This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Canada. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Canada|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Canada.
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:
Delete. Negligible impact yet on scholarly community. A misguided creation of this BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. An assistant professor with one book. I did not find any reviews of it. For this sort of field we are going to need multiple reviews of multiple books for WP:AUTHOR notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails GNG. Nothing in Google news or books. Nothing when searching in cbc.ca. Only primary sources in plain Google search. LibStar (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I disagree with the nominator here. If there exist notable schools and sources, it is therefore a populated district, and meets WP:GEO and WP:PLACES. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 11:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered why it is retained on Wikipedia from 2006 till this moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by War Term (talk • contribs) 02:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've not given a valid reason for deletion. Deletion is based on the subject of the article, not the condition of the article. See WP:BEFORE. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Stein meets the WP:GNG with significant coverage from reliable sources such as [[1]], [[2]] and [[3]]. This is also WP:SIGCOV but is not independent: [[4]]. Let'srun (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a band, not reliably sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The attempted notability claim, that they had a single peak #51 in the charts, is unsourced and has proven entirely unverifiable, and #51 is in no way a high enough chart position to constitute and instant notability freebie without adequate sourcing -- but the only source cited here at all is a (pporly written) directory entry, and on a WP:BEFORE search for other sources all I'm finding is their own hometown local paper and an alt-weekly, which isn't enough to get them over WP:GNG if it's all they've got. Bearcat (talk) 00:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a band, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The notability claim on offer here is that they exist (or existed, because a lot of the information here is very outdated), and the referencing is entirely to primary sources (music sourced to its own presence on iTunes or YouTube, etc.) that are not support for notability. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage in RS and the band appears to have fizzled out. Their youtube channel only has 300 something subscribers... There is no news about them, other than a few places to stream their music. I doubt they were ever notable by our standards, even less today. Oaktree b (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Highly unlikely to pass the WP:10YEARTEST (and WP:SUSTAINED). Content which isn't related to the song isn't substantial enough to merit a stand-alone article. – Hilst[talk] 15:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it not only got popular because of the feud but it has been in business since 1976. So it will continue to be in the news and magazines (especially local ones like Now) as it has been for the last several decades Freedun (yippity yap) 18:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it will get coverage because it is a very popular restaurant in toronto regardless of the feud Freedun (yippity yap) 18:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, took a spin through the hits, and before the feud there’s not enough coverage for an article, just lists, listicles, coverage of nearby crime, and one art collective that named itself after the restaurant, everyday restaurant coverage stuff, not anything that would give the restuarant lasting notability. Ruth Bader Yinzburg (Ruth Bader Yinzburg)
Here are some news articles from a long while before the feud. [5][6]Freedun (yippity yap) 02:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG, respectively because his roles are limited to supporting/minor characters and article lacks sufficient sources. He was last known for starring in The Andromeda Strain before disappearing from the entertainment industry in 2008. My Google searches exclusively showed coverage about the Czech actor but nothing about the younger Michal Suchánek. No news have been reported on him for more than 15 years either. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some roles seem verry very mildly significant. But the 1st source on the page mentions 1 Emmy nomination and 2 Young Artist Award nominations which may have him meet ANYBIO. Notable as a child actor, then.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The three non-primary sources in this article contain only trivial coverage. A WP:BEFORE search for the event name in English and French turned up nothing usable. (In terms of precedents, there are currently no other articles on individual swing dance events, and I would expect to see one on the more significant International Lindy Hop Championships before this.) Sdkbtalk 20:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a demolished hotel, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria. The referencing here is more than 50 per cent reference bombed to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, such as photographs and directory entries and the self-published websites or Twitter feeds of entities named in the article. And even what there is for proper media coverage isn't building a particularly strong case for notability, as it's entirely local coverage either (a) focusing specifically on the site's place in the city's perennially changing arena-block redevelopment project rather than anything that would establish that it was ever actually noteworthy as a hotel, or (b) tangentially verifying other facts that have nothing whatsoever to do with the hotel, like the existence of the McEwen Architecture School and the farmer's market. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this hotel from having to have a stronger notability claim than just having existed, or from having to have more than just "what is to be done to redevelop the land it used to be on?" for coverage. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources 9, 16, 19 and 20 are about the structure. Should be ok to keep Oaktree b (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also covered here [7], it's a well known structure in Sudbury. Or it was, this helps tell the story. Oaktree b (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources are about the efforts to redevelop the land that the hotel was formerly on, not about the hotel as a hotel — and that accounts for just 12 per cent of the footnoting here, while 78 per cent of it is non-notability-building junk. The question isn't whether it was well-known locally, a thing which every public building anywhere can always claim; the question is whether it there's a reason why people beyond Sudbury, like in Winnipeg or Calgary or Vancouver or Halifax or Boston, might have heard of it and want or need to read an article about it. Bearcat (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the test, as you well know. The test is whether there are enough secondary sources to allow for an article on the building, and there's plenty, and that doesn't even include a historical newspaper archive search typically required for these sorts of buildings. We have plenty of articles on historical buildings in the USA which aren't particularly notable because of how we interpret the national historic register there. A historic hotel in Sudbury with a great deal of local chatter about it and its redevelopment easily gets over the bar. Furthermore, there are 32 sources, and some of them are "junk," like the link to Google Maps - but it's far less than 78 percent. SportingFlyerT·C 04:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to easily pass GNG to me both with sources in the article and in a BEFORE search. SportingFlyerT·C 05:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Came across the article on the Christian think tank Cardus today, which appears to be the result of WP:UPE. I stubified that rather than nominate it for deletion because it looks like there's enough out there for WP:ORG. But that led me to this, a long article on one of Cardus's reports, again with no good independent sourcing at all (but a whole lot of text). Wouldn't be surprised if this were UPE too. In any event, if there's a little bit of coverage it can be summarized in the main article. WP:GNG fail here. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to Cardus, or possibly redirect. This is far too much detail for an article about a report that doesn't have any secondary sources about the report (just sources about Cardus, or Cardus's funding). Walsh90210 (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NBUILDING and WP:GNG. Long defunct airport, Only "reference" stated is the Nav Canada Wikipedia article, which make no mention of this airport, and is improper as Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
Keep. The 15 March 2007 Canada Flight Supplement mentioned in the article is a valid reference. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The nominator is mistaken about the source. The information is not sourced from, or claimed to be sourced from the Nav Canada Wikipedia article, but rather the Canada Water Aerodrome Supplement. The link to the Wikipedia article is for clarity as the CWAS does not appear to be available online other than for purchase from Nav Canada. - ZLEAT\C 07:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This is a 2005 article created when Wikipedia was much smaller, articles like this were welcomed, and notability was perhaps a bit looser. However, there was never any ideas as to the fate of abandoned aerodrome articles. Some have been redirected to "List of airports in province", others to List of defunct airports in Canada, and others still remain. The only thing this aerodrome has going for it in terms of notability is that there was a death associated with it. Doesn't really make it notable. As per the others the source is the printed, water, version of the Canada Flight Supplement. I owned copies but haven't bought one in a few years. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 04:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: If this article was Redirected, what would be the target articles? This needs to be identified if you are suggesting a Redirect or Merge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 04:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I found only this so far [8]. So, maybe more exist? Otherwise it's WP:LISTCRUFT mixed with WP:OR. Conyo14 (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That source appears to be from the CBC, and as such isn't independent. I can't find much else so far. Let'srun (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checked the sources; the first three sources are about the announcers, the one about Canada’s women’s curling team (source 4) are about the team, the other three about the games itself and the last two are WP:PRIMARY. Anything supporting this list is doing nothing for it. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before you accuse me of a copy/paste rationale, I have made a WP:BEFORE check. I already debunked the new sources above. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: 62 sources have been added since nomination. WP:HEYMAN. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This does not meet the WP:LISTN as the group isn't discussed in non-primary sources or really any RS whatsoever. The sources are either YouTube links, press releases, blogs, or are from the CBC. Another example of WP:REFBOMBING. Let'srun (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 17:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Procedural Close, as no deletion argument has been presented. The article certainly needs to be rewritten to remove POV issues, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and the references in the article already present the subject's notability. SilverserenC 01:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is requested based on dated news articles, no more relevant. 1nicknamesb (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being sourced to older articles is not a basis for deletion alone, but only [9] appears to be significant coverage of the organization itself so I don't think it passes WP:NORG. The sources seem to be news (WP:NOTNEWS) about an injured dog and imported pets or routine coverage of a small local organization. Reywas92Talk 17:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's significant coverage of the group covering years that I found in multiple different publications, Reywas92.
These sources cover the history of the group, how it formed, and its activities over the years, both good and bad. SilverserenC 20:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Silverseren's evidence, most of his sources are inaccessible but I am assuming good faith (ping me if it turns out these sources don't establish notability). Article is in a poor state but can be fixed and I've already removed nonsense like the Google Reviews from the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎ 05:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A flawed nomination is not a reason for a procedural close once a valid Delete !vote has been voiced. Please address the sourcing to determine if this meets our guidelines. Thank you. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎ 12:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98(Talk) 02:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 02:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 04:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]