Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Canada

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

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:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Canada/archive
• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Canada/archive 2

Lester Robert Fudge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable per WP:BIO1E. The disaster where Mr Fudge provided aid was not particularly notable, and Mr Fudge appears to be otherwise a low-profile private individual. — Moriwen (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Canada. — Moriwen (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete barely any sources and they only cover the one event no coverage exists for anything else about him Scooby453w (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article simply isn't necessary. Info doesn't need to be anywhere outside of Cross of Valour. Leonstojka (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is Canada’s highest award for bravery, only 20 have been awarded in its 53 year history. If any Canadian should have their own Wikipedia entry, no matter how insignificant the rest of their lives were, its these 20 heroes. Capnwilly (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your right only 20 have gotten it... and all but 3 are stub pages with the only a source being the citation for the medal Scooby453w (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Fudge and the other 19 recipients per Capnwilly. This is the civilian equivalent of the Medal of Honor, and the MOH is an automatic keep. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "automatic keep" so lets just ignore the permstub article... at most that argument could be used for a rederict argument there is nothing in the article that cant be handled somewhere else Scooby453w (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Even a Canadian newspaper search is a bust. There is probably coverage that hasn't been digitized, but we can't show notability at this time. Would be better to find sourcing, then create the article, rather than the other way around. He's very likely notable, but no sourcing, so no article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Im gonna be honest i think the majority of these articles should probably be merged into the page where the medal is. of the 20 people who have gotten it 3 maybe 4 are more then just stubs that cite the medal citation I think a section that describes their actions would be better then having 15 stubby articles Scooby453w (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Wildberger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Math BLP which was converted in 2022 by David Eppstein to a redirect to a book by Norman Wildberger. Redirect replaced by Ad Huikeshoven by one paragraph on the book, plus a cite to a YouTube page (dubious as a RS). Time for some extra eyes on the question of whether to enforce the (implicitly contested) prior redirect. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect. Wildberger or his employer have put out some heavily promotional and dubiously accurate press releases about his publications and the latest one that this is based on is just that, an inaccurate press release that some credulous sources have picked up (for a long but unusable on Wikipedia discussion see https://mathstodon.xyz/@johncarlosbaez/114448643735756913). It does not contribute to WP:PROF notability and does not constitute in-depth independent sourcing. Repeating its promotional claims, which are not supported by his publication nor by mainstream mathematics, cannot be the basis of a good article. For another thing, although the paper itself is not out of the mainstream (neither in content nor in its publication venue), the claims made for it in the press release and copied into our article ("solving the world's oldest problem!") are WP:FRINGE and non-mainstream, as are Wildberger's own expressed personal beliefs. Fringe sources require mainstream balance to achieve properly neutral coverage and we don't have that. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Australia, Canada, California, and Connecticut. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, as in status quo. I do not think that the regurgitated press release from unreliable or semireliable sources adds much to notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I edited the article. The reference to the book is removed. Wildberger is in the news for a recently published article on another subject than the controversial book. I added multiple newssources. I removed promotional claim. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Why do you think removing the reference to the one indisputably-notable accomplishment of Wildberger, his book, is an improvement to the article? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreeing with David Eppstein. Without the book there is zero notability here, one paper that was published a few days ago is definitely not a pass of any notability criteria. Notability might be via a math paper which had 200 cites in other refereed articles in its first year following publication (an illustrative number). Ldm1954 (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore redirect All of the sources about the recent paper look to be pretty much trash. Newsweek has been a worthless rag for what, ten, twelve years now? And the rest are random websites basically reprinting a press release. The only actually noteworthy thing he's done has been the book, so this should be a pointer to the book. 64.112.179.236 (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sulekha Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The attempted notability claim here is two "hit" singles not supported by any verifiable evidence that either song ever actually charted on any IFPI-certified charts — but since music promoters have a tendency to indiscriminately ascribe "hit" status to any song that an artist wants to highlight in their PR kit, we can't just take the word "hit" as a notability lock in and of itself without proper sourcing for it. But otherwise, this is strictly on the level of "she is a musician who exists", and is supported solely by a single deadlinked article on Digital Journal, a user-generated "citizen journalism" platform where anybody can submit any self-created public relations "news" they want to, which thus doesn't count as GNG-building coverage — and even if we ignored all that and accepted it anyway, it would still take more than just one source to pass GNG regardless.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable without much better sourcing for it than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Somalia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edmonton Rugby Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Amateur sporting organization which does not assert WP:GNG. I found sources online that it exists, but nothing that was third party, independent, nor reliable. Flibirigit (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Rugby union, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Varamar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article possibly WP:COI Might have been created by someone affiliated with the group which violates WP:NPOV policy. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 04:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Management, Products, Transportation, China, Middle East, Germany, Ukraine, and Canada. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 04:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It does not seem like this company meets WP:NCORP. Aneirinn (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Merrithew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. His film and TV credits are not particularly significant and his company is unnotable. