This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Canada. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Canada|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Canada. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Americas.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Seems to be a push to get this into the mainspace. Attempted to clean up the promotional tone just added by IP but it seems to be WP:TNT territory. Since last deletion discussion, the only thing I see is an announcement of a purchase which is a routine announcement (followed by multiple sources engaging in churnalism) and falls short of meeting WP:ORGCRIT. CNMall41 (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Of course there is a push by the company and their people to get it into mainspace. That is why some members of the Wikipedia community are pushing back. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is an improvement over the previous version, in that it no longer contains puffery. It now reads as if it was written by the corporate technical writer from the company's viewpoint. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still keep, it would be quite weird, in my opinion, if a production company which made series for major broadcasters wasn't notable. Previous AfD has an alternative source assessment which I agreed with, and I think the case is even stronger now. JMWt (talk) 09:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment It's hard to assess the prior alternative source assessment as the articles are not linked, but the three most promising sources from that assessment don't exactly pan out. Variety sources in the current article are about acquisition of Sienna, which is substantive and independent about Sienna but not very independent about Sphere. Same with Hollywood Reporter. Canadian Theater Review isn't linked in article and I couldn't find it on my own. What are you seeing that I'm not?Clicked through a bunch of sources, and they are either interviews or brief mentions, or deal announcements which I tend to think are generated from press releases. I can't find anything with my own searches (looked at Google Scholar, Google news, some targeted google web searches). I agree in principle a major company with real-world impact should have an article. But at this point all I have is WP:IAR and I'm not sure why we should go there for this article, which seems to be all based on corporate news and press releases. Oblivy (talk) 10:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't look at it like that. I think they are notable because they are a producer of television and this is shown by coverage in independent third party sources. For example 1 is not just PR puff or interview (and I've made my views known on notability and interviews before) it's a piece of reportage by a named writer. And this isn't the only piece available. If this page somehow isn't kept then we are applying a GNG standard that isn't applied elsewhere. Which in my view isn't fair. JMWt (talk) 10:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree that the VarietyDeadline interview is earned media. That's one.I'm not sure I understand your last sentence - yes, the NCORP notability standard is much higher and the way it's been applied to interviews is sometimes hard to defend (but the defenders of that application seem to have won that battle).Would like to see other views. I think you can see I'm not a hard no, but I find it really hard to get excited about an article that's all about deals. Oblivy (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On interviews, my view is that if a publication carries an interview, that shows the subject is notable in the opinion of the editor of the publication. (If they didn't think it was notable, why would they be covering it?) If it is a RS and the piece is clearly more than puff or a PR then for me that's an indication of notability.
Fwiw the piece I offered was from Deadline. There are also pieces in Variety and the Hollywood Reporter. It strikes me that this is more than enough to meet the GNG in normal circumstances.
On "excitement", I just try to assess whether decent publications have covered the subject, my feelings about the contents of the article are irrelevant. JMWt (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article obviously does need significant cleanup for advertorialism, but making notable television series and films is obviously a valid notability claim for a production company. It's obviously terrible as written — I just had to add wikilinks to its three big multi-award-winning television series (Sort Of, Transplant and The Porter) that were mentioned in the article only as unlinked names, and the article is completely forgetting to even mention other important stuff like 19-2, Bad Blood, This Life, 1995 (big current box office smash with multiple current award nominations pending) and The Dishwasher. It's a bad article in its current form, you'll get no disagreement from me about that, but there's a lot more to this company, and a lot better sourcing available for it, than shown — in addition to the Variety and The Hollywood Reporter stuff described above, there's also plenty of coverage in publications like Playback and RealScreen, that might have been overlooked solely because non-Canadians haven't heard of them, and a company that has existed since 1984 in the francophone media sphere (pun semi-intended) before expanding into English content only within the past decade, there's also almost certainly a lot of coverage in French that would entail trawling BANQ instead of just a Google search alone. Also, the page was created by a long-established Wikipedia editor who is not known to have direct personal connections with Sphere, so it isn't an obvious conflict of interest by the company (especially since I really deeply doubt that the company would forget to mention major, major things like 19-2, Bad Blood or 1995 at all.) Bearcat (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - This article does not speak for itself because it does not discuss independent coverage of the studio by reliable sources. It is written from the company's viewpoint, as if it were written by the corporate technical writer, describing what the company did, with no mention of third-party coverage. Reading like it was written by the corporate technical writer is not as bad as the previous version, which read as if it was written by a corporate