Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Canada

Canada

Canada articles for deletion

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. Consensus is that this an acceptable list according to our notability guidelines. Editorial discussions on renaming can be held on the article talk page or at WP:RM. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of deadliest Canadian traffic accidents

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Individual accidents are talked about, but not a list of accidents. E_F⁵ 14:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are hundreds of other wikipedia ‘list’ articles formatted exactly like this one, list of deadliest rail accidents, list of serial killers by number of victims, list of deadliest tornadoes in America, perhaps discussion should take place on how to improve an article if deemed to be substandard instead of jumping straight to deletion. 208.96.108.139 (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue isn't whether it's formatted well, it's whether it's notable. Unlike list of deadliest tornadoes in the Americas, List of deadliest aircraft accidents and incidents, etc., this one is too specific. — E_F⁵ 16:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Transportation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page could be fleshed out a bit more with some context/connective tissue, but WP:NLIST is met as the topic in general has been covered by RSs, including the Canadian Encyclopedia [1] since 2014, and by news sources after the 2018 Humboldt Crash. [2]. Both sources lists also generally correspond with what we have, so it seems the scope of the page is probably okay. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there has been coverage of deadly traffic accidents in Canada in general. With that said, we might consider renaming it to "List of traffic incidents in Canada" or something like that, and then merging any related articles that are based entirely on contemporary news coverage into it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep detailed and well sourced article for a niche but notable subject. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:06, 15 April 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.

L'Atelier Animation

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

does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies. The article lacks significant independent coverage from reliable sources that establish notability Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 08:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 08:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Comics and animation, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete. fails WP:SIRS fifteen thousand two hundred twenty nine (talk) 11:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not meet WP:GNG--Kopnakolicti (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I added films that L'Atelier Animation helped make. It has been profiled in reliable sources including Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Animation Magazine and Cartoon Brew. Kansas Reimer (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cinesite. I can see a lot of very niche trade references about the company ... though I can't see the Variety or Hollywood Reporter profiles (can you link them User:Kansas Reimer?). There's enough out there that delete would be overkill. But I'd need to be convinced that it couldn't be included in the website for the company, rather than this division. Nfitz (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cinesite as not independently notable but relevant to that article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relistng. No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eren Legend (bodybuilder)

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

Previously soft-deleted for lack of notability. I doubt the topic has since become notable. Janhrach (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Sportspeople, Bodybuilding, and Canada. Janhrach (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not appear to have valid secondary sourcing to prove WP:GNG. There's just a slight mention of him in the CBC article which is the only quality source I can consider. Source #4 is dead. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 23:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Eren Legend meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines due to his recognized impact in the bodybuilding community. He has been featured in reputable fitness magazines and websites, with coverage from independent sources discussing his achievements and training insights. His involvement in bodybuilding competitions and contributions to fitness culture further support his notability. Deleting the article would remove a relevant figure from the fitness community, and the existing sources substantiate his presence in the field. Therefore, I believe the article should be kept at least a Biography stubs. Lukadon (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This comment scores 100% at GPTZero. Janhrach (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 12 April 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 draftify‎ per instructor request. ✗plicit 01:18, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Chinatown Land Trust

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

Article about a local-interest organization, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for organizations. As always, organizations are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show passage of WP:GNG on a significant volume and depth of third-party coverage about the organization -- but this features no actual footnoting at all, and instead just contextlessly lists two "references": the organization's own self-published website about itself, which is not support for notability at all, and a single news article about it in the local media, which is fine but not enough to get this over GNG all by itself if it's the only GNG-worthy source in the article.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have a lot more media coverage than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am the instructor of the student who created this article as part of a Wikipedia assignment. I would like to revert the article to draft for the student for all the reasons you note. Millreed (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails any semblance of notability under WP:GNG. Experience is the best teacher, your student will recover. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 13:08, 5 April 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.