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Television, Theatre, Health and fitness, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redsenol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This seems to be a brochure of an alternative medicine product of both questionable notability and questionable efficacy. The lack of medical citations, and lack of results on Google Scholar is very uninspiring, even less so the company's own website (I won't link it here, but Google "Redsenol" and it's the first result). Reading the article Ginsenoside suggests that there actually aren't very many studies regarding the effect of ginsenosides on humans, but I'm no pharmacologist and that could be wrong. In any case, unless medical sources can be found, this should be deleted. MediaKyle (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Medicine, and Canada. MediaKyle (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with the nominator. There is a lack of reliable, independent resources covering this compound. Lacking a structure it's hard to do more research. Seems to be one clinical trial for the compound, so maybe in a few years this article can be rewritten but for now it's just another natural product someone is trying to commercialize. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No SIGCOV in RS. Maybe WP:TOOSOON, but not likely. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per Nomination. Clearly lacks scientific evidences in reputed journals. No significant other reports.Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Birchmount Park-Warden Woods, Toronto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't think this neighbourhood exists; none of the sources cited mention it and I can't find anything else online. There is a Birchmount Park and a Warden Woods, but they are not a thing together. Nominating for AfD since there's a contested PROD, but fairly certain this is a neologism. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Canada. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-existant neighborhood. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 01:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Hamilton, Ontario municipal election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a future municipal election, not yet showing sufficient reliable source coverage to demonstrate that it would already need an article now.
As always, while we permit articles about future elections at the federal level to exist practically as soon as the public finish voting in the previous one, that's because there's actually substantive stuff to say about them: public polling on the popularity of the incumbent government, tracking changes in party leadership and seat standings, content about political issues, and on and so forth. But we don't generally maintain articles about city council elections this far in advance, because at the city council level all there is to actually say is idle speculation about who might or might not run, and that's all that's present here.
The article, further, is not adequately referenced to show that this is already the subject of any significant coverage as of May 2025 -- three of the six footnotes are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and two more are from a hyperlocal community blog that doesn't count as a WP:GNG-worthy source at all (but were misrepresented in the citations as coming from a different publication than they really did, until I corrected them). Just one article comes from a real GNG-worthy newspaper at all, which is not enough all by itself.
It also warrants note that even Toronto doesn't have an article already in place about its 2026 municipal election yet, and Hamilton's hardly qualifies as more notable than Toronto's.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the spring or summer of 2026, when there actually starts to be meaningful stuff to say and real candidates filing their nomination papers, but we don't need this to already have a Wikipedia article in 2025. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are fair points. A counter would be to note that the 2022 Hamilton, Ontario, municipal election page was created in September of 2020 - a full 25 months prior to the vote. Each election page is also used to include information on mid-term elections in the term prior to the vote and a by-election is very likely to occur in the coming months. The preliminary information on the page can be updated (it was originally copied from the 2022 page) as the City of Hamilton website already includes information on the 2026 vote. The Hamilton Spectator's coverage of the election has already begun and CBC Hamilton has similarly been publishing articles about possible changes to the city's voting system. As interest in the election begins to pick up, it seems more logical to keep a running record of candidate announcements, possible voting system changes, and issues rather than delete the page and start over again in May of 2026 when there may be a significant amount of information to include. All said, I am content to follow the will of the community on this. All the best. HamOntPoliFiend (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Croire (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Album fails WP:NALBUM, a cursory search does not help either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment I did find this in depth review [1] but not much else and the article is pretty devoid of information. --hroest 17:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is newly created. SRamzy (talk) 23:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Does not appear to have secondary sources to pass WP:NALBUM. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 23:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I found no reviews either, and without this, it fails WP:NOTINHERITED. It somewhat charted, but this is completely fine to only mention on the artist page. Geschichte (talk) 08:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NALBUM#2 appearing in at least two country charts. --hroest 14:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  From NALBUM: "All articles on albums or other recordings should meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Where is the coverage? Without that, as you can see, charting doesn't help. Geschichte (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aimer c'est tout donner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Album fails WP:NALBUM, a cursory search does not help either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per WP:NALBUM#2 as this has been on the charts in at least three countries FR, CH, BE [2] reaching a top position of 23 in France. --hroest 14:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• keep The singer herself has a level of notoriety in the francophone world that probably would make even the most obscure production notable. Superboilles (talk) 07:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why says so? Other sources must decide that, not any one Wikipedia user. Geschichte (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: From NALBUM: "All articles on albums or other recordings should meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Where is the coverage? Geschichte (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Centrist Party of Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fringe political party that fails WP:ORG. I could not find in-depth coverage in reliable sources beyond routine election coverage. This includes candidate naming and reports of vote totals. There is no obvious redirect or merge target either, as nobody in the party leadership has an article or is notable per WP:BIO. Yue🌙 03:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. Yue🌙 03:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• delete 0.0% of the vote is clearly not a major force politically. --hroest 03:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  in the latest 2025 elections, they had fielded 19 candidates and got 4,147 votes. For a party that is 5 years old, that's not bad. There are much older parties who performed worse, for example, the Marijuana (133 votes) and Animal Protection (1,299 votes) parties. Cent check (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, that's quite bad. If a notability defence is getting to comparing thousandths of a percentile between other fringe parties, that's pretty bad. If we charitably give the Centrist Party four sigfigs for the rounding, they reached 0.0212% of the national vote share.

