Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Canada

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
(Redirected from Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Quebec)
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

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]

Squirrel Systems

edit
AfDs for this article:
Squirrel Systems (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:NORG and WP:GNG. Of the 12 sources, 8 are press releases. SOurces 5 and 6 are pieces written by an employee, Source 8 is dead but appears to be a piece about a non-notable award and SOurce 9 doesn't mention the subject. A search for source turned up databases, primary sources, blogs and UGS. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a brochure, and Wikipedia has no room for more advertisements. Sources do not confer notability anyways. MediaKyle (talk) 10:48, 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]

Rainbow crossing (Toronto)

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

I merged this to List of north–south roads in Toronto#Church Street but was reverted. Unclear why we would need a separate article for this rainbow crossing. In retrospect I guess Church and Wellesley would be the best redirect/merge target for this though. It could be an on-topic, relevant paragraph there. Fram (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CKYM-FM

edit
CKYM-FM (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)

After doing a WP:BEFORE, I cannot find much significant coverage at all, and can't seem to meet WP:GNG with my own research alone sksatsuma 23:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC) Edit: Following Bearcat's contribution, I agree with the re-direct proposal so please consider my nomination one for re-direct. sksatsuma 14:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Canada. sksatsuma 23:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The listings at the encyclopedia-like databases The History of Canadian Broadcasting and the REC Canadian station database are enough to establist notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Hi @Eastmain, I appreciate you've been around here a while so might have a better idea than me on this, but as far as I can tell those databases would be considered trivial or routine coverage. Radio stations are required to meet WP:NBASIC which requires sources demonstrating in-depth coverage? sksatsuma 11:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I could not find any sources related to the subject online. Does not seem to meet WP:GNG. Kvinnen (talk) 11:35, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to My Broadcasting Corporation. This was created under Wikipedia's old notability standards for radio stations, under which licensed radio stations were deemed to be inherently notable as long as their existence as licensed radio stations was verifiable — the company that owned the radio stations had to pass WP:GNG and WP:CORP standards, but the individual radio stations they owned only had to be verifiable as existing and referenceable to license decisions on the website of the appropriate regulatory authority (CRTC in Canada, FCC in the United States, etc.) That was tightened up to require the individual station to pass GNG on its own far more than a decade after this article already existed.
    Radio stations that are deemed non-notable should, however, always be retained as redirects to a related topic, such as the company that owns them if it has an article or the town or city where they're based, because they are plausible enough search terms that a person who searches for them should still land on some kind of useful information about them. Bearcat (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to My Broadcasting Corporation#Stations: When even the article creator acknowledges that this article only exists as a remnant of prior looser inclusion standards and should not remain an article in 2025, there's no reason to challenge that. Databases are no longer considered signs of notability in this topic area (or any other), especially since the 2021 RfC that confirmed the GNG and its significant coverage requirements are the actual notability/inclusion standards here. I have to think that 2007 was in the early part of the gradual disappearance of SIGCOV for newer radio stations; that the article dates back to then is a reflection of the lower standards of that era on Wikipedia and nothing more. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:33, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to My Broadcasting Corporation#Stations An open-and-shut case of a small-town, comparatively recent station that lacks the source notability to continue to exist. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 18:47, 22 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 [4]. 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]
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]

TSU (song)

edit
TSU (song) (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 and WP:NSONG. No coverage on the song itself; brief coverage on the controversial R Kelly sample (which I just added), which itself is not enough for this article to stand on its own. The song is not discussed in length in the sources I checked. Was actually completely uncited before today (other than charts) and had 2 incorrect statements (according to BBC and Variety, anyway). jolielover♥talk 18:21, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:51, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight hot take, but I always thought Drake singing "I've got a Drac in the studio and I don't just mean I'm in this bitch" was actually pretty funny. Anyways, I think this could be redirected; the writer credit controversy is more of a footnote in the larger album rollout and could be covered on the CLB article. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Nil. Well, first of all. In the notability of WP:NSONG: Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. and note that the song need to be notable even it is in the chart. I also noticed the certifications so it is a green flag IMO. Second, it passed on WP:GNG because have a article from Variety, Billboard, ABS-CBN News (Philippines), NME, People and many more (I did a search, there's so many articles about TSU by drake but I pick the useful articles) and it is covered by WP:SIGCOV. ROY is WAR Talk! 04:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charting does not establish notability on its own and none of these articles are SIGCOV. All they do is talk about the controversy on the surface-level. Which is the whole rationale here. λ NegativeMP1 04:44, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Fraser (Canadian soccer)

edit
John Fraser (Canadian soccer) (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)