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 delete‎. IronStrikesIron's arguments do not address the deletion rationale. Sandstein 16:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suzana Gartner

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

WP:BLP with some résumé-like overtones of a lawyer, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for lawyers. As always, lawyers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them and their work.
But this is "referenced" almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, such as her "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations and her own writing being cited as metaverification of its own existence -- and the only properly reliable third-party source present at all is a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person, which thus does not magically get her over GNG all by itself as the only non-primary source in the article.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass GNG on better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a review of her book in Psychology Today, and a google search found her mentioned in a number of news articles. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very much PROMO. Likely helping her book [3]. I don't see notability, being a member of the Law Society is required to practice law on Ontario (it's the provincial bar association), so adds nothing to notability. The rest reads like a brief CV. I don't see critical reviews of the publications listed, that might help pass AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not appear to have valid secondary sourcing to pass WP:GNG. Basically all promo with hint of WP:COI from the page creator. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 13:13, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The page isn't well written but I believe it has potential to improve by addressing the valid concerns raised like better sourcing. Gartner is not a practicing lawyer and the book, I suspect but don't know, is not an attempt to make money. I'd be surprised to find out differently regarding the book. Gartner is active and notable in the animal rights community and has helped people protect animals especially in situations where the law is unclear or outdated. IronStrikesIron (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep articles just because somebody asserts that it might be possible to address sourcing problems — anybody can say that about anything, even outright hoaxes. So to get an article kept, it's not enough to just assert that better sourcing might exist somewhere that nobody's actually found or shown — you have to show hard evidence that properly WP:GNG-worthy sourcing actually does exist. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Zanahary has noted some potential sources above. I'll look at those and also search for more WP:GNG worthy sources. IronStrikesIron (talk) 19:37, 8 April 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.

Two Autumns in Paris

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

Promo for non notable film. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. No sign of any reviews. Being screened at minor festivals and winning minor awards does not satisfy NFILM. One of multiple promo pieces for Francisco Villarroel and his creations made by the same spammer. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the reasons you have just said. An editor from Mars (talk) 04:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Canada, and Venezuela. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Production and screenings received a lot of coverage in Spanish...@Kingsif:, if you have time, could you have a look at this and, maybe, if it's not asking too much, the associated pages (another film, a festival and the actor mentioned above)? Thanks a lot!-Mushy Yank. 07:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the coverage and awards/nominations, a redirect to List of Venezuelan films (listed there in 2020) would seem appropriate, at least. -Mushy Yank. 07:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a decent chance that at least this film is suitable for an article, based on a very quick search, but then looking at the articles all made by quite an obvious COI user, we may be in WP:TNT territory in terms of what content is/should be usable. I can have a better look later but am kinda swamped for a few days. Kingsif (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Having looked in Spanish, most sources are Venezuelan film organisations (Gran Cine, Trasnocho Cultural, government) that kinda just mention its existence. However, there's a few international sources about screenings and festivals, and the cast (Cervantes Institute, La Vanguardia). Small coverage, but RS and more than 'look we made this'. The film also got a wide cinema release in Venezuela - which would be no small feat any time after 2014, but is frankly outstanding that it happened in 2020. (El Estímulo, El Universal). Possibly the best source to start the article afresh with might be this Unión Radio piece (and interview?) about it. I don't think El Carabobeño is generally accepted as RS, but it has an article about the film being adapted from Villarroel's book, itself based on a true story, that could be useful if acceptable. Also to note, most of the awards listed on its IMDb are absolute duds, and as such the (probably quite evident anyway) Venezuelan government propaganda media, just listing off how many global awards this thing got, should be avoided. Kingsif (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the sources added to the article. Nfitz (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ElderTreks

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

The company is not notable per WP:NORG. I have done a WP:BEFORE and found no sources. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 01:09, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Travel and tourism, and Canada. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 01:09, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator. The only sources I have found are articles on travel for older people that mention eldertreks as an option. No in-depth, significant coverage of the company