  The Marijuana Party and Animal Protection Party have more in-depth coverage in secondary sources and longer histories, likely because of their niche / gimmick. Unfortunately, the Centrist Party does not share that coverage. Yue🌙 00:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails WP:ORG. Monhiroe (talk) 08:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not enough coverage. I only found a minor news source and brief mentions in election result lists. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I believe the Centrist Party of Canada meets the notability criteria for Wikipedia. While it may not have extensive mainstream media coverage, it has been mentioned in election reporting, such as in an article discussing smaller parties and their vote count. Additionally, the party maintains an official website where it shares news and updates.

Notability on Wikipedia is not solely determined by the volume of news coverage but rather by the presence of independent, verifiable sources. Given that the party has participated in elections and has been referenced in political discussions, I believe it warrants inclusion on Wikipedia. Cent check (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

here is one article Cent check (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hosting Controller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

None of the references establish notability. I see only a few relevant hits on Google (The company name is very generic, though.): [3][4][5][6] and similar. All of them seemingly fail all criteria of WP:SIRS. This PDF could possibly have some SIRS coverage on the product, but I think that that is too little to establish notability. Janhrach (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Canada. Janhrach (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to respectfully oppose the deletion of this article.

Hosting Controller is a long-standing and recognized name in automating service provisioning, user management, billing and metering for various on-premises and Cloud services including web hosting, Microsoft Exchange, SharePoint, Skype for Business, Azure and Microsoft CSP program, with over two decades of history and global usage. While the company name may appear generic, the product and brand "Hosting Controller" have a distinct and established presence, especially within the Windows hosting and hybrid cloud automation space.

The following points support notability:

External Review:

There are third-party sources, including [industry articles, hosting review platforms, and integration announcements] that cover Hosting Controller’s product offerings, partnerships, and impact in the hosting industry. These sources include:

Articles in web hosting review platforms.

Mentions and integrations with Microsoft Exchange, Hyper-V, and other enterprise systems.

Inclusion in hosting control panel comparisons and industry whitepapers.

Longevity and Industry Use:

Hosting Controller has been active since at least 1999, with a consistent product line evolving with market demands—from shared hosting control panels to hybrid cloud automation solutions.

Product Uniqueness:

Its support for hybrid environments (Windows/Linux/cloud) and integration with platforms like Microsoft Exchange, SharePoint, and Office 365 sets it apart from more common cPanel-style products.

Potential Sources:

The company documentation (e.g., whitepapers, PDFs) may not seem like SIRS at first glance, but many are cited or used by third parties in evaluations, comparisons, or implementation case studies. I’m happy to help surface more third-party mentions if needed.