marketeer, but it still does not address the need for third-party coverage. A reader who reads this article cannot be expected to view the 46 references that this article has been reference-bombed with to know why the company is thought to have corporate notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've undertaken a major push to clean up the advertorialism and prune back the excessive citation overkill, so the article is now in a much, much better state. Again, we're talking about a company that's made a lot — and I mean a lot a lot, like dozens — of the most notable Canadian television shows and several important films in both English and French over at least the past two decades, so basic notability isn't in doubt here, and the quality of the article writing was the only problem. And since I'm Wikipedia's resident guru of all things Canadian film and television, my judgement of the notability status of a Canadian film and television production company should carry a lot of weight, since I'm the person who actually created a lot of our articles about the company's notable film and television productions in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the cleanup on the page. If we can save something that is notable that is obviously better than simply deleting. Putting aside the fallacy of authority, this still needs to meet WP:NCORP as notability is not inherent simply for making films. If you can point out the sources you feel meet WP:ORGCRIT I will have another look and even withdraw the nomination should they support notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No fallacy of authority needs to be set aside, as none was committed. And as for which sources support notability, I fail to see which sources currently present in the article don't, as they're all coverage about the company from reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I applaud @Bearcat's work in cutting the article back so it's not such a litany of corporate transactions. I also did my own searches again, and found that one of the Variety articles was quite substantive and independent. On re-checking it's already in the article. Thus I think we have two SIGCOV articles, the Deadline article and the Variety article. That is enough for me to say it meets NCORP. Oblivy (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - an IP editor is playing silly beggars and undeleting most of what had been taken out. So we are back with loads of unnecessary references. JMWt (talk) 09:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I had to bring back those sources because one of them said that Sphere launched a international film sales division and Sphere actually acquires Sienna Films back in March 2020 and not 2022. 148.252.158.62 (talk) 10:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You didn’t have to do this. We’ve all been around the block a long time in these parts. If you are an IP editor working on behalf of the subject of this article, you are not helping your case. JMWt (talk) 10:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a film that has never actually been released, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFF criteria. It is true that Deepa Mehta announced about 15 years ago that a film about the Komagata Maru was entering development -- but it's never actually been completed or released at all, and certainly not in 2014 as this article claims (per this article, which states that the film was "still in the pipeline" as of 2019.) But the references here are mainly primary sources and dead links, which are not support for notability — and the only nominally acceptable source is a brief glancing (and likely erroneous) namecheck of it in an overview of Mehta's entire career, not coverage about this film. And while a bit of reliable source coverage can be found about her announcement that this was going into development, there's not enough of that to suggest a reason why a never-finished film could remain permanently notable despite its failure to ever come to fruition: there's no evidence that it even entered photography at all, and the search string "Deepa Mehta exclusion" mainly just brings up references to the narrative themes of Beeba Boys and Funny Boy. So this film was simply never completed or released at all, and thus isn't permanently notable as an unrealized project. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFILM. The film was never made. It never even reached principal photography. In 2006, Deepa Mehta was doing the planning and research and not all the cast were confirmed such as Amitabh Bachchan who the maker had a wish list to cast him. 4 sources on the page, source 1 is just an entry , Source 2,3 is 404 page not found and source 4 is unreliable with just a passing mention incorrectly calling it 2014 film. No need to have a page on the film that does not even exist. RangersRus (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this church has not existed for a good number of years. I was told that the property at 2712 Victoria Park Avenue had been sold. It is currently the location of Christ Emmanuel Community Church. Google Street View shows this church's signage prominently displayed on the building as long ago as May 2009. PeterR2 (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. No valid deletion rationale has been offered. Instead we have an WP:OUTOFBUSINESS argument. Notability once gained cannot be lost. This church may not have been notable to begin with (the nominator gives no indication of a WP:BEFORE) but even if it’s not, no policy-based rationale to delete has been advanced. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I wasn't aware of that, and assumed that articles about no-longer-existent places got closed down unless they had a sufficient long-term relevance - since articles to which I have contributed have more than once been deleted without adequate reason - notably [David MacIntyre] was replaced by some ephemeral modern hockey player and moved to [David McIntyre (minister)] and then deleted, despite the fact that MacIntyre was an early Principal of an influential college - International Christian College, formerly Bible Training Institute, which lasted over a century and was very well known in evangelical circles in Scotland. Also the page about the Presbyterian Reformed Church (North America) which still exists, and is still mentioned in other Wikipedia articles, was deleted - see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Reformed_Christianity/Article_alerts/Archive_1#AfDPeterR2 (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There does not appear to be a church by this name in Canada. Article has no sourcing whatsoever. The only church I find by that name, is in Australia. — Maile (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The more I look into this group, I find that they are local to the Toronto area, self-release their material and only play live in the surrounding area. Can't find any notable charts or awards. Karst (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't regard this as WP:SIGCOV. And this seems to be about a namesake photographer aged 29 in 2022 and not a restauranteur born in 1973 as detailed in this article. Ft.com is behind a pay wall so need more details to assess. LibStar (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Substantial coverage in independent reliable sources is presented on the page. So this meets the general requirements for notability. Also "Making Media:Foundations of Sound and Image Production" (2022), p. 300, for example -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)22:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did WP:BEFORE and wasn't able to find anything about this except for one report [2]. The name comes up in a lot of different contexts but I wasn't able to pin down sources for this. There are external links on the article but they weren't much help. If anyone finds any thing please ping me. Dr vulpes(Talk)20:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-advertorialized article about a filmmaker, not properly referencing any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for filmmakers. The attempted notability claim here is that his work exists, which is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself -- we would need to see some evidence of distinction, such as notable awards and/or WP:GNG-worthy coverage and analysis about him and his work in media and/or books. But this is referenced entirely to primary sources self-published by people or organizations directly affiliated with the statements they're referencing, which is not support for notability, and the article claims absolutely nothing about him that would be "inherently" notable without better sourcing for it than this. Further, there are no inbound links here from any other page in Wikipedia but the disambiguation page at Bob Connolly, and this appears to be a conflict of interest as the creator (who created it in 2013 and has occasionally returned to edit the article as recently as August 2024) appears to have self-identified as Bob Connolly in past posts to Talk:Lee Aaron, but even people who do properly pass our notability and sourcing standards still aren't entitled to write or curate their own articles themselves. Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Run-of-the-mill predatory/payday lender. "Reviews" are indiscriminate WP:SPIP with no meaningful content. Wikipedia is not the place to host brochures. No indication of any independent coverage, in-depth in reliable sources, in fact there's barely anything beyond the SPIP and the routine "I got predatory loaned to" that all of these have, which, while sad, are not great sources for encyclopedic content. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not really meeting CORP. There's the Global News article about someone that wasn't happy with their loan, and this [3] where someone with the company talks about their work model... Not really sigcov in either case. Rest are all PR links. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎12:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No notable wrestler. Just worked on an independent level. The article has sources, most of them are WP:ROUTINE results, others passing mentions. Looking for sources, he only has passing mentions on a few events 1HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, looking for additional assessments from editors. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!17:52, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit11:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. On balance, the Delete views carried more P&G weight than the Keeps, the latter mostly relying on the unproven assertion about the existence of secondary SIGCOV sources. However, after three weeks, consensus failed to materialize. Feel free to renominate in three months. Owen×☎12:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Biography of a smalltown municipal councillor and activist, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing notability criteria for local politicians or activists. As always, neither city councillors nor activists are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they existed, and have to show WP:GNG-worthy coverage and analysis about their work to validate its significance — the notability test at the WP:NPOL #2 level for local politicians hinges on the depth and range of reliable source coverage, not on merely verifying that she existed. But 16 of the 20 footnotes here are directly affiliated primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and of the just four hits that come from real GNG-worthy media, two are just death reportage from the local media in her hometown; one is just a short blurb about her winning a minor award that isn't highly notable enough to clinch an instant "she's notable because she won this award" freebie all by itself for a person who's otherwise this poorly sourced; and the last one doesn't mention her name at all, and is here solely to verify via her absence from it that she didn't win a city council seat in the election that it's "sourcing", and thus isn't a demonstration of her notability. (And meanwhile, all of the city council elections she did win are supported by the primary sourcing rather than GNG-worthy analysis about her work on the council.) Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Bearcat makes a good case for deletion here. Being on the board of UQAT is not notable, most of the sources are from the applicant's death. However, while Deletion is not cleanup, if sources could be found that talk about her as the first Haitian city councilor of Val d'Or, maybe that would be something toward notability, but otherwise it doesn't seem to meet the guidelines of WP:NPOL. Bkissin (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And what sourcing establishes the permanent significance of her work as a union organizer, considering that her union work is referenced entirely to the primary sourcing here? Bearcat (talk) 12:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about this for a start? I expect we could find much more about her union activities in support of women if we had better access to the French-language Quebec press.