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also agree with you, the nominator. Also, per the reasons @Anonrfjwhuikdzz has said above. An editor from Mars (talk) 04:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: Zero secondary sourcing to prove WP:GNG. Could not find anything. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 00:46, 6 April 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Vigolo, Vania (2017). "ElderTreks—Small-Group Exotic Adventures for the Over 50". Older Tourist Behavior and Marketing Tools. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 130–136. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-47735-0. ISBN 978-3-319-47734-3. ISSN 2510-4993. Retrieved 2025-04-06 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "ElderTreks is an adventure travel company designed exclusively for individuals aged 50 and over. It is based in Toronto, Canada, and was established in 1987 by Gary Murtagh. ElderTreks offers trips in over 100 countries and includes destinations in Africa, the Americas, the Asia-Pacific Region, Europe, the Middle East, and the Polar regions. Some of the travel proposals include, for example, wildlife and tribal African safaris, active hiking trips to the Rockies, Himalayas and Andes expeditions by icebreakers to the Arctic and Antarctic, and cultural journeys throughout Asia and South America. ElderTreks proposes small group experiences. For example, the maximum group size for land adventures is 16, and expedition ships rather than cruise ships are used for ship-based adventures. Smaller vessels allow for more personal interaction and reduce the impact at the sites visited. Before the establishment of ElderTreks, Gary Murtagh was running trips all over the world to exotic destinations and he realized that there was not a specific adventure travel company targeting the 50-plus market."
2. Kruempelmann, Elizabeth (2002). The Global Citizen: A Guide to Creating an International Life and Career. Berkeley, California: Ten Speed Press. p. 114. ISBN 1-58008-352-8. Retrieved 2025-04-06 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Eldertreks is the world’s first adventure travel company for people over fifty. The goal of the program is to promote genuine, noncommercial encounters with local people and nature’s wonders. Locations include thirty-one destinations worldwide. ... All of Eldertreks’ trips involve some walking, in groups of fifteen people or less. You can choose a trip with activity ratings from easy to challenging, but you should be in fairly good shape. Accommodation levels are mostly mid-range hotels and high-end guest houses and inns — all charming, comfortable, and safe. Restaurants range from small, local eateries to elegant retreats."
3. Warren, Isobel (1993). On the Go at 50 Plus. Toronto: Cedar Cave Publishing. pp. 93–94. ISBN 0-920403-06-9. Retrieved 2025-04-06 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "One company that’s specializes in adventure travel for mature adults is ElderTreks and president Tov Mason, a mere lad of 33 but already a specialist in adventure trips for younger travellers, is fast becoming expert at creating adventures for their mature counterparts. ElderTreks, often led by Mason himself, have so far included trips to Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam, Borneo, the Galapagos Islands, Java and Sumatra, Belize, Costa Rica and Ecuador. But any one tour may accommodate travellers of differing physical abilities. For example, a recent jaunt to Indonesia saw about half of the group explore a gentle countryside at an equally gentle pace while the remainder of the group tackled dense jungles on foot and by canoe and spent the night in a native village."
4. Hobbs, Pam; Algar, Michael (1994). Free to Travel: A Canadian Guide for the 50-Plus Travellers. Toronto: Doubleday Canada. p. 162. ISBN 0-385-25479-2. Retrieved 2025-04-06 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "ElderTreks of Toronto has the right idea with their “exotic adventures for the young at heart” tailored to fit 50 plus travellers. An example is their 21-day tour in Thailand: sightseeing in Bangkok and surrounds is followed by an overnight train ride to Chang Mai, with the week there highlighted by a bicycle trip into the countryside. From Chang Mai the group divides; some choose to go to the far north for three days; others opt to stay with the people living in the hills. The latter entails an elephant trek through the jungle and overnighting on bamboo floors of village houses. An experience of a lifetime for sure, but not for everyone, which is exactly why ElderTreks offers a less demanding alternative in the Golden Triangle. "
5. Hegle, Kris Ann (2000). The Internet Made Easy for Seniors. Lincolnwood, Illinois: Publications International. pp. 122–123. ISBN 0-7853-4568-X. Retrieved 2025-04-06 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "EIderTreks' Web site contains a lot of good information about trips geared a specifically toward the 50-or-older traveler. This company specializes in adventure travel. In other words, the trips you'll find at this site aren't designed for people who like to be pampered while on vacation. On Elder Treks' home page you'll see a post filled with signs to destinations such as Central Asia, Africa, Europe, the Americas, the South Pacific, Southeast Asia, and Asia Minor and the Middle East. If you click on a sign destination, you'll link to a Web page that describes all of the trips that are currently offered in that region. You'll also find information about the cost, the length of stay, and where travelers will arrive and depart on each trip. Some trips give travelers the option of extending their stay."
6. Heilman, Joan Rattner (1996) [1988]. Unbelievably Good Deals and Great Adventures That You Absolutely Can't Get Unless You're Over 50. Chicago: Contemporary Books. pp. 47–48. ISBN 0-8092-3233-2. Retrieved 2025-04-06 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Not designed for those who prefer to view the world through bus windows or will sleep in five-star hotels only, ElderTreks is a program of off-the-beaten-track trips for people 50 and older (and younger companions) who are in reasonably good physical condition, capable of walking at a comfortable pace in tropical conditions. Featuring exotic adventures to relatively remote places in the world, it stresses cultural interaction, physical activity, and nature exploration. However, trekking routes are chosen with older hikers in mind and groups are limited to 15. Trekking portions of the trips are optional and you may choose to substitute a guesthouse-based itinerary."