Given the depth of its niche, industry presence, and long-term use, I believe Hosting Controller meets the criteria for notability and request that the article be improved rather than deleted. Zaighum Khalique (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please name the URLs you have found. I haven't found anything except the said PDF document. Janhrach (talk) 08:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. As requested, I am sharing specific third-party and platform references that demonstrate Hosting Controller's notability and industry relevance:

In-depth third-party coverage:

▶"Hosting Controller Delivers a Hybrid Automation Solution for Service Providers" – HostingAdvice.com (2021)

This is a professionally written and independently published piece that provides a detailed overview of Hosting Controller’s features, hybrid automation value, and market differentiation. It qualifies as a secondary source under WP:SIRS.

Industry presence on major platforms:

▶ AWS Marketplace Profile

▶ Microsoft Azure Marketplace Listing

These are not news articles per se, but they establish Hosting Controller’s integration and credibility within top-tier enterprise ecosystems. Inclusion on these platforms requires vetting and compliance, reflecting notability in its niche.

Given this, I respectfully request that the article be retained and improved, rather than deleted. Zaighum Khalique (talk) 05:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samson Mow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(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]
• Keep - The article needs a cleanup, but has enough sources to meet WP:BIO. -- Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the sourcing is not so great. Several of the primary sources are Forbes, which is becoming deprecated, and a literal dictatorship that is proud of itself. The subject might be a successful business person, but his associates are literally tarnishing his reputation. It's unclear if this is a BLP violation. Is this promotional or a hit job? Is it virtue signaling or Vice signaling? Was someone paid to draft this, but did a passive aggressive move? Bearian (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe Fisher-Rozenberg (Memory Pearl) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(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]

Nicole White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(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 [7], 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]

• comment I did some further analysis on this subject and the main news stories over the last few years: [8] [9][10] [11] [12] [13] [14][15][16][17] and of these I believe the following have WP:SIGCOV in a WP:RS:

three in-depth profiles, one of which is the subject (CBC)

in depth profile in CKOM

In-depth profile in Sasktoday

-- overall I see 10 news articles in RS that quote her / interview her of which there are three which contain in-depth profiles of her specifically. Together with the awards, three good sources and a bunch of other mentions/interviews should be more than enough for GNG. --hroest 12:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people can show enough local human interest coverage in their own hometown media to claim that they passed WP:GNG, without actually having any meaningful notability claim that would be expected to enshrine them in an international encyclopedia for posterity — so GNG doesn't just count the number of media hits you can find on a person, and also takes into account the context of what that coverage is being given for. Sources that quote or interview her, for example, are not support for notability, per WP:INTERVIEWS, so most of those links aren't doing anything to help — and of the three you identified as the most substantive, they amount to local human interest coverage in Saskatoon, and aren't supporting anything that would constitute a nationalized or internationalized notability claim. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would not claim notability beyond her province, however there is no requirement for national prominence to pass WP:GNG. WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable media which means we have the basis to write an article about her that is based on solid information. Here we have three relatively high quality and in-depth profiles of her in reputable outlets. Furthermore, it is clear that she had a significant role to play in the advancement of LGBTQ rights in her province, being at the core of 2 legal battles for civil rights. Personally I find that interesting and worthy of preservation for the future. --hroest 21:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The Sasktoday article is the best of the profiles provided by hroest. There is no question that the subject is interesting, but interesting is not sufficient for a stand-alone page. Also, passing WP:GNG is "not a guarantee" and "editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page." --Enos733 (talk) 05:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As well as the coverage identified above by hroest, I've so far found coverage of her in newspapers from states other than Saskatchewan, from 2004-2021, including a profile in the Ottawa Citizen in 2013 [18], as well as coverage in Alberta and Toronto newspapers of her work getting donations of menstrual supplies to northern Saskatchewan communities and coverage in BC and Ontario of her same-sex marriage case. RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sources indicate sufficient notability per GNG. Mifflefunt. 00:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PurpleDOG Post Production (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete no significant coverage. --Altenmann >talk 04:04, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Hartley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(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]

  Further expanding on the GNG case. Later keep !votes made a better case for GNG. I am still not convinced -- I do not see independent coverage in reliable sources. The wharton piece is highly non-independent. The USA today opinion piece is authored, so not independent. I discount the Forbes listicle coverage, although I note that past discussion at AfD of similar listicles has gone in both directions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:45, 11 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]

