that it is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ : Not a listed heritage building, so no listing there to help. I don't see news articles about this place, appears to be just another high rise in Toronto. No real sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

put the wrong address in, it's listed under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. [2], but that's not enough for sourcing. Let's see what else we can find. Oaktree b (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lengthy heritage study attached to the by-law [3]. Coverage here [4], column down on the left, suggests there is coverage of this in a book about the architect. Oaktree b (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to evaluate additional sources mentioned by User:Oaktree b.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Canada

Canada

Canada articles for deletion

Samson Mow

Moshe Fisher-Rozenberg (Memory Pearl)

Hagersville Secondary School

Nicole White

Branny Schepanovich

Mike Hanly

Hannah Clover

PurpleDOG Post Production

Tatiana Auguste

Discovery Community College

Clark Boulevard Public School

Anaida_Poilievre

Lily Alexandre

Jon Hartley

AIC Limited

British Columbia Conservatory of Music

Chris Neiszner

Foresters House

Canada proposed deletions

Canada speedy deletions

Canada redirect deletions

Canada file deletions

Canada template deletions

Canada category deletions

Canada miscellany deletions

Canada deletion review

Canada undeletion

Canada deletions on Commons