Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Canada

WP:CADTWP:CADT

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.

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:

Purge page cache

watch

Canada

Canada articles for deletion

Canada Super60

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

Article about a cricket competition, not reliably sourced as passing inclusion criteria for sports events. As always, every sporting event is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it exists, and has to be shown to pass WP:GNG on its sourceability -- but this is "referenced" almost entirely to primary sources self-published by directly affiliated entities, but for a single article in a suburban community hyperlocal that is not widely distributed enough to vault the subject over GNG all by itself if it's the only non-primary source in the mix.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this from having to have much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. AA (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably not really notable so I would tend to delete unless major sourcing appears. A summary sentence or two could be added at T10 cricket in the List of T10 leagues section. Most of the leagues within that section might benefit from a similar approach being taken Blue Square Thing (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Perrault

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

Not a proper human name dab page. There's only one match and some partial matches: Joseph-Stanislas Perrault and the unlisted Joseph-Édouard Perrault, Joseph-François Perrault and Joseph-Xavier Perrault. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This is a totally sensible disambiguation page, but it should be moved to Joseph Perrault (disambiguation) to allow for Joseph Perrault (Lower Canada politician) to take the title. – Ike Lek (talk) 06:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not, seeing as the entries violate WP:partial title match. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:25, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (Manitoba)

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

Not notable Chidgk1 (talk) 17:47, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:47, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The Manitoba CCF had representation in the provincial assembly over many years and was part of the provincial government from 1940 to 1943. I don't really understand this nomination. CJCurrie (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I don't know what User:Chidgk1 was looking at to think that a party that was part of a coalition government (in 1940), finished 3rd in every election they were in, and was the precursor to the NDP that formed government later in the 1960s. Not to mention how famous this party was and some of it's MLAs, including The Right Honourable Edward Schreyer. Can Chidgk1 please withdraw this nomination? Nfitz (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the provincial branch was as famous as you say then it should be quick and easy for you to cite Chidgk1 (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Needs citations" is not the same thing as "not notable." CJCurrie (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidgk1 - Did you not do a BEFORE? It's your job to do this, not mine. This is a Topic Ban level of BEFORE failure. Heck, forget about the BEFORE - did you not read the article? It very clearly notes they finished 3rd in 7 elections in a row, with up to 34% of the vote (winning the popular vote in 1945). Withdraw this travesty - and I'd suggest staying away from deletion. If I assume good faith, this may be the worst deletion nomination I've ever seen (if I wasn't to assume AGF, I'd think you'd be trolling us - but I don't think that's the case). Nfitz (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Benny Nemer

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

Article is borderline notable and may not quite pass WP:BIO. However, the individual in question has requested deletion via a now-declined speedy deletion which I will quote;

"I am Benny Nemer, the subject of this page.

This page was originally created over a decade ago by someone I do not know, who created pages about Canadian LGBTQ artists. While I was originally quite flattered by this gesture, no one ever updated this page, and its information became quickly out of date. Believing I could not update it myself, I asked friends to update it with information from my website.

But as time goes by, the page is consistently out of date. No one cares for it. And because of this, it disseminates outdated information about me, which reappears elsewhere on the internet, including when a Google search is made about me.

I really wish some art historian or art student would take up the work of keeping this page current, but no one does. I have a minor career. I don't think a wikipedia page is really necessary for me.

I am therefore humbly requesting that this page be deleted and that people find out about me through other, more current sources, like my artist website, www.nemer.be

Thank you for your consideration.

Yours,

Benny"

Thus, I am requesting deletion per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE CoconutOctopus talk 17:14, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, LGBTQ+ studies, France, and Canada. CoconutOctopus talk 17:14, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Single source used into article, doesn't meet notability guidelines. Appears to be likely very outdated and incorrect, as the note above says. A sentence currently in the article about "Since 2000" was added when the article was created in 2006, this is likely incorrect as the artist has likely moved past what they were doing 20 years ago. Another sentence in the article about "recent work" was added in 2013, which is now also likely incorrect. A quick search for additional sources only found non-independent sources like personal websites, social media, and school websites. Asparagusstar (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. It doesn't appear that we have enough secondary sources to write an adequate BLP anyway, so per the subject's wishes we shouldn't have one at all. MCE89 (talk) 11:17, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 11:21, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless an adult has actively sought notoriety, we should respect their wishes to privacy. Bearian (talk) 03:01, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sina Bathaie

AfDs for this article:

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

Recently created, was previously deleted. Article isn't identical, though, so can't be speedy deleted via G4. History restored by request and to help the community discussion. Will ping the previous AFD participants. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:19, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Iran, and Canada. UtherSRG (talk) 15:19, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Bearcat, Sulfurboy, Nodet12000, Zanimum, and ThatMontrealIP: Pinging the prev AFD participants. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Possibly: is the new name for ThatMontrealIP. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough valid secondary sourcing to pass WP:SIGCOV. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 11:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are two sources from Voice of America introducing the artist, which is a reputable outlet. There are 8 other sources added in the article, which either cover the subject via interviews such as this one in Greek [1], this one from India [2], and this one in Persian [3] (in the form of a podcast) or feature articles, several of which is already cited in the article. Xpander (talk) 12:26, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews don't count as GNG-building sourcing. They're fine for additional verification of facts after GNG has already been covered off by stronger sources, but they don't contribute to getting him over GNG, as they represent him talking about himself rather than having his significance independently analyzed by other people. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the sourcing here is marginally better than the first time (where the best source on offer was a weekly community hyperlocal), it's still depending too strongly on interviews and blogs and short blurbs rather than substantive GNG-worthy coverage. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Each interview has at least, a paragraph long, or minutes long coverage of the subject by the host or a third party author otherwise I wouldn't have added them. Plus you're probably ignoring the more substantive coverage by this source, probably because it's in Persian [4] by HoHod (Independent, journalistic media outlet). That is without even considering the two articles by Roots Music Canada (the outlet which you've debunked in the previous nomination) [5][6] @Bearcat Xpander (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All interviews, by definition, always have a bit of prefatory text introducing the interview. and our policy that interviews are not notability-making sources has already taken that fact into account. It simply isn't enough to magically turn what's fundamentally a primary source into a GNG-building secondary source at all. And a person has to have several GNG-worthy sources, not just one, to pass GNG. So no, absolutely nothing was ignored, it's just that none of it adds up to enough. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just added another featured article by the Groove Cartel: [7]. It can't be pure accident that all these websites Popmatters, Roots Music Canada, Groove Cartel etc. have dedicated full articles to the subjects. Unless you're suggesting all of them are paid/promotional material. Which is not self-evident. Xpander (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Groove Cartel is not a WP:GNG-worthy reliable source at all, Roots Music Canada is a marginal source that can be used as supplementary verification of facts after GNG has already been covered off by better sources but is not itself a builder of GNG points, and PopMatters is a short blurb, not any kind of substantive or "full" article. You're beginning to sound like somebody with a conflict of interest, incidentally. Bearcat (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do have a concern for articles I create, not sure If that's called a conflict of interest. According to what you've already mentioned, there's at least one GNG-worthy source and several other marginal ones. So the magical number is two GNG-worthy source? And we're deleting an article because it's lacking just 1-more GNG-worthy source? To me that's borderline arguing. Xpander (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, two is not the "magical" number of GNG-worthy sources — GNG isn't a set number at all, but an interplay of number, quality and geographic range. Three GNG-worthy reliable sources is the bare minimum number of sources before GNG even comes into play as a possibility, and even then it still depends on what the sources are actually saying: if he had a solid notability claim like winning a Juno Award, then three GNG-worthy sources would absolutely be enough. But if you're shooting for "hasn't accomplished anything that would pass NMUSIC 2-12, but is still notable under NMUSIC 1 just because media coverage exists", then three GNG-worthy sources still might not be enough, and you might need to show six or seven or eight GNG-worthy sources to actually put a person on solid notability ground.
So GNG isn't a number, it's a cumulative weight of how substantive the sources are or aren't: it can be three sources sometimes, and can require more than three sources other times, depending on the quality and depth and range of coverage being shown. Short blurbs and interviews and blogs and minor publications don't count toward GNG; we need to see substantive coverage in established major media. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If these criteria, three GNG-worthy sources or more etc. are set in stone somewhere, and there's as clear as possible consensus around them, then why aren't they reflected in NMUSIC? Xpander (talk) 22:10, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because why would NMUSIC need to restate basic principles of GNG that are already written down in GNG as it is? Bearcat (talk) 13:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to WP:GNG source criteria that's an essay, which is by definition: not binding. Furthermore based on this very essay, the sources which you count as "marginal" would also count by those aforementioned criteria, namely: reliable, independent, secondary etc., unless proven otherwise. Xpander (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Knockri Inc.