The Wharton School article, published by a highly reputable academic institution, clearly qualifies as a profile and underscores Hartley's recognition in academia. But even putting WP:NPROF aside, I think it's evident he independently meets WP:GNG. Per WP:SIGCOV, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is the standard, and that is plainly met here. This includes not just op-eds he authored, but also interviews such as in L'Express. This coverage goes well beyond routine mentions and shows that he is regarded as a notable public commentator and scholar. GNG simply requires reputable, independent sources, which he has here. Also, extensive op-eds should not be so quickly dismissed as they are directly relevant to NPROF#7 which requires that, "The person has had substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." I found he has published work ranging from Globe and Mail, National Post, and USA Today. These are not blogs, they are professionally vetted publications that only platform notable experts. This certainly conforms with the requirement of NPROF#7. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:25, 9 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]

  how did you evaluate his academic profile? His GS profile is far from reaching any of the 8 criteria outlined there. Neither his citation count nor his h-index is anywhere close to a pass of the "average professor" test. Yes it is impressive for a junior researcher, but nowhere close to a lasting impact on his discipline. We cannot go on future potential but on available evidence. --hroest 03:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His GS profile is a long long way from meeting WP:Prof#C1. Maybe he will come up to standard in future but not yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like WP:NPROF is a red herring here. At any rate it would be really quite extraordinary for someone to pass WP:NPROF before they've even got their doctorate. What isn't clear to me from this discussion is whether he meets WP:GNG in spite of not meeting WP:NPROF.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep:Gerrysay (talk) 11:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AIC Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Minimal source very insufficient to establish notability, source looks like a PR not having music coverage on the article Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 02:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian economic crisis (2022–present)

British Columbia Conservatory of Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(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]

I just saw this. Is there a reason you posted under my comments about COI or UPE editing when I didn't mention this? -- Otr500 (talk) 00:59, 8 May 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]

  This merge suggests that it is a public applied institute, nothings shows that it is. A government website shows the institution being able to grant external credentials, which fall outside of courses developed by the local government. Dwas92 (talk) 17:56, 7 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]

• Redirect to List of university and college schools of music#British_Columbia - which, to be clear, is not the target proposed above. I presume the relist was to nail down whether this is a merge or a redirect, as the consensus not to keep is clear (for good reason, per the above, and because this would need to meet WP:NORG as the relevant SNG for a private education institution, and we have no independent sources with WP:ORGDEPTH). The above proposals, however, are to redirect to a list that does not mention this college, and whose inclusion criterion is that it only lists public colleges. We should not redirect there. However there is already an incoming link from the schools of music page, so that is a suitable redirect target. It is not a merge as there is nothing useful to merge, and a merge to a list page would place information that is undue on that page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Neiszner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(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]

Versions of the above links that will open through Wikipedia Library: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:49, 7 May 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]

• Comment - Source review - Thanks for the relist. I have now looked at the six sources above, and here is my assessment (in conjunction with my earlier comment about the Las Vegas Review source).
  The following are all from the Red Deer Advocate, a local paper for Red Deer, Alberta, Canada. They are mostly from one staff correspondent. One is from an alternate staff correspondent. The page subject is only associated with the Red Deer Rebels. The Red Deer Advocate is owned by Black Press, but coverage of a player on the local team in a local paper is clearly WP:ROUTINE or of questionable independence. To be notable, the player must surely be noticeable beyond the local paper.

• 1 (Meacham, 2001) Looks like SIGCOV, and secondary. As above, questionable independence. ?
• 2 - Not SIGCOV. N
• 3 (Meacham, 2005) Looks like SIGCOV, and secondary. As above, questionable independence. Additionally information appears to be obtained via interview, and aspects of this are primary reporting. ?
• 4 (Meacham, 2010) Looks like SIGCOV, and secondary. As above, questionable independence. ?
• 5 (Rode, 2005) This appears to be a write up of an interview, so the biographical information is not independent. N
• 6 (Meacham, 2003) Looks like SIGCOV, and secondary. As above, questionable independence. ?

