Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Canada

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
(Redirected from Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Alberta)
Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Canada. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Canada|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Canada. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Americas.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

Canada

edit

Canada articles for deletion

edit

Pajeet

edit


Pajeet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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 ([1], [2], [3], [4]) whose intentions have been nothing more than racist trolling ([5], [6]). The article itself has only served as a racist troll magnet whenever it has been repeatedly created ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]). Edit: And seven more accounts have just been banned for disruption related to the article since this AfD has been up ([17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]).

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

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 [24]/[25] 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 [26], [27] but ultimately restored again by you [28] 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.[29]
  • 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[30]
  • Non trivial coverage in a report by Institute for Strategic Dialogue [31]
  • 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. [32]
  • Significant coverage in a Global Project Against Hate and Extremism  (GPAHE) study [33]

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.[34] 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]
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]

Blue Isle Studios

edit
Blue Isle Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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]

A Young Person's Guide to Kyle Bobby Dunn

edit
AfDs for this article:
A Young Person's Guide to Kyle Bobby Dunn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet the WP guidelines for album notability Tiakat333 (talk) 16:55, 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

edit
Ways of Meaning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet the WP notability criteria for albums. Tiakat333 (talk) 17:15, 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]

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

edit
Bracebridge West Aerodrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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]

Covers.com

edit
Covers.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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]

Ingle International

edit
Ingle International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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]

NHL team colors and logos

edit
NHL team colors and logos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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]

Daphne (artist-run centre)

edit
Daphne (artist-run centre) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Artist centre only of local interest, falling short of WP:NCORP. BD2412 T 22:25, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orbital Media

edit
Orbital Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD suggesting a merge, but the company made a number of notable games so there is no clear target to merge to. Fails WP:NCORP. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:29, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only cited source fails WP:SIRS and WP:ORGTRIV. JBchrch talk 19:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Project Castaway

edit
Project Castaway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Timmins Fire Department

edit
Timmins Fire Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a 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]

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]

Aditya Jha

edit
AfDs for this article:
Aditya Jha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason for nomination: Appears to fail WP:N (notability guidelines). The article reads like a résumé and is promotional in tone (see WP:PROMO). It lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources (WP:RS) and contains many unsourced or unverifiable statements (WP:V).

Note: The AfD template on the article has a malformed link. If someone experienced with AfD tagging could correct it, that would be appreciated.

There was a previous AfD discussion in 2007. However, the issues identified then persist: the article still does not establish notability through substantial independent sources.