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

Unambiguous promotional brochure for this software company, and seems to be generated by AI. Nothing about these references rises to the level of WP:NCORP either. We have no room for more advertisements. MediaKyle (talk) 13:22, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Internet, Software, and Canada. MediaKyle (talk) 13:22, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. No sufficient valid secondary sourcing to prove notability. I agree with the nominator as well. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 11:31, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: pretty clear signs of AI, article needs to be rewritten from scratch if notable. For notability, I checked VentureBeat (passing mention), Financial post (a little more in-depth, but not sure if reliable), and Bloomberg (an interview, so primary), CBC news (also an interview). Caleb Stanford (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wellspring Cancer Support Foundation

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

Unambiguous brochure for this nonprofit, and appears to be generated by AI. The references here, while providing minimal coverage, do not rise to the level of WP:NORG. We have no room for any more advertisements around here. MediaKyle (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, and Canada. MediaKyle (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pajeet

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}}.

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

Largely trivial coverage in sources (RS or otherwise), fails WP:SIGCOV for notability esecially for a racial slur like this. The exact article (with the same sources) has been repeatedly created from a redirect by the singular WP:LTA sock network Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial ([8], [9], [10], [11]) whose intentions have been nothing more than racist trolling ([12], [13]). The article itself has only served as a racist troll magnet whenever it has been repeatedly created ([14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]). Edit: And 17 more accounts have just been banned for disruption related to the article since this AfD has been up ([24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42] and 12 more).

Coming to the sources (currently/previously at the article/Talk):

These largely appear to be non-WP:RS: thecommunemag.com (a repost of another non-RS samvadaworld.com), hindupost.in, hindutimescanada.ca (all of these are also merely press releases of the NCRI report); Know Your Meme (WP:KNOWYOURMEME, a deprecated source), townpost.in (plagiarizes the entire DFRAC article), baaznews.org (a Substack blog)
Of unsure reliability: The Daily Pennsylvanian (student newspaper with a single para on the term), ohpi.org.au (Online Hate Prevention Institute (lists no author), just a brief mention of a related racist term 'mujeet'), dfrac.org (DFRAC is apparently a fact-checking website (unsure if it is RS), does cover the term beyond trivial mentions), Center for the Study Of Organized Hate (an op-ed by Rohit Chopra), Global Project Against Hate and Extremism (single-line description of the term, rest of the article merely lists disparate usages by extremists online)
RS: The New Indian Express (single-line mention), isdglobal.org (Institute for Strategic Dialogue, brief mentions of the term but mostly about the Canadian hate group Diagolon), the NCRI report on Hinduphobia (does cover the usage of the term beyond trivial mentions), another NCRI report on the 2022 Leicester unrest (trivial mentions of the term online).

We ultimately have very few RS which cover the term in any significant capacity, a standalone article as such cannot really be justified (nothing which can't be/isn't already covered at List of ethnic slurs). The slur is no different from more older ones (e.g. 1, e.g. 2) whose standalone articles we do not feature for similar reasons. Gotitbro (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Ethnic groups, Hinduism, Sikhism, India, Canada, Australia, United States, United Kingdom. Gotitbro (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per nominator's own admission that this term finds non trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources such as the NCRI report on Hinduphobia, Institute for Strategic Dialogue, and DFRAC. These three sources provide in-depth coverage required for the article, see WP:THREE. Koshuri ^(あ!) 09:20, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
THREE is a personal essay (really the first time I am seeing it at AfD). Though I would like to clarify that I haven't listed DFRAC as RS nor have I listed ISD as non-trivial. That you have cited stable while restoring the largely socked version of the article is concerning. Gotitbro (talk) 10:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:THREE is only to back my point that in most cases only three reliable sources with in-depth coverage are enough to prove notability. Your continued disparagement of the article's stable version as sock despite it being restored and responsibility for the content being taken by multiple editors in good standing is getting tendentious. Koshuri ^(あ!) 10:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No one has taken "responsibility for the content", Altenmann initially restored the article [43]/[44] the article (also saying refs were a plenty which as can be seen were really just trivial bloat) and was clearly unaware of sock shenanigangs. The restoration was imediately challenged twice by different editors [45], [46] but ultimately restored again by you [47] telling editors to take it to AfD. None of this would be considered WP:STABLE. Why would you revert apparent sock cleanup is also beyond me.