--Ipigott (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need a lot more than just one source to establish notability on that basis, especially when that one source is just her obituary from the local television station, where coverage of the deaths of local figures is merely expected — we would need to see evidence of her being widely recognized as a union organizer beyond just her own city, which is still lacking. Also, the French-language Quebec press googles just the same as English-language press does, so we don't lack that kind of access at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added sources from radio Canada, and also found out that a beer was named after her after her death to honour her community enngagement. Her role as president of the STENOQ trade union for teachers also appears in a 1996 history book about the region Histoire de l'Abitibi-Témiscamingue published by the Institut Québécois de Recherche sur la Culture. Nattes à chat (talk)
The article is still referenced very overwhelmingly to primary sources rather than reliable ones that count as support for notability, having a beer named after them isn't a reason why a person would get a Wikipedia article in and of itself, and local history books don't secure international notability all by themselves if purely local coverage is all the person has. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my understanding of WP:NPOSSIBLE which says Notability requires only that suitable independent, reliable sources exist in the real world; it does not require their immediate presence or citation in an article.. She is mentioned in Histoire de l'Abitibi-Témiscamingue, though to what degree I cannot say due to lack of access on my part. There is an award named after her, here is a source stating she was named to the Board of Directors Université du Québec en Abitibi-Temiscamingue. Page 16 of this source details her accomplishments, the awards she won in life, and the award named after her. This source substantiates her status as having won an award. This source describes her winning the Alexina Croteau award as well as speaking of her accomplishments including being President of a Union and that she was the coordinator of the World March of Women in Vallée-de-l’Or. There is also this source which was published years after her death and is described as a regional and independent socio-cultural newspaper whose mission is to provide information on cultural life and social and political issues in Abitibi-Témiscamingue. Considering the existence of an award named after her, a resolution mentioning setting her name aside for future usage, and her status on the Board of Directors for Université du Québec en Abitibi-Temiscamingue and her involvement in the World March of Women, I find it probable to believe that there are sources in Quebec newspapers that we might not have access to. --Brocade River Poems (She/They)01:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources do not support notability. Having an award named after her is not an inclusion-clinching notability claim for a person if your source for that is the self-published website of the award rather than third-party media coverage about the distinction; winning a minor local or regional award is not an inclusion-clinching notability claim for a person if your source for that is content self-published by that award rather than third-party media coverage about the distinction; resolutions mentioning her from the city government are not notability-clinching notability claims for a person if your source for that is the self-published website of the city government rather than third-party media coverage about the distinction; and on and so forth. Nothing is ever an article-clinching notability clain until it causes WP:GNG-worthy third-party media coverage to be generated about it in sources independent of the statement, and "locally important to a small city" (a thing which every single city councillor who ever existed at all could always claim) is not enough of a reason why a small-town city councillor would be exempted from having to pass GNG on proper GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about her work in real media. (And just for the record, Val-d'Or's GNG-worthy newspaper is the Citoyen, not whatever the hell "L'Indice bohémien" is.) Bearcat (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, L'Indice bohémien L'Indice bohémien est un journal culturel régional et indépendant qui a pour mission d'informer les habitants de la région sur l'actualité artistique et culturelle de l'Abitibi-Témiscamingue. En parlant des gens du milieu culturel de la région, L'Indice bohémien veut contribuer à la professionnalisation des artistes, au rayonnement de ceux-ci partout en région et à l'extérieur, ainsi que soutenir la promotion générale de l'ensemble du milieu culturel de l'Abitibi-Témiscamingue.
Just because we don't have access to the sources don't mean they don't exist. There is a strong probability that events, awards, etc. were covered in newspaper publication. Notability requires only that suitable independent, reliable sources exist in the real world; it does not require their immediate presence or citation in an article
Again, she is mentioned in an academic history book. A regional independent newspaper which you've randomly asserted isn't reliable, a source that says she was responsible for coordinating an event, she was the president of a Trade Union, there is an award name after her, a proposal in a resolution to set her name aside for future use, and she also won multiple awards in her lifetime. The probability that some news coverage we do not have access to does is exist is more likely than not.Brocade River Poems (She/They)23:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Bearcat has summed up well. True - there may be scources out there we don't have access to. There may not. If we start working on the basis of "there might be an RS out there somewhere" being good enough we will have lost the plot. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 08:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.