— Buddhimatta Buddhimatta (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Buddhimatta, I've edited this nomination slightly as it was incorrectly formatted. You don't need to vote on your own nominations, as we take the initial nomination as an obvious delete vote. Best, CoconutOctopus talk 09:34, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thank u so much! Buddhimatta (talk) 10:03, 16 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 16. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 09:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Nepal, India, and Canada. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:48, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is a promotional article that relies on numerous poor or unreliable sources. Zuck28 (talk) 11:21, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubify: The nominator is correct that this is a promotional puff piece, however... The subject does pass WP:ANYBIO, because they are a Member of the Order of Canada. Some coverage is available, which makes the subject suitable for an article. I suggest paring it back to a very simple description of his work and the list of recognitions. MediaKyle (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Clearly WP:PROMO. Svartner (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubify: as MediaKyle mentions, they are a member of the order of Canada, therefore, they do pass WP:ANYBIO. I also agree that it is very WP:PROMO, I've tried to trim some of the article down. m a MANÍ1990(talk | contribs) 00:14, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aditya Jha (previous discussion). Receipt of the Order of Canada does not confer automatic notability; 8,647 people have been appointed since 1967, yet fewer than 100 have articles. Even members of the Order of Canada advisory council, such as Isabelle Mondou (Deputy Minister of Canadian Heritage) lack entries (draft started). The article reads promotional, with personal details suggesting self-promotion. Retaining it risks setting a precedent for similar promotional submissions. MelisaaArcadia (talk) 06:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – The article fails to meet the general notability guideline WP:GNG. Most coverage is either brief, routine, or promotional in nature, lacking in-depth, independent secondary sources. While the subject has received honors like the Order of Canada, this alone does not confer lasting encyclopedic notability without substantial coverage in reliable sources. The tone is also promotional, resembling a résumé more than an encyclopedic entry. -Setwardo (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and stubify. Recipient of the Order of Canada. Passes criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO. The fact that a bad call was made in one other AFD discussion doesn't mean we should repeat that mistake here.4meter4 (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the point, but I don’t see the earlier AfD as a “bad call.” On the contrary, that outcome reflected concerns that remain relevant—if anything, more so today, given that nothing genuinely new or notable has emerged since then. Most of the sourcing still reads as promotional or subject-driven rather than the kind of sustained, independent depth required under WP:GNG. The Order of Canada is certainly notable, but per WP:ANYBIO it does not automatically override gaps in independent coverage. As MelisaaArcadia noted, 8,647 people have been appointed to the Order of Canada , yet only a fraction have Wikipedia articles. In my informal, most of those with pages already had notability before receiving the award, and some pages exist for reasons unrelated to the award.
    The prior AfD highlighted precisely these notability and sourcing concerns, and nothing substantial has changed—there is still no depth of independent reporting, and no new notability beyond promotion around their latest business venture, which in itself does not have any notability. In that sense, the earlier decision was a valid application of policy, not a mistake to be “corrected.” The fact that the article was re-nominated with essentially the same content is concerning. PS, I have taken this as a learning opportunity and appreciate all the points raised as I continue to understand how to contribute effectively to Wikipedia, and as such welcome your reply. Buddhimatta (talk) 07:22, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's some in-depth coverage there is about him in English publications. Toronto Star 2010, Toronto Star 2007, Globe and Mail, and admittingly fluffy Globe and Mail piece. There's in-depth coverage in other sources such as [43]. I'm having problems with Nepalese-language sources, but here's a 2008 BBC translation of a Kantipur (daily) article about him (ProQuest 460062718). Nfitz (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2025 (UTC) Nfitz (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pulling these sources together. I’m still convinced that they don't rise above promotional coverage. The Kantipur piece, for example, is largely based on Mr. Jha’s own statements rather than independent analysis, which raises concerns under WP:INDEPTH and WP:INDEPENDENT. Even the Toronto Star and Globe and Mail articles read more like business features or lifestyle profiles than the kind of sustained, critical coverage normally expected for WP:GNG. It’s also worth noting that business and lifestyle desks in major newspapers sometimes run PR-driven features or “profile” pieces, which can blur the line between reporting and advertorial. From a Wikipedia standpoint, per WP:RS and WP:INDY, we need significant coverage that is not only reliable but also genuinely independent of the subject. Taken together, the sourcing leans closer to visibility generated through promotion than to the type of in-depth, independent coverage that would establish lasting encyclopedic notability.Buddhimatta (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that unlike an attack page, which policy requires us to remove, promotional tone can and should be fixed by editing, not by deletion. WP:PROMO is a good motivation to stubify, but not to delete. Also note that while the Order of Canada honour does not confer automatic notability, the question is whether independent, reliable sources provide SIGCOV about him. Please focus on analyzing the sources. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are suggesting, Buddhimatta, that the Toronto Star and Globe and Mail run PR-driven features that aren't indicated as such? These are the two biggest and newspapers-of-record in (respectively) Toronto and Canada. To suggest otherwise indicates unawareness of what these two papers are. I receive both on my doorstep every day and are very familiar with them, and such aspersions about them are completely unwarranted and unnecessary! The Kantipur piece was echoed by the BBC - a highly respectable news organization! The issue with this article isn't notability - it's how poorly and promotially it is written; neither of those issues have any relevance at AFD. Nfitz (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not discounting the reputation of the Toronto Star or Globe and Mail. My point is specifically about the content of the coverage related to this subject: the articles largely report the subject’s own claims (e.g., starting and selling a company for $100 million) without independent verification or critical analysis. From a Wikipedia notability perspective, this does not provide the significant independent coverage (SIGCOV) required under WP:GNG.
Regarding the format, even respected newspapers sometimes publish interviews, lifestyle profiles, or feature pieces that are largely descriptive rather than investigative or analytical. The concern here is that the coverage reads more like a profile or self-reported résumé than in-depth reporting that would demonstrate lasting encyclopedic notability. Buddhimatta (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG. The cited coverage is mostly routine, subject-driven, or profile-style, and does not provide the significant, independent, in-depth treatment required for lasting encyclopedic notability.
The Kantipur piece (via ProQuest, misidentified in the article as BBC) mentions only a single line about a future pledge to donate 3,000 laptops, with no evidence that the pledge was carried out in full—except for one wayback link claiming 15 laptops were provided (which appear to be toy laptops for children). The Toronto Star and Globe and Mail articles report the subject’s claims (e.g., starting and selling a company for $100 million independently) without independent corroboration. I could not find verification of this transaction linked to the subject in any independent source, and multiple individuals are listed elsewhere (e.g., LinkedIn) as founders/co-founders of this company, indicating that the coverage reflects self-narrative and exaggerated claims. Similarly, donation claims in the article are unverified, and roughly 90% of cited references are inaccessible or non-functional. Even if true, these claims do not establish encyclopedic notability.
There are mentions of a project on Ryerson.ca (inactive link, accessible via the Wayback Machine), which appears to have been a one-off initiative with no independent notability. The subject claims “plans to expand Project Beyshick to other countries,” but there is no follow-up coverage or evidence that the project was replicated. While there is a source confirming the subject’s appointment to the National Capital Commission board, it is unclear whether a board appointment alone establishes lasting encyclopedic significance; typically, notable achievements while in such a role would support notability, which does not appear to be the case here.
Beyond these examples, there is no significant coverage (SIGCOV) from independent, reliable sources. The existing material is closer to promotional or feature-style pieces than to critical, third-party reporting, and does not demonstrate lasting notability.
The subject’s Order of Canada appointment (Member, the lowest of the three levels) in 2002 is noteworthy, but per WP:ANYBIO, this alone does not establish notability. Thousands of individuals have received this honour, and only those with substantial independent coverage beyond the award itself generally merit articles. In this case, there is no additional independent coverage or recent developments since the appointment that would support lasting encyclopedic notability.
In summary:
  • No independent SIGCOV beyond self-published or routine coverage.
  • Sources provide visibility and self-claims, not the independent depth required by WP:GNG.
  • Tone and self promotion is secondary; the main issue is the absence of sustained, reliable, independent reporting, or any notable work.
  • These concerns were raised in the prior AfD, and nothing substantive has changed.
Accordingly, the article does not meet Wikipedia’s notability requirements and should not be retained.
Note: I have reviewed the sources available (90% are inaccessible) but its possible I may have missed a coverage. I have aimed to remain neutral and policy-focused despite being the nominator; I welcome input if any significant independent sources exist that demonstrate lasting notability. Buddhimatta (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree. There are no rules about this, and you are overcooking the whole thing. The coverage is certainly not self-published. Nor is it routine - good god, how many profiles does the Globe publish? Nfitz (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Nfitz,
I am aware of the reputations of The Globe and Mail and The Toronto Star, although I do not pay for it (but my inlaws do) and I prefer to read news on google news. That said, the articles under discussion raise serious questions about depth, independence, and editorial value. They read more like online lifestyle features than pieces carrying the rigour typical of print journalism. While both newspapers produce high-quality investigative reporting, these particular articles are not examples of that standard.
Over the past 18 years, there has been no substantial, independently verifiable reporting of genuine significance regarding this individual. The almost two decade old coverage above consists of interviews or features highlighting immigrants and persons of colour, rather than independent analysis, and some is limited to unreputed or personal online channels. (The video description in one of these was taken right out of the wiki page of this person, showing how we are lending to apparent notability just by allowing inclusion in this encyclopedia.)
