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:
Non notable whistle stop on the Canadian National transcontinental line. Not even a stain station, this is just a spot along the tracks where the train will stop and let you off. –dlthewave☎ 21:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage from independent sources. Provided sources mention it as a dot on a map, nothing more. Astaire (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources provided by BeanieFan11 are more than suitable for meeting the WP:GNG, as they each provide in-depth coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Let'srun (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROD removed by IP on grounds that "IFA is currently very important to secure the Foxhound as a breed in the current fight against the Labor manifesto for this July UK election". Struggling to find evidence this organisation even exists. It certainly has nothing to meet WP:NORG. AusLondonder (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; the references generally don't mention the group. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to English Foxhound per ATD and CHEAP. The source is mentioned at the target. Not convinced more of this content is needed at the target, also given valid concerns by the delete sayers. gidonb (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure this satisfies notability, based on the sources that are already there and a google search. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont find these sources satisfy GNG, for a number of reasons. For example all of them are old and local, and the project died decade ago. - Altenmann >talk
Keep an inactive topic is not a valid deletion reason. The same logic could lead to deletion of all our history-related articles. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 19:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
please don't cherry-pick / red-herring: the nom was nn dead. Of course we have on plenty of out-of-business articles. A bit below I also replied why I think it does not satisfy GNG. - Altenmann>talk 22:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Defunct or not, I don't see this enterprise as meeting notability. The sourcing isn't helpful; an interview, a primary source and a non-Rs blog-type website. This is all I could find [1], still lacking enough RS to cover this in order to get an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes notability, with various Quebec sources [2], [3], [4]. It generated a travelling show featuring the performers, which is what those articles are about. Book mentions here [5] about how the sketches came to be on the TV show. Oaktree b (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. A series of film and theatre reviews in which Cade is mentioned as a cast member do not constitute significant coverage. Searches for sources produce more of the same. — HTGS (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NACTOR with at least two roles easily identifiable as significant (in Stardust and Blue MS) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article seems to have enough WP:SIGCOV. These two sources have in-depth coverage [18], [19] I also found this one: [20]. Svartner (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject easily meets WP:GNG with multiple instances of WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources. JTtheOG (talk) 03:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Easy keep. Easily meets WP:SIGCOV per Svartner's post above and those found in the article itself. Anwegmann (talk) 03:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject has multiple pieces of WP:SIGCOV already in the article to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - when an article is already well sourced like this, I would expect a source analysis with a clear explanation as to why each source doesn't satisfy SIGCOV requirements if wishing to pursue deletion. The ones highlighted by Svartner look good enough to me. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT). The article has made no progress in years, research shows no potential to rectify. Spagooder (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems like an easy call. No claim to notability and the article lacks supporting citations adequate to justify a Wiki article. Easy delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSICBIO. No discography or chart activity, and no third-party independent coverage. Sources are all primary, consisting of promotional interviews, press releases, and subject's hometown publication (Ottawa Citizen). 💥Casualty• Hop along. • 04:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Ottawa Citzen article was reliable, but there is no widespread coverage in reliable source about this person or their music. No charted songs or notable awards. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I created the article but I'll comment anyways. Meets WP:BASIC. There are at least two in-depth Complex articles ([21][22]) - Complex is a recommended source at WP:A/S and is independent of the subject. There are many in-depth HipHopCanada articles ([23][24][25][26][27][28][29]) which are independent of the subject. There are multiple in-depth HotNewHipHop sources ([30][31][32][33][34] ) - HotNewHipHop is also a recommended source per WP:A/S. This isn't including the many Ottawa Citizen articles which are all independent and reliable, or any of the interviews that add little additional commentary. Doesn't have to meet a SNG if it meets GNG/BASIC. I don't see how this is controversial. CFA💬 21:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another issue is that the article also reads like a promotional piece, with nothing therein showing why he’s actually notable. 💥Casualty• Hop along. • 03:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A non-neutral tone is not a reason for deletion, though. It can be fixed through editing. I think it’s pretty clear the subject meets GNG, regardless of any SNGs that might apply. CFA💬 10:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No real indication of notability, only sources are routine 'match reports' on poker news sites and a stats database. No rule about number of bracelets won to determine notability. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO. - UtherSRG(talk) 14:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Article was previously created by blocked user, deleted, then re-deleted as G5. New article is fresh and not a G5 candidate. - UtherSRG(talk) 14:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based on potential impact I will not disagree about there not being a rule about what is notable in the poker community around here but there is much inconsistency. If Engel is deemed not to be notable, then probably at least over half of legacy poker articles on here need to be wiped. I noticed the nominator's other tagged deletions, which I agree with because they do not bring much to the table. Bracelets are considered the gold standard in the poker community and three is nothing to scoff at. The circuit rings record alone should warrant merit but that is justm y opinion. Major titles won, money earned, or major impact historically on pop culture through the game should be what merits a player's notability in my opinion. It would be nice to have a set standard on what is deemed worthy so time on improvements is not wasted. Red Director (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have been around the poker community on here for years so although it would be sad to lose legacy articles, some