Cannot find any articles and citations on him. I have also checked newspapers.com. He also only played one Olympics game as a midfielder. Mysecretgarden (talk) 09:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge too Galt F.C. Again like I posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Cudmore, I believe they are notable as a group, the prose should be merged for all players. I am also curious why this is chosen to be nominated for AfD, when it could have been all merged without the need for AfD. Govvy (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because some editors bitterly oppose any and all changes to these pages and insist that everything has to be done through AFD. If you redirect they just undo the redirect. If you PROD they just deProd with a perfunctory "too many prods". So AFD it has to be. FOARP (talk) 13:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Galt F.C.. Mention the players here with position and lifespan. It's anachronistic to treat the 1904 Olympic football competition as a real Olympic football competition. Geschichte (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 50 words in this source. Kinda ridiculous to start getting rid of Olympic champions... BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @BeanieFan11 he only played one game in Olympics. That's hardy a champion. There is also no indication that he played in the finals. However, since we go based on policy, please point me to the policy that may be relevant here. WP:NOLY seems to apply to individuals who have won medals in the Olympics, but in addition it does not automatically qualify anyone. The policy was changed a while ago. It now starts out by saying "Significant coverage is likely to exist for an athlete...." ,,, if you go back to a version such as June 2021 it says: "Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games,..." .. this has not been the case for a while and I am assuming you are an old school editor that is not aware of the policies. Mysecretgarden (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone who appears for an Olympic champion team is considered an Olympic champion. All I said is that it is ridiculous to get rid of articles on Olympic champions. Being called an editor that is not aware of the policies by someone with 1/100 as many contributions as myself is kind of insulting to be honest. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @BeanieFan11 I apologize if my comment came across as insulting—that was not my intention. I only meant to point out that, under the current policies, being an Olympic Champion does not automatically qualify someone, and it appears you may not have been aware of this change. The guidelines specify that significant news coverage is still required. I fully acknowledge that you have made more edits than I have; however, the number of edits does not necessarily reflect familiarity with every Wikipedia policy. There are likely many areas where your knowledge exceeds mine, but in this case, it seems you may not be as familiar with the WP:NOLY policy. Mysecretgarden (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @BeanieFan11 fully agree. Svartner (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or (2nd pref.) Redirect - This was a team medal, not individual, and per WP:NTEAM members of the team don't inherit the notability of the team. Then there's the question of whether a tournament in which exactly two countries (three teams - two for the US, one for Canada) were represented qualifies even under WP:NOLY, and it clearly does not because NOLY explicitly excludes situations in which everyone is guaranteed a medal ("Significant coverage is likely to exist for an athlete in any sport if they have won a medal at the modern Olympic Games, including the Summer Olympics (since 1896) or the Winter Olympics (since 1924), e.g., Ian Thorpe, or have won a medal at the Paralympic Games, e.g. Laurentia Tan, unless the athlete competed in an event with fewer than four competitors or teams (i.e., when all participants received a medal)". I'd also question whether it's accurate to say that the players in these teams were playing for their countries - especially the players in the two US teams but even the players in Galt F.C. appear to have been representing their teams, not their countries. Fails WP:NSPORTS due to lack of IRS SIGCOV.
Oppose Merge - There isn't anything WP:DUE to merge here. Whilst I'm at It I should say that my preference is for deletion, not redirection, because "(Canadian soccer)" is not a plausible search-term. FOARP (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"This was a team medal, not individual" Why'd all the players get medals then? Football_at_the_1904_Summer_Olympics#Medal_table: "According to a report in the Toronto Mail and Empire newspaper of November 18, 1904, medals were awarded to the players in St. Louis. The report states that "Immediately after the game, the Galt aggregation, numbering about 50 persons, retired to the office of James E. Sullivan, chief of the Department of Physical Culture, where they received their prize. After a talk by Mr. James A. Conlon, of the Physical Culture Department, Mayor Mundy, of the City of Galt, presented each player on the winning team with a beautiful gold medal." The medal awarded to Fred Steep of Galt, held by The Soccer Hall of Fame and Museum in Vaughan, Ontario, clearly shows that the medals were made in St. Louis, Missouri." ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are team medals because this is a team event. Players receive them regardless of how they, individually, performed. The winner is the team, not the individual players. FOARP (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly why I said merge, because Galt F.C. won the medal for the Canadian team, the Galt F.C. article could easily house basic team information in say a table. FOARP I feel ashamed for you, (I never said redirect) you're clearly more interested in article destruction than article creation. Govvy (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've created hundreds of articles, so no, that impression is pretty much just in your own head.
What I'm against is the mass-spamming of the encyclopaedia with non-notable articles that's been going on. As can be seen from WP:NSPORTS2022, WP:LUGSTUBS and WP:LUGSTUBS2, I'm far from the only person who thinks this is an issue.
As for merging, as I said, there is nothing reliably sourced and WP:DUE that needs merging here. FOARP (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mass-spamming going on? This has nothing to do with Lugnuts. Why are you casting aspersion on the well-appreciated article creator - User:Gh, for an article that clearly met creation criteria? The article has been here for almost 20 years! Nfitz (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CANDU Owners Group