On the broader point, I explored the “blurry lines” issue between editorial and advertising. The Wikipedia entry for The Globe and Mail notes a 2012 critique highlighting content that obscured the distinction between journalism and paid promotion—a reminder that even reputable outlets can publish material that is not fully independent.
In short, the coverage here does not demonstrate enduring encyclopedic notability. Retaining this article in its current form risks setting a precedent for submissions that are styled to appear notable rather than verifiably so. Wikipedia must remain selective, preserving content that is demonstrably significant, not merely presented as such. MelisaaArcadia (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These don't look promotional to me. As to that 2012 8-page spread (my recollection is that it was an entire separate section), there is no reference in our article! But it does ring a bell - I believe it was clearly marked as to what it is. Digging ... oh, here's the actual Tyee article]. Yes, it's clearly not part of the paper noting at the top of every page that it's "An Information Feature". Then on page 2 it clearly states that "This report was produced by RandallAnthony Communications ... in conjuction with the advertising department of the Globe and Mail ...". Misleading perhaps for the ignorant, but certainly clear. You can see this at https://www.proquest.com/docview/1695856702/ on page 36 of 58. I see nothing like that for the Jha piece. I don't see how it's comparable - or relevant to this discussion, @MelisaaArcadia. The Globe piece was however an interview - the Star 2010 is much better GNG weight - and appears on page B1 - above the fold on the front page of the Business section. I don't see any concern with the 2007 Star piece - though it was buried in a Saturday Star magazine section targeted at the South Asian community that I don't even remember. But there's nothing indicating that it's promotional. I've added a ref, and provided better context in the G&M article. Nfitz (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Nfitz for the research.
The more I understand this subjects pattern, the Stronger my delete conviction.
Notability cannot rest on a single 15-year-old article that merely repeats the subject’s own unsupported claim of selling his company for $100M, while giving no recognition to the facts as I have uncovered. Independent reporting shows that Omid Hodaie (CEO), Payman Hodaie (CTO), and at least a 17 others held ownership stakes and played key roles in this company. It was not a cash deal and was sold for $94 million worth of Sun Microsystems shares (page 60, point 10).
Interesting fact, around the time of their Sun Microsystems share swap based acquisition, Sun shares traded in the range of $80-$250, but next year they were worth $13-$20. So just within a few months to a year+ later, this same company was worth $15 million or less. That makes both the company and its owner making tall claims even less notable, and were part of the speculative "dot com bubble."
So may be the Subject received 1% of this sale or 10% but definitely not 100%. Maybe, he was part of the team that worked on selling the company, or may be he was just an co-founding employee with shares, but he didn't do it alone, which may have warranted some notability, but for the dot come bubble sale. The subject’s insistence on presenting himself as the SOLE founder and THE seller is a red flag - He has not given credits anywhere to the other 16 owners per the Ontario Securities Commission.
The sourcing also reveals a troubling pattern of exaggeration: claiming a donation of 3,000 laptops but delivering only 15 toy laptops; claiming to provide scholarships for 200 Canadian students annually, yet none of the listed references on Wikipedia work and no independent verification appears in Google archives or searches. In any country, if a person provides 200 scholarships a year for 20 years (that too in a small country like Canada), that would warrant a lot of high quality independent coverage. And may be he does provide a few scholarships, but seems to be self promotion inspired and a marketing technique than true giving and philanthropy which would warrant notability. Instead, the record shows reliance on small YouTube channels that simply echo his own promotional narrative or even copy Wikipedia phrasing.
Without serious, independent coverage, this article relies on self-propagated claims and does not meet encyclopedic standards. To me Subjects pattern reminds me me Vijay Mallya who built an image of himself as the "King," but behind that was a series of exaggerated claims, half-truths, and fraudulent practices. Buddhimatta (talk) 07:47, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz
For this AfD, this subject fails WP:NBASIC, WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBIO. Single event (Order of Canada) and otherwise a low-profile over the past 20 years means we should avoid having a biographical article on this individual. All coverage to date to some extent seems like Churnalism although not in traditional sense, but that the single award (Order of Canada) and unverified fact their 100 million company is being repeated. Everything else is insignificant.
On another topic, I will look into the blurry lines topic more, and work on updating how it is projected on the Globe & Mail wiki page. Very interesting topic indeed. I need to dig in once I find a pocket on time. MelisaaArcadia (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't even considered whether or not they have an Order of Canada - nor do I see it mentioned much in the additional references I provided. If indeed he does have one (or not), then it doesn't effect my opinion that NBASIC, GNG, etc., are met in the additional references provided in this discussion. Nfitz (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it: I’m originally from Bihar and heard about this guy 10 years ago. I wanted to meet him long back but my head told me that he is very big show off person and he always talk about his wikipedia profile and ask to google him. He make big promises but never do anything. So I will get no help.