Coming to THREE, a user essay which has been neither satisfied nor a standalone article based on these justified. Nothing we can't handle at the pre-existing list. Gotitbro (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly notable term as per the sources mentioned above. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of ethnic slurs#P or Delete (in that order of preference): Fails WP:SIGCOV. There is currently no scholarly source at all that discusses the subject. Coverage so far is limited to mostly low-quality sources. There is also precedence per "curry-m*ncher" being redirect to the list article and "d*t head" not existing. The fact that article was written primarily by a sock-farm (with seven year long history of socking), who misrepresented even the already questionable sources and quickly added the slur to a WP:BLP only shows the bad-faith disruption. The tendency of some editors to prefer that source-misrepresented sock version is also beyond me. Given the obsessive preoccupation that the longtime sock has with the slur, I expect a visit by him here as well eventually. --UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement that sourcing must be scholarly for establishing the notability of a term, regardless there is enough scholarly coverage for this article . "Curry muncher" and "dothead" are little known and were never used widely unlike the term "Pajeet". So quoting them as "precedence" is a non argument. The rest of your argument is nothing more than the same disparagement of the article for being created by a sock and bad faith assumptions. Koshuri ^(あ!) 14:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, scholarly sources are not necessary for notability (the subject fails notability regardless of the lack of any meaningful scholarship on it) but scholarly sources give the most reliable information, which the article and indeed the term currently largely lacks. As for curry-m*ncher being "little known and were never used widely unlike the term Pajeet", that is simply false. For one, we have multiple scholarly sources for it: Tom Dalzell; Terry Victor, eds. (2006), The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, Routledge, p. 534; Virtual Homelands: Indian Immigrants and Online Cultures in the United States, University of Illinois Press, 2014, p. 29; Anne Collett; Leigh Dale, eds. (2018), Postcolonial Past & Present, BRILL, p. 174 and many, many more scholarly as well as literary usages. Asserting otherwise is stretching the limits of WP:OR, which unsurprisingly is also what the sock version of the article mostly was. We don't reward specific slur-obsessed socks by going against precedence and sourcing guidelines. UnpetitproleX (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We have similar articles like Paki (slur), American-born confused desi, etc more. Pajeet is a popular term across social media and sources are well notable (per argument by other Keep votes). But I agree this article must be improved and rephrased to Good Faith.. It shouldn't be used for trolling as like the sock editor. The current version seems stable enough but the more good faith & neutral, the more better to keep the article. WinKyaw (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The former is well attested in RS [per its article], the latter is not a slur (and also well attested). "Popular term across social media" raises questions on the kind of social media being referred to [we are not a documentation hub for 4chan and X bigots] rather than as a rationale for notability. Gotitbro (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well here in this category, I see lots of similar articles. Nothing much wrong with this being existing. And popular term across social media is for all medias especially Facebook, Instagram, X & so on.

Mainly I think if Pallywood, Locust (ethnic slur), Polaco (slur), Wetback (slur), etc can exist, there's nothing wrong with this article too! WinKyaw (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pallywood has sources published by Sussex Academic Press, Routledge, Journal of Communication, Third World Quarterly and many other similar academic sources. Polaco and Wetback have similar academic sourcing. This article lacks any comparable sources, thus the comparison is faulty. UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Whether the article was created by a sock or not is irrelevant given the subject meets WP:GNG. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The term is inaccurate, but quite widespread colloquially. Svartner (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep widely used internet slur that has persisted for some time. Metallurgist (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has been considerably improved in good faith and as per @Ratnahastin WP:SIGCOV has been sufficiently addressed.

I must say, it is of interesting note that a user has just been blocked for vandalizing the article as we are actively discussing this.. Eulersidentity (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - The term "Pajeet" is highly notable and has received in-depth coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources:
In a case study by Network Contagion Research Institute at Rutgers University, this term is covered extensively, with almost entire study revolving around it. 33 mentions of the slur , along with his history, usage, variants etc all are covered over several pages.[48]
In a report by Rohit Chopra, Professor in the Department of Communication at Santa Clara University and Visiting Scholar at the Center for South Asia at Stanford University, the term is covered extensively and it is published by the Centre of study of organized hate[49]
Non trivial coverage in a report by Institute for Strategic Dialogue [50]
Extensive coverage in DFRAC , an IFCN certified fact checker. This report covers the origin, and history of the term along with analysis of its usage on social media. [51]
Significant coverage in a Global Project Against Hate and Extremism (GPAHE) study [52]