7. Merz Nordstrom, Nancy; Merz, Jon F. (2006). Learning Later-Living Greater: The Three Secrets for Making the Most of Your "After-50" Years. Boulder, Colorado: First Sentient Publications. pp. 170–171. ISBN 978-1-59181-047-6. Retrieved 2025-04-06 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Nineteen-year-old ElderTreks is the world's first adventure travel company designed exclusively for people fifty and over; it provides exciting small-group activities on the land and sea in more than eighty countries. Excursions focus on adventure, indigenous cultures, and nature. Check out the wildlife in Tanzania, scour the Gobi Desert in Mongolia on a camel, witness the awesome spectacles of Angkor Wat in Thailand, and even visit the seventh continent of Antarctica. All of these adventures and more are possible when you travel with ElderTreks."
8. Kaye, Evelyn (2001). Travel and Learn: 1001 Vacations Around the World. Boulder, Colorado: Blue Panda Publications. pp. 112–113. ISBN 1-929315-01-5. Retrieved 2025-04-06 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Designed for adventure travelers of 50 and over, Eldertreks offers hiking and other active trips to dozens of exotic locations including Cuba, Morocco, Kenya, Tibet, Hungary, Turkey, India, Borneo, Vietnam, Brazil, Costa Rica, Iceland, Finland, and New Zealand."
9. Shapiro, Michael (1997). Pizzo, Stephen (ed.). NetTravel: How Travelers Use the Internet. Sebastapol, California: Songline Studios and O'Reilly & Associates. p. 127. ISBN 1-56592-172-0. Retrieved 2025-04-06 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Another site aimed at seniors is Toronto-based ElderTreks (http://www.eldertreks.com/), which specializes in adventures for people over 50. Travelers can use the site to learn about ElderTreks’ philosophy and tours. A link leads to information about ElderTreks’ tour leaders, which can help seniors feel more comfortable about the trip they are considering. ElderTreks uses the Net well to give a description of each trip, for example, a 16-day tour of Turkey. The description includes text, images, a map, a detailed itinerary, cost, and departure dates. If travelers still have questions about any tour, they can click ..."
10. Vadnai, Noah; Smith, Julian (2000). Travel Planning Online for Dummies (2 ed.). Foster City, California: IDG Books. p. 58. ISBN 0-7645-0672-2. Retrieved 2025-04-06 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "ElderTreks (www.eldertreks. com) is a Toronto-based travel agency that specializes in designing active vacations for people over 50. The site is extremely well designed and provides you with tons of tantalizing information about the trips they offer. Hiking in the Gobi Desert? Journeying through Irian Java? A far cry from shuffleboard aboard the Pacific Princess — that's the point."
11. Landes, Michael (2000). The Back Door Guide to Short-Term Job Adventures. Berkeley, California: Ten Speed Press. pp. 237–238. ISBN 1-58008-147-9. Retrieved 2025-04-06 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Assuring "exotic adventures for the young at heart," ElderTreks offers off-the-beaten-path cultural experiences to destinations such as Sumatra, Bali, Thailand, and Morocco. The two to three-week trips are geared for travelers who want to really explore and experience a country, from strolling through street markets and cycling through a tropical countryside to the human encounter of sharing dinner with a local family in their home. Nature is a key element to all itineries."
12. Tsutsumi, Cheryl Chee (2006-09-28). "Exploring the wild side: Toronto-based ElderTreks offers more than five dozen exotic trips for the active older traveler" (pages 1 and 2). Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2025-04-06. Retrieved 2025-04-06 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Passages Exotic Expeditions, ElderTreks' parent company, was founded in 1987 *when adventure travel was just in its infancy," according to sales manager Christine Bossence. After five years of catering to all ages, executives noticed there was a big demand from mature travelers seeking active vacations in far-flung destinations without hassles such as arranging for local transportation and accommodations on the spot. Thus, Elder Treks was born as a division of Passages Exotic Expeditions in 1992. It now offers over five dozen adventures in 90 countries, including Libya, Morocco, Madagascar, Hungary/Roma-nia, Sri Lanka, India, Myan-mar, Borneo and Bhutan. Available next year are new programs to Malta, Egypt, Iceland, Papua New Guinea, Belize/Tikal and the Czech Republic/Slovakia/Poland."
13. Catto, Susan (2002-12-15). "Practical Traveler; Older Travelers Hit the Road". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2011-02-15. Retrieved 2025-04-06.
  The article notes: "Now in its 17th year, ElderTreks offers land and marine adventures on five continents. Tours are limited to 16 people (some of the boat trips are larger or smaller). [quote] The 21-day Cultural West Africa trip loops through Mali and Burkina Faso, with a safari on the Niger River and a trip to Timbuktu"
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow ElderTreks to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Though these are reliable sources, most of them read like they are merely mentioning the company and its product listings, i.e. adventure travel for 50+ adults. There is not much in the way of commentary here, and to me these read more as examples of WP:OrgTRIV rather than WP:SUBSTANTIAL. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this assessment of the sources. ElderTreks is profiled on pages 130–136 of the academic book Older Tourist Behavior and Marketing Tools published by Springer International Publishing. As this book review from the Journal of the Association for Anthropology & Gerontology notes:

In the third part, the researcher discusses so-called case studies illustrating various strategies adopted in the tourism industry, on the basis of specific examples. The subject of the analysis comprised three tourism firms: (I) Viaggi Floreali (Slovenia), specialising in tourism for small groups of seniors; (II) ElderTreks (Canada), specialising in tourism for individual seniors; (III) Algarve Senior Living (Great Britain), specialising in the rental of tourist facilities. The qualitative research carried out by Vigolo is based on the following methodology: (1) determination of how the company began to target older people; (2) description of the target and its characteristics; (3) description of the company’s distinctive elements; (4) description of the marketing mix (product, price, place, and promotion strategies); (5) analysis of the market context, with a focus on active aging and on challenges for the tourism industry (Vigolo 2017, 129).

Kruempelmann 2002 provides 277 words of coverage about how the company's travel itineraries work. Isobel Warren's book provides 208 words of coverage. Pam Hobbs's book provides 282 words of coverage. The books provides the authors' commentary about what they think about the company's travel itineraries. None of these sources are trivial coverage. The sources meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage, which says, "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." Cunard (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: changed my vote to keep per Cunard's commentary, thank you for this explanation. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 21:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per sources provided. It would be nice if someone added some of them to the article - but that's not an issue for AFD. Nfitz (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agreed with this bizarre AfD where we all seem to want to pass the buck about actually adding those sources, but still agreed that is not the job of the AfD. After those copious volume of sources were provided (though not added) this article should not be deleted, though someone please (I call not it!) should add them to the article in a constructive manner. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:06, 17 April 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:06, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Conducted

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

No refs on the page since 2009. I'm not seeing much which would meet the notability criteria for inclusion but am interested if others can find RS to offer JMWt (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Canada. JMWt (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've got my doubts that any of this band's albums would actually pass contemporary WP:NALBUMS criteria at all — in the old days we basically extended an automatic notability freebie to any album recorded by a notable band, in the name of completionist directoryism, but that's long since been kiboshed in favour of requiring the album to pass WP:GNG. But while the band certainly pass WP:GNG on touring coverage first and foremost, a ProQuest search isn't turning up anything particularly meaningful in the way of album coverage. I'm old and I was there (even met them once, in fact) — and they were essentially a "singles" band who derived far more notability from certain individual songs than from entire albums. Bearcat (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no sources since 2009. Quick google search turns up no potential sources that list this album as a topic of discussion. Fails WP:GNG. Brenae wafato (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not appear to have secondary sourcing to prove WP:GNG. I also agree with Bearcat's assessment. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 00:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 09:01, 7 April 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.

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. Star Mississippi 15:30, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jacky Chou

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

Doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability or Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Several sources are paid content farms or passing mentions and most were published in the month before the page was published. Page has been speedy deleted before by Deepfriedokra for WP:G11. Seems like PR.}} Milkywaythegodfather (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Taiwan, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This appears PROMO. [4], is an un-sourced byline written by staff, in a small local newspaper. Nothing I find for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- the fishy content farms as sources and the previous speedy deletion is a red flag for [WP:PROMO]] in my opinion. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: Fails any semblance of WP:GNG suitable for WP:ANYBIO. No valid secondary sourcing. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 21:03, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails WP:NBIO, promotional in nature. These sorts of hustle culture marketing people rarely receive meaningful coverage except as a cherry-picked illustrative example for one of those vapid "pull yourself up by your bootstrap" puff pieces and are usually not notable. silviaASH (inquire within) 07:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Though I agree the page is thin, not referenced well, and that it may not seem like a strong page, Chou is a well-known member of his business community who surpasses the notability requirement in my opinion. I will seek other articles to repair the page. KChao1964 (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2025