People in Bihar think him as a opportunity person & saying big things but no doing. I remember people told that in Bihar he said he will open closed sugar mills 15 years ago, and nothing happen. It was in sitamarhi paper.

He is not a real big person. Only good people and big people should be added. He is like a girgit. 106.222.210.246 (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we were to eliminate worthless blowhards, we'd have to get rid of a lot of articles. Can the closer please disregard this policy-violating vote? Nfitz (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, what policy have they violated? In the AfD prior, ip address votes seem to have had some consideration, but I could be wrong. Just trying to understand and learn, thank you. MelisaaArcadia (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Person is notable. Since i am from Nepal, i am well aware of his activities as businessman and philanthropy. He has received notable award. Agree with views of Nfitz (talk) . Of course the tone and content has to be and can be improved from NPOV and that doesn’t mean article fails notability. Rahmatula786 (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there any Nepalese references you can dig out? All I could find was the one translated by BBC - which means there's at least a corresponding one in Nepalese (?) that I couldn't find. Nfitz (talk) 04:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This article in Nagrik Daily is more than enough for notability. https://nagariknews.nagariknetwork.com/social-affairs/the-professional-journey-of-aditya-jha-an-entrepreneur-who-sees-success-in-failure-99-33.html Rahmatula786 (talk) 08:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    plenty of articles on him. https://biznessnews.com/posts/43855
    https://www.reportersnepal.com/2025/08/1116024/
    https://english.pardafas.com/aditya-jha-the-entrepreneur-who-found-success-in-failure/
    https://nepalireporter.com/tag/aditya-jha Rahmatula786 (talk) 08:06, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    None of these are reliable, independent sources. They appear to be part of the same network, recycling the same content.
    • Nagariknews / ReportersNepal / BiznessNews / Pardafas – These are popup-heavy, ad-driven sites that syndicate the same material across partner outlets, except nagarik, which seems to own these other blogs. The articles merely repeat the subject’s own promotional claims, such as portraying him as someone who could “change Nepal if given the opportunity.” In reality, he already had such an opportunity through a government contract in Nepal, which was not renewed. The coverage simply amplifies his self-descriptions of what he might do, rather than documenting what he has actually accomplished. There is no independent analysis or critical reporting. And again, is he Indian origin or is he Nepalese origin?
    • NepaliReporter – The site itself appears compromised when loaded, and its content is unreliable at best.
    Collectively, these do not rise to the level of significant, independent coverage required by WP:RS and WP:GNG. Buddhimatta (talk) 12:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point, Buddhimatta, which Nepalese souces you consider reliable? Also, I don't understand the question about origin. Nfitz (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not sure why you’re asking me that. Have you actually read the syndicated interview yourself? It’s basically just a platform for the subject to talk about himself, with claims that appear highly exaggerated.
    Initially my conviction was based on limited knowledge, but after spending hours researching, I am convinced that this person, albeit somewhat successful, is more of a relentless self-promoter who makes inflated and misleading claims.
    For instance, the OSC records clearly show there were 17 owners involved in the company, and the CEO quoted in the globe and mail article about the sale is not, him, and the CTO is also someone else. Also, that company was sold for $94 million in shares— and within a year it was valued closer to $15 million, divided among all 17 owners.Yet the subject continues to brag as if he alone made a $100 million exit.
    Similarly, he once claimed he will donate 3,000 laptops to children in Nepal, but the real number was closer to 15. He also boasts about offering 200 scholarships in Canada, but in reality only a handful exist, and even those links don’t work.
    I find that this Wikipedia page only serves to amplify his exaggerations, effectively giving him a platform to market himself. An encyclopedia should not be lending notability a subject like Mr. Jah. Buddhimatta (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure, @Buddhimatta, what the claims being false have to do with AFD. If that was a criteria we'd have to delete the article for Donald Trump! If there's issues with the accuracy of the article, then add the sources refuting them. But seriously - what do you consider valid Nepalase sources - you seem to have trashed various ones as being ad-driven (???) and unreliable. Before I spend time researching, and with you being an expert on Nepalese sources, can you please list some high quality Nepalese sits, so I don't waste our time? Nfitz (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Still DELETE after further research (summarized point two onwards), but first response to @Nfitz on their question:
    1. Donald Trump has millions of people searching about him daily and hence of notability under WP:GNG, WP:POLITICIAN, WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:AUTHOR, WP:CORPDEPTH. And even then, the Donald Trump Wiki page was only created in 2004. By that that time he had already been famous for two decades, was worth roughly $2.5–3 billion (Forbes), and had launched the hit show The Apprentice. In the 1980s he was a symbol of flashy New York wealth, owning the Grand Hyatt Hotel (1980) and Trump Tower (1983). He made cameos in film and TV (e.g., Home Alone 2) and published several books, including The Art of the Deal (1987), a bestseller that shaped his public image as a master negotiator. Another example, Elon Musk got his wikipedia page in mid 2003, much after hs repeat notable successes, like building and selling Zip2 (1995-1999), Co-founding and selling PayPal/X.com (1999-2002), Launching SpaceX (2002), Tesla (pre 2003).
    2. Nepal has many established media outlets, as every country does, and perhaps some of what you submitted comes from them. However, none of the cited content convincingly demonstrates the subject’s notability, particularly with regard to recent or ongoing significance. Many of the links read more like pop-up-heavy blogs than serious publications.