Enough to prove that this term is highly notable and has received scholarly attention. It has also been used as an insult against various public figures of Indian origin in the west as well and there is ample news coverage for that, but I won't be citing that. Ratnahastin (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The review of sources in the nomination is appalling. With your logic, we can reject any sources such as CNN ("they are favorable to Democrats"), Oxford University press ("they are situated in the mainland of colonial British empire") or any other source. Sikhpride38 (talk) 01:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, entirely apalling that we don't consider thecommunemag.com (samvadaworld.com), hindupost.in, hindutimescanada.ca, Know Your Meme, townpost.in, baaznews as RS nor trivial mentions of the term. None of the rationale that you cite has been given above. Interesting that an account, with only 11 edits, that hasn't edited in 3 years suddenly pops up at an AfD and then proceeds to revert SPA tags. Gotitbro (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is defending unreliable sources like Hindupost ans Communemag. You are doubting credibility of even DFRAC, Online Hate Prevention Institute, The Daily Pennsylvanian and other reliable sources. According to your logic, there can be no reliable sources. Sikhpride38 (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For DFRAC, I could not find any independent coverage of it as a source beyond media reposts of its 'fact-checks', the Online Hate Prevention Institute lacks a byline and has a single-line mention of the term, The Daily Pennsylvanian is a student newspaper with barely anything to say about the term. Hence, under unsure reliability. These are not the sources that you want to be hedging notability on.

I will note that you have repeatedly reverted the SPA tag added by different editors, very COI. Gotitbro (talk) 04:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I refuse to defend myself against a mischaracterization? Looks like you don't understand what is a "COI". Back to the actual topic, you are just proving the point that every source would seem unreliable if we used your logic. The Daily Pennsylvanian is used in 100s of Wikipedia article.[53] Sikhpride38 (talk) 04:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Pennsylvanian: Usage elsewhere at enwiki has no bearing on why student newspapers should be cited in the first place, lacks sigcov anyhow.

Conflict of interest is removing tags added by uninvolved editors in a contentious topic space. Does not help that a new user with barely a few edits is well versed with AfDs, SPA and COI. I further wonder why you think this is neutral, seemingly furthering racist tropes without any balance. Gotitbro (talk) 05:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The term is very notable and has widespread usage. Also, Gotitbro and UnpetitproleX, stop WP:BLUDGEONING. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 04:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have only responded to some editors about clarifications for the nom statement, ridiculous to call this BLUDGEON. Gotitbro (talk) 05:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV, not notable. And the socking and apparent WP:STEALTH canvassing put it over the top for me. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 17:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well sourced and well written. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 04:05, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Isle Studios

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

Appears to lack standalone notability and fails WP:NCORP - furthermore, no obvious target for redirection since there two separate articles on games they made. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:31, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Canada. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:31, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - To either game in this category (which subsequently needs to deleted after the redirect). There is a lot of routine announcements about games but nothing that satisfies WP:ORGCRIT in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no good target, why redirect? It's just going to result in WP:SURPRISE for anyone who is not looking for that particular game. A delete seems more apt. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:32, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Young Person's Guide to Kyle Bobby Dunn

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/A Young Person's Guide to Kyle Bobby Dunn

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

Does not meet the WP guidelines for album notability Tiakat333 (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 August 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada, New Jersey, and New York. jolielover♥talk 18:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Seems obviously notable, at least four reviews from reliable sources per WP:RSMUSIC: Allmusic, Beats Per Minute, Consequence of Sound, Pitchfork Media. --Mika1h (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, nomination seems untrue/meritless. Geschichte (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, is has all the reliale sources and this person is borderline harassing me across Wikipedia at the moment and anything related to the artist page. Henchren (talk) 02:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been updated since I posted this but the source issues remain - single sources are counted multiple times (see numbers one and seven), at least two sources have no links or ways to access the content, and multiple sources are dead links (such as the NYT citation). Additionally, the critical reception section of the article is almost entirely long excepts of the positive statements in reviews. The whole article screams bias, though if someone wants to clean it up they should go ahead and do so. As it stands now it doesn’t seem to meet Wikipedia’s standards. Tiakat333 (talk) 04:03, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Just go ahead and do so. Henchren (talk) 04:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I was going off the sources, two of which are permanently dead links and at least two others are personal blogs. Tiakat333 (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ways of Meaning

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

Does not meet the WP notability criteria for albums. Tiakat333 (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 18:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Seems obviously notable, at least four reviews from reliable sources per WP:RSMUSIC: Allmusic, Beats Per Minute, Consequence of Sound, Pitchfork Media. --Mika1h (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, nomination seems untrue/meritless. Geschichte (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, is has all the reliale sources and this person is borderline harassing me across Wikipedia at the moment and anything related to the artist page. Henchren (talk) 02:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first, fourth, ninth, and and eleventh sources all do not exist. The second and tenth sources are the same. If someone wants to clean up the article they can be my guest, but as things stand it seems that, considering those facts and the fact that the “Critical Reception” section is almost entirely long excerpts of exclusively positive sections of reviews I’m not seeing any justification for keeping this article as it stands. Tiakat333 (talk) 03:58, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bracebridge West Aerodrome