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Zimmerman, Eilene (2025-03-17). "A Search Engine Entrepreneur Hits the Right Keys". The Village Voice. Archived from the original on 2025-04-05. Retrieved 2025-04-05.
  The article notes: "Over on Jacky Chou’s YouTube channel, many prospective entrepreneurs look for tasks to do for money, often to aid in either some form of SEO. The magnitude of this tit-for-tat battle is stunning. Chou’s company, Indexsy, maintains a behind-the-scenes role, acquiring digital properties and implementing marketing tactics designed to increase their value. ... Raised in Vancouver, British Columbia, Chou, 33, was introduced early to the value of discipline and careful planning. He studied Electrical Engineering at the University of British Columbia, concentrating on power analysis and grid mapping, and participated in the Engineering Mentorship Program. Though he remained focused on technical coursework, he was intrigued by the broader possibilities of the online economy. ... Chou began researching ways to generate income on the internet, and took his first steps into Berlin’s technology scene, working as a Traffic Acquisition Manager at Kontakt.io from June 2016 to December 2016. ... Later, over the course of roughly eleven months at EyeEm, a photography startup, he worked on generating leads from Fortune 1000 companies. He set up lead scoring and nurturing systems, aiming to identify the right time to engage with prospective clients. Meanwhile, Chou had already laid the groundwork for Indexsy, which he founded in 2015 while still based in Vancouver."
2. Dupré, Maggie Harrison (2024-03-18). "SEO Guy Mocks Google for Deindexing His "Gibberish" AI Sites". Futurism. Recurrent Ventures. Archived from the original on 2025-04-05. Retrieved 2025-04-05.
  The article notes: "... Jacky Chou, a well-followed search engine optimization (SEO) guy, laments in a YouTube video about the updates titled "I GOT CLAPPED (Google March Spam Update). ... Chou has been publishing a YouTube video almost every day for months, sharing his SEO tips and tactics for raking in click revenue by gaming Google's algorithm. Many of the practices he recommends, like spinning up synthetic sites or mass-producing AI-generated commerce posts, certainly fall afoul of Google's guidelines. That said, we didn't find Chou through his YouTube channel, or on any other social media. We came across him after stumbling upon some of the automated spam carrying his name. ... The Pixelfy posts are also strikingly similar to the AI-generated "blog" content Chou's churned out at an e-commerce site he owns and operates called Far & Away."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jacky Chou to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. Cunard (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to offer participants opportunity to review the sources presented by Cunard.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: in agreement with Cunard. The WP:THREE best sources are the two above and this Business of Home [5], maybe Reader's Digest. Reviewed this and it was previously deleted for G11 but this version wouldn't meet it. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Changed my mind to keep after re-reading the sources, taking into account Cunard's and CHerryPie94's comments. WP:THREE does exist here. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 13:08, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to comments above

A Search Engine Entrepreneur Hits the Right Keys is by a writer who has no other articles on the site or anywhere else on the internet, although she has the same name as an established journalist who has never written for the Village Voice. The article was published 2 days before the Wiki page. Doesn't seem like an RS to me.

Our Place Fans Will Love This Minimalist Kitchenware Brand doesn't mention Chou at all.

Starter Story is a podcast that gets its information from primary source interviews and publishes notes from the podcast interview on its blog. Not an RS from what I've read of wiki rules.

That leaves Business of Home, Reader's Digest, and Futurism. (The same Business of Home article is repeated 3 times as 3 individual references).

WP:THREE isn't Wikipedia policy - it's the opinion of 1 editor, but even then, it says to post 2 or 3 sources for discussion, not that only 2 or 3 sources are needed for notability

The article could be improved if better sources existed but I couldnt find any. Milkywaythegodfather (talk) 03:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eilene Zimmerman, the author of The Village Voice piece, is a journalist for The New York Times. From her website, "She was a columnist for The New York Times for eight years and since 2003 has been a regular contributor to the newspaper." She is a reputable journalist. That she has written only one article—published just a few weeks ago—for The Village Voice does not make the source unreliable. Nor does the article become unreliable for being published two days before the Wikipedia page was published. There is enough coverage in these sources to allow Jacky Chou