The six sources count together. While some are excluded, there is SIGCOV here in this local paper about the local team. But can they be used for notability? Certainly not on their own. They provide some useable biographical information, but they do not indicate notability. GNG requires multiple sources in any case. If we had national coverage at this level, we would keep, based on the coverage, but as things stand, if this is all we have, we are not yet at GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing in our guidelines suggests that coverage by a "local team in a local newspaper" is of "questionable independence" or necessarily routine. And the Las Vegas article (which is not an interview) is not Red Deer, or even Alberta, or even Canada. So there are multiple sources, and not just national coverage but international coverage. Rlendog (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Very much disagree with the source review above. The Review-Journal is an ~800 word story on him that is not solely an interview. Sirfurboy seems to be stating that any story that has any quotes or such is automatically non-independent, but that is clearly incorrect and including quotes from closely related people is a feature of almost all good sports reporting. Review-Journal is SIGCOV source 1. Then we've got an avalanche of coverage from the Advocate. "Questionable independence"? No, the paper is not owned by the team or anything like that. Being local does not mean non-independent! And there is no requirement that a subject receives national coverage. The Review-Journal has SIGCOV and then the Advocate has SIGCOV. That's multiple sources with SIGCOV, and that meets GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Nearly everything in the Review is indeed from an interview. I missed that 89 words of direct quotation actually come from Glen Gulutzan, his coach, saying:Other than that, the only material that is not directly from the subject is that he spent last season in France (signed because of his agent), his offense has improved, he scored 23 points in 26 games, and he is reunited with Justin Taylor. This is primarily an interview with a returning player. Where is he returning to? Las Vegas. And this is the Las Vegas Review. What is not interview is news reporting, city wide but local. Again, if we had any national coverage it would be different, but coverage of who is rejoining a local team is routine, match reporting is primary and interview content is not independent. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There's 260 words of coverage of Neiszner that is not from quotes – that's SIGCOV. There is no requirement that the coverage be non-local. Whether you personally judge it to be "routine" because its of a "returning player" is irrelevant. The only thing that matters, aside from it being reliable and independent (which it is), is whether it is in-depth coverage (SIGCOV), which it is. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If we're discounting "local" coverage and entire sources because they have some quote material (which is standard sports journalism), then there are a decent amount of NHL players that wouldn't even pass GNG. Would an article on a Philadelphia Flyers player in The Philadelphia Inquirer not count since it's "local"? Only All-Star caliber players and those who have played for 10+ years will have national SIGCOV. I'm not going to "die on the hill" (for lack of a better phrase) for this minor leaguer but I would for an NHL player. Here is an example of a Q&A type interview that wouldn't count towards notability. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Quotes can be valid coverage, especially if they are not from an interview with the subject. Rlendog (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source. - see WP:IV. As we want biographical SIGCOV of the player, the quoted information is primary, and cannot be used for SIGCOV. What we can take into account is the question of why the interview happened. Why did a newspaper believe interviewing this subject was important? Does that indicate notability? But that takes us to the occasioning of the sources, and relevant here is that these are coverage of the local team, and this is run of the mill stuff. Look at the 89 words from the coach above: it's just talking about him as a team member. We need something more here. If the subject is notable, someone other than the local paper will have taken note in something other than simple team news reporting. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source. – correct, which means that the quotes in the article cannot count as coverage of the subject. However, the ~260 words written by the journalist on Neiszner is coverage that counts as SIGCOV. All good sports journalism includes quotes, so you're suggestions that including quotes automatically makes sources primary and unusable would make basically all sports SIGCOV unusable, which is very obviously in error and a ridiculous assertion that I have never before come across in my five years of participation at hundreds of sports AFDs. Once again, whether you personally think this is "local run of the mill stuff" is entirely irrelevant; all that matters is whether there is SIGCOV in reliable sources, which we have here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I make it 171 words and I already dealt with that above. It tells us that he spent last season in France (signed because of his agent), his offense has improved, he scored 23 points in 26 games, and he is reunited with Justin Taylor. The source is primarily an interview in local press about a returning player. It is routine, and the occasion of the source (that he is a returning player) makes that information primary. Biographical information may be secondary, but there is no independent biographical information to speak of. It is almost entirely not independent. And we routinely treat routine local press more cautiously for notability. You are attempting to make this a black and white, any two sources and it's in. That's not what the policy says. What it actually says is this:Under the accompanying note it adds "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic." If we had one national source, I'd accept these take us to multiple sources, but they are simply not enough on their own. Thus, at this stage, my !vote is Delete. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure how you get 171, but it is ~260. Per GNG, a topic is notablewhen it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It says nothing of "routine local press" being discounted. And I'll add that the Las Vegas Review-Journal is no small-town paper, but a large one, the largest in the state of Nevada. That the source is about a "returning player" is irrelevant; once again, the only thing that matters is if there's SIGCOV. It is not primary, and that there's some quotes in the article does not make it so, for quotes are a feature of all sports journalism. The suggestion that quotes automatically make a source unusable is ridiculous and would result in the deletion of the vast majority of all sports articles. National coverage is not required... BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And let's not forget that IV is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Rlendog (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But not wrong. The policy it is based on is found in WP:PRIMARY. See note d. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

%