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

Non-notable airport, no independent sources found to establish notability, only routine directory/listing entries. Jesus isGreat7 ☾⋆ | Ping Me 16:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Canada. Jesus isGreat7 ☾⋆ | Ping Me 16:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of airports in Ontario as per others were done. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Covers.com

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

Notability is not inherited. While the parent company has some coverage, the website does not meet WP:NORG or WP:WEB. The references provided are either brief mentions, coverage of the parent company, or press releases. - The9Man ^Talk 07:50, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Sports. - The9Man ^Talk 07:50, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:14, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect altho not sure where to. Is Gracenote the parent company? Otherwise, weak delete. I think it might be notable, but not fully convinced. Metallurgist (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NWEB and WP:GNG. To clarify, SportsDirect and Covers.com operated as separate websites but share a common history (founders [54]). Both were later acquired by Gracenote, which merged them, with Covers.com becoming the successor. There is some in-depth coverage about Covers.com and some about SportsDirect (coverage: [55], [56], [57], [58]), so per WP:NOPAGE it makes sense to write a combined article that covers both. I hope this clears up the confusion. Kniepert (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ingle International

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

Yet another promo page created by the same user. Doesn't meet the notability guidelines as highlighted a few years ago. Puda (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Travel and tourism, and Canada. jolielover♥talk 15:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NHL team colors and logos

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

Seems to fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY, essentially duplicating content of the #Logos section of the respective articles. And the use of 30 non-free files seems to violate WP:NFCC8 ----Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 00:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Lists. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 00:39, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Looks a lot like WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 00:51, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's WP:LISTCRUFT.4meter4 (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and United States of America. jolielover♥talk 02:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a blatant violation of WP:NFCC8, and complete failure of WP:LISTN and WP:LISTCRUFT. There are no independent reliable sources which justify having all NHL logo and colour changes in one list. Sportslogos.net and Sportslogohistory.com are fan sites which are not encyclopedic in purpose. Sources from the teams or league are not independent. Sources from The Hockey Writers are independent, but do not discuss the list as a whole and do not justify LISTN. Flibirigit (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Should be kept to other articles, Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of images or media files. Maybe soft redirect toc:Category:Logos of National Hockey League teams. –DMartin 22:26, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else and WP:NOTGALLERY. Conyo14 (talk) 05:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE just a catalog of logos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zalaraz (talk • contribs) 02:07, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 01:56, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just cruft. Maybe could be merged somewhere else. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:38, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Timmins Fire Department

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

Article about a municipal fire department in a small city, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to notability.
As always, fire departments exist all over the world and do more or less the same things everywhere, so they're quite run of the mill -- the key to making a municipal fire department notable enough for a Wikipedia article isn't to minimally verify that it exists, it's to show WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about it to demonstrate why it should be seen as more than just a run of the mill local fire department.
But this is basically "it exists", sourced entirely to its own self-published content about itself rather than any evidence of third-party coverage or analysis about it. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Timmins, there doesn't seem to be any reason for this to be split, the main Timmins article is under 20k bytes of prose, but as its not mentioned outside a photo caption on the main page a sentence or two will have to be merged in. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The article is little more than a stub. No reason for it to be a seperate article. Nfitz (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Timmins, is agreeable for me, though the firefighting group does get mentioned in multiple sources like hits from google news and even newspapers, seems not SIGCOV or is not directly about the group.Lorraine Crane (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Canada

Contents

Canada

Canada articles for deletion

Canada Super60

Joseph Perrault

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (Manitoba)

Benny Nemer

Sina Bathaie

Knockri Inc.

Wellspring Cancer Support Foundation

Pajeet

Blue Isle Studios

A Young Person's Guide to Kyle Bobby Dunn

Ways of Meaning

Bracebridge West Aerodrome

Covers.com

Ingle International

NHL team colors and logos

Timmins Fire Department

Other Canada Deletions

Canada proposed deletions

Canada speedy deletions

Canada redirect deletions

Canada file deletions

Canada template deletions

Canada category deletions

Canada miscellany deletions

Canada deletion review

Canada undeletion

Canada deletions on Commons