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

WP:NCORP, couldn't find anything on them. Paradoctor (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Updated to merge, see below.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is further support or disagreement with the possibility of a Merge or Redirection as an ATD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:54, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anything @Paradoctor? I see 391 hits in ProQuest for ""CANDU Owners group" and another 165 in Wikipedia Library - some of them academic journals. Can you tell me more about your BEFORE? I'm curious where @GenuineArt, @Mean as custard, and @Lorraine Crane checked as well - before I start delving through over 500 references! Nfitz (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. Repeated my usual sweep, and now I got results that at least mention them. The only explanation I have that my original query had a typo or something. 🤷 From what I see, though, finding the nuggets among the dross is going to require some digging, it mostly mentions in the context of reactor-related topics. Paradoctor (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure @Paradoctor what one would expect other than reactor-related topics. A CANDU is a type of reactor - somewhat unique in it's usage of heavy water and unenriched uranium. This would be a group of organisations that have this type of reactor. Perhaps I'm missing something in your comment? Nfitz (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't ping me. I'm watching, obviously.
Sources on the reactor type, but not the group. Employ, not define. You'll see that very quickly for yourself when you look at the sources. Paradoctor (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I understand. I guess I've some digging to do! Please do ping me though - I'm certainly not watching very closely (not sure why it's obvious who would and wouldn't be watching). Nfitz (talk) 08:08, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is my nomination. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 12:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've never watched any of mine, other than casually. Nfitz (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz: 😲 Paradoctor (talk) 20:14, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think the nominator should have much involvement afterwards - unless there's a specific question. It's a process, not a campaign. Though I rarely nominate anything that is completely non-contentious. Though I don't have anything on my watchlist TBH - it's too annoying. Nfitz (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz: How do you learn from your errors if not by watching them happen? How do share what you've learned if not by getting involved?
"non-contentious" You need some philosophy in your life, friend! ^_^ Paradoctor (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If someone wants input, they'll do the polite thing and ping me! Nfitz (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz: I did. Pro tip: add "ping me!" to your sig. Takes the guessing out of it. Paradoctor (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe in sigs. Nfitz (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but then you have no standing to call others impolite for not knowing your idiosyncratic preferences. Paradoctor (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No one has called anyone else impolite. However with that last comment you have indeed become unpolite and crossed over into both failing to AGF and a personal attack. That this is being done about such an unrelated and minor issue baffles me. Can I suggest that you just stop this absurd discussion, and try and appreciate that someone pinging you isn't impolite! Nfitz (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No Problem, I am welcome to possible discoveries of more SIGCOV sources mainly about the "group" and not the Reactor Tech itself to defend the pages notability. Do provide here some samples and we can recheck these together.
Cheers! Lorraine Crane (talk) 11:30, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, there is less of a consensus now than there was last week. Can any new references be assessed?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have not found in-depth coverage of the "nonprofit" group that promotes the CANDU reactors of its members. Sources are primary or shallow mentions about/comments from Conexus. Against merging as I do not see how including info about an industry group will add to info about the CANDU reactor. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 13:20, 24 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]

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=1307943989"