    3. Others and the Closing Admin can judge for themselves by reading the content of all publications in Canada and Nepal, not just looking at source brand.
    4. All these publications, even relatively prominent ones, have repeated questionable claims about him—for example, that he alone sold his company for $100 million. In reality, there were 17 other owners as per the OSC (page 60, point 10) and he was not even the CEO. This shows that much of the coverage consists of unverified statements or promotional interviews, rather than independent fact-checked reporting.
    5. There is no substantial or notable work attributed to him in the past 25 years—apart from the disputed company sale and a minor donation of 15 laptops nearly 18 years ago, far fewer than the 3000 he had promised.
    6. Even if we were to consider notability due to sale of a company he co-owned for 94 Million dollars (worth of shares) the company value dropping by almost 70% to more like 15 million dollars the next year makes both the company and its owner making tall claims even less notable, and were part of the speculative "dot com bubble."
    7. He also claims of offering 200 scholarships in Canada each year, but I can find no evidence of this. I recall seeing mention of one on a university website at some point, but I cannot locate it again. None of the references in his article confirm this either, suggesting they may never have worked and went unchecked.
    8. No independent SIGCOV beyond self-published or routine coverage.
    9. Sources provide visibility and self-claims, not the independent depth required by WP:GNG.
    Initially, my conviction was based on the original AfD from 2007 and the lack of sources for many of his claims. After spending hours researching, I am strongly convinced that this biography does not belong on encyclopedia.
    The prior AfD identified these very issues of notability and sourcing, and nothing material has changed since. There is still no depth of independent reporting, and no significant new notability beyond self promotional coverage. In that sense, the earlier decision was a valid application of policy—not a mistake to be “corrected,” so I suggest DELETION. Buddhimatta (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, you are going on about that he's potentially told lies. This has absolutely no relevance to AFD; but suggests that the article could be improved if you have sources. When the Globe and Mail reported Mulroney's lies about the Airbus payments, do we discount it when the truth comes out a few years later? I love the moving goalposts on the Nepalese sources. First you trash the source. And then you say the source could be good, but the article isn't good enough - but you still actually don't answer the question! Did the joke about deleting Trump's article really go that far over your head - he's been notable enough since he agreed to change his racist rental policies after the federal investigation during the Nixon adminstration! Nfitz (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The focus of AfD is notability. If most of the claims that supposedly established notability turn out to be false, and the subject has not otherwise become notable (for example, by holding a high office like president or prime minister), then per Wikipedia policy that subject would not meet the standards of WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. That’s why AfD exists: to determine whether the article should be kept, deleted, or redirected.
    2. Regarding the Nepalese sources — my comments are about the quality of the coverage. If an article appears on a pop-up heavy site with the tone of a promotional piece, that raises legitimate questions about reliability. When a commenter provides the same syndicated puff piece across four different websites and presents that as evidence, it further reduces confidence in the reliability of the coverage, and raises questions about whether that is actually adding value to Wikipedia, or simply taking sides. That said, I’m open to the possibility that the parent publication could have local standing, even if not globally recognized. I’m not claiming to be all-knowing — just evaluating sources against Wikipedia’s guidelines.
    3. In the broader picture, this really comes down to whether the subject has received significant, reliable, independent coverage. At present, it doesn’t seem like they have.
    4. I will not be engaging with you further, as your responses so far have not provided any value that changes my opinion, which is based on significant research into this subject and a detailed understanding of Wikipedia’s policies. Buddhimatta (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Honors like the Order of Canada and inclusion in listicles are not sufficient without multiple in-depth, reliable secondary sources. The tone is promotional and reads like a CV. Previous AfD concerns remain unresolved. Chronos.Zx (talk) 08:14, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per previous discussion (do not double-count). However, adding this note here because while cleaning up the main article, I discovered that one of the trusted sources previously cited for notability — Toronto Star — appears to have a major flaw. The author claims the person (Aditya Jha) made $100 million, but another editor found that the underlying source of this money was a company named Isopia, which was owned by 17 significant shareholders (The Ontario Securities Commission, page 60). Fact is $94 million worth of Sun microsystems shares (not $100 million) were provided to these 17 individuals, and that proves to that a mis-claim by this person is being blindly printed, and that same claim has been repeated later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelisaaArcadia (talk • contribs) 22:28, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The nominator’s main issues have been resolved, as MelisaaArcadia has already stripped much of the content. We have sources covering various stages of his life and the Toronto Star along with other references are more than sufficient to establish notability. Discussions about whether specific claims from those sources should be included in the article belong on the subject’s talk page, not at AfD. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:34, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely. Moreover there seems more of personal revenge than unbiased discussion Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:53, 30 August 2025 (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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Svartner (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Respecting Aboriginal Values & Environmental Needs

edit
Respecting Aboriginal Values & Environmental Needs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is basically an essay about justifying what the organization does (with very little sourcing) but does not indicate how the organization itself notable per WP:GNG or WP:NORG. The secondary sources cited do not talk significantly about the organization, if they mention it at all. ... discospinster talk 16:25, 8 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! 21:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY.4meter4 (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (adding on to my previous !vote): I've cleaned up the article a bit but I still don't see notability. Charityintelligence probably satisfies WP:SIRS. The Narwhal mainly quotes/paraphrases from the org's founder and doesn't have much independent coverage otherwise. rabble.ca only has a listicle entry which isn't really significant coverage. The Tyee has only a course announcement and doesn't really discuss the organization itself. The other sources are obviously non-independent or only contain trivial mentions. So, there's one source that cleanly satisfies WP:SIRS and three more with bits of coverage. I don't think that's enough.
If there are more sources that could be added, even if paywalled, I would like to see them instead of relying on assertions that they exist. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article has improved during the AfD, including added sources. Good idea to give this another week before we decide.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:24, 23 August 2025 (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.

Other Canada Deletions

edit

Canada proposed deletions

edit
Also check the list at WP:PRODSUM


Canada speedy deletions

edit

Canada redirect deletions

edit
Also check the list at WP:RFD

Canada file deletions

edit
Also check the lists at WP:FFD , WP:PUF

Canada template deletions

edit
Also check the list at WP:TFD

Canada category deletions

edit
Also check the list at WP:CFDALL

Canada miscellany deletions

edit
Also check the list at WP:MFD


Canada deletion review

edit
Also check the list at WP:DRV

Canada undeletion

edit
Also check the list at WP:REFUND

Canada deletions on Commons

edit

%

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Canada&oldid=1308519923"