of these do not warrant merit existance at all if this is the standard we want to place. Engel has more accomplishments of note than most of these on a quick glance. Red Director (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"major impact historically on pop culture through the game" - surely someone has described that impact. Then, it's just a matter of writing down who that person was, and we have a source that contributes to notability. The thing we can't do, on the other hand, is that one of us, a Wikipedia user, is the one who discerns the cultural impact. It has to be verified by another party. Geschichte (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Engel definetly does not check the box of culturally impactful poker player lol. The only things that maybe make sense for the article being retained are his accomplishments which gulf many other players here who do not even come close to that pedigree. I do not care if this article stays or leaves personally. Existing articles make a case for keeping is all I am saying. Red Director (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the article to have more information, references, and an external link section. I personally did not think he warranted an article based on what is considered to relevant in this day and age of poker, but he is close in my opinion. One more WSOP bracelet puts in him in a good class of player in the modern age. However, poker is a funny game. He could win his next tournament or never win another one. It seems the fact that a previously blocked user made this page seems to be what put Engel's article on a deletion path when it is not deserved based on what has been allowed to be on here. It just seems odd that we are drawing the line here on this one page when there are plenty of untargeted articles on players who have not done anything of note in one or two decades where their only major accomplishments came during 2003-2007's poker boom. I fully expect this page to be deleted though so no worries if that is the consensus. Red Director (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is still WP:WHATABOUTISM. If you know of other articles that don't measure up, then please nominate them for deletion. - UtherSRG(talk) 10:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, I found this [35], a primary source where the subject talks about himself. I still don't see enough in RS to build an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Red Director. The bracelets merits inclusion alone but then there's also the record holding of circuit rings (17). Atleast the main events at each circuit tour stop is pro-amateur. There's also a million plus score in a highly regarded event. PsychoticIncall (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of those satisfy our requirements for notability per WP:NBIO. Please read WP:SIRS and respond with WP:THREE references that each meet the requirements detailed in SIRS. - UtherSRG(talk) 18:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep while the directory listings don't help, there is plenty of sourcing in the article that counts toward WP:N (unless PokerNews isn't a reliable source for some reason, then the numbers drop a lot). Hobit (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎ 21:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NPERSON. Non-notable individual, run-of-the-mill educational administrator. No claim of notability (except perhaps for the Platinum Jubilee Medal, but even that was given to 420 000 individuals worldwide). WP:PROMO, reads like a WP:RESUME. Potentially violation of WP:COI as the editor is a single topic editor, and claims to own the copyright of a picture of the subject. Melmann 11:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but edit. This article needs substantial trimming and rewriting to change it from a resume to a Wikipedia page. However the subject is the president of Northlands College, which appears to satisfy C6 of WP:NPROF. Qflib (talk) 03:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a number of edits towards WP:NOTRESUME; hope this is helpful. Qflib (talk) 03:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qflib Is Northlands College a “major academic institution”? I can't even find it among any of the major university rankings (but, it's possible I'm just bad at searching). Melmann 07:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Historically we look for schools to offer masters degrees or higher as one indication of whether it qualifies (this excludes community colleges). This school qualifies under that criterion. Qflib (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this entity the result of three community colleges joining together? In any case, what would be a (non-major) academic institution? Like a vocational school? Melmann 09:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A vocational school does not offer graduate degrees (masters or higher). I would not consider a college that only offers associate and/or bachelor’s degrees and is not otherwise notable to be “major.”
There are a few R1 universities that started off as teacher’s colleges and only offered bachelor’s degrees originally. So IMO the history of how the college came to be isn’t directly relevant as to whether it is currently “major” for our purposes here. Qflib (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How an institution is established isn’t relevant. Public Institutions in Canada are established by law… passed by the government. There are numerous institutions that started as a college for example Yukon University that do exceptionally valuable work. 2001:56A:6FE1:B447:911:8C81:F497:9BCE (talk) 02:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think Northlands is major enough to qualify for #C6, and we should go through GNG instead. All our sources are currently PR fluff, stories about Northlands, or stories about the one event of him becoming head of Northlands. I don't think that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about GNG. But since we don't have a specific definition of what "major" means in WP:NPROF, I do tend to think we should assume that a school fits the criterion if they offer one or more graduate degrees, or if they are a historically significant institution (like Oberlin or Byrn Mawr). Of course, I respect your opinion to the contrary. Qflib (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, it appears to be a conglomeration of three community colleges. I think we've generally held that community colleges don't count for this. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Northlands College is a public institution service 50 percent of the landmass of Saskatchewan. As a public institution it offers a comprehensive array of programs from adult education to masters degrees with an indigenous student population of over 90 percent. I think the confusion here is the understanding of higher education in the USA vs Canada. 2001:56A:6FF0:41DD:55A9:9553:A7EA:A447 (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
David, this particular institution offers bachelors degrees and at least one master’s degree, unless I’m reading this wrong. If I’m wrong, apologies. Qflib (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the individual is the coauthor of the Nunavut Arctic College/Memorial University Transformational Agreement which has been noted by numerous media outlets and leaders
Delete. per David, I dont see this passing the bar of WP:NPROF#6 so we will have to evaluate per GNG. Another way to think of this is that if this person is notable then there should be no issue to pass GNG. --hroest 10:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking at the Northlands' academic programs[41], it is clear that this is essentially a combination of a community college and a trade school. Not what WP:PROF#C6 had in mind. Nsk92 (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The profile of the person satisfies, WP:PROF#C6 section B, "if the person has held the post of president or chancellor (or vice-chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college. 207.195.51.169 (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a public institution in Canada. Serving 50 percent of the landmass of the province and it is an institution serving largely indigenous people. 24.72.14.113 (talk) 01:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see what is trying to be accomplished, organizing a set of existing pieces on racism by country. I'm good with it. Carrite (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then Redirect - I concur with the original requester. Any content that happens to be unique to this article (I couldn't find any in my review) should be moved to one of the country-specific articles. Then, it should be redirected to a list of the country-specific articles. Garsh (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I lean delete for this, if not for the fact that we have Military history of Canada, but also that the grouping of conflicts/battles are better suited as a category. I couldn't find anything off a basic google search for this grouping, but maybe there's a book or something. Conyo14 (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Conyo14 Good point. Alternately, what we could do instead, is integrate this list into List of Canadian military victories, which would then be reworked to a standardised List of wars and battles involving Canada instead, while purging all wars and battles which took place on what is now Canadian soil that did not involve "Canada" as such. The current List of Canadian military victories relies on a single source, and conveniently leaves out all Canadian military defeats, and all conflict results which were a bit "meh" (also known as "inconclusive" or "indecisive"). NLeeuw (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, let's first take stock of which lists we've already got, because there seems to be a lot of WP:OVERLAP.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Still looks like there is some debate about the content of this article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered why it is retained on Wikipedia from 2006 till this moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by War Term (talk • contribs) 02:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've not given a valid reason for deletion. Deletion is based on the subject of the article, not the condition of the article. See WP:BEFORE. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of notability and no sources since 2006 — Iadmc♫talk 00:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree the article in its current state lacks sources. However, under WP:ARTN, Article content does not determine notability. Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvement to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. I added a couple sources to the article, and also posted multiple potential sources from ProQuest at Talk:Westview Secondary School. Based on these sources, this subject meets WP:GNG, per criteria at WP:NSCHOOL. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only one of the sources might add notability to the school: "Nash Taylor placed second in a global competition". Just because a school exists and is mentioned in multiple sources doing normal things for a school, this doesn't establish notability. — Iadmc♫talk 08:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you misunderstand WP's concept of notability. See WP:N, which says Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity. Notability rests on significant coverage in reliable sources. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. Of the cited sources, only one does this (ApplyBoard) and I'm not convinced of its independence. I need to join ProQuest to verify the sources on the talk page so bear with me on that — Iadmc♫talk 11:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not able to join ProQuest as a non-academic as I'm not at a university etc :( — Iadmc♫talk 11:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Another user pointed me to The Wikipedia Library. Bingo I'm in. I'll check out the subject soon — Iadmc♫talk 11:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still no significant coverage at ProQust. Perhaps the stabbing is notable though? Try the google search — Iadmc♫talk 14:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 05:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is about all I can find [42] that's not related to regular school items (a concert, a student getting an award/scholarship)... I don't think we have enough for notability here. A school from the 1970s likely won't have notability as an historic building either. Oaktree b (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete
Lacks notability in its entirety. Maybe, because the article is Wikipedia:Too soon. I don't know but I wonder why it's not yet covered in reliable sources from 2006 till date. So, delete until it's ready for inclusion on Wikipedia. Wår (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Stein meets the WP:GNG with significant coverage from reliable sources such as [[43]], [[44]] and [[45]]. This is also WP:SIGCOV but is not independent: [[46]]. Let'srun (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: We need more people to participate in AfD discussions. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "oursportscentral" article is a rather typical "new job announcement" and doesn't do much to support GNG. The Vancouver Sun 2004 article is a single sentence. The Rotman article is not independent, it's one of those alumnus blurbs. While it might provide some facts it is a good bet that they come directly from the subject. The only possible significant article I see is the Vancouver Sun 2005 one. It talks about the subject as beginning a career, and given that was in 2005 I would expect to have seen later articles about a career, but I don't. Lamona (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Still no consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even in .ca sources, there is hardly anything. I agree with the nom's review of the sources, most aren't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG, respectively because his roles are limited to supporting/minor characters and article lacks sufficient sources. He was last known for starring in The Andromeda Strain before disappearing from the entertainment industry in 2008. My Google searches exclusively showed coverage about the Czech actor but nothing about the younger Michal Suchánek. No news have been reported on him for more than 15 years either. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some roles seem verry very mildly significant. But the 1st source on the page mentions 1 Emmy nomination and 2 Young Artist Award nominations which may have him meet ANYBIO. Notable as a child actor, then.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No new comments since last relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete no evidence of notability, no independent coverage. noms are not awards. - Altenmann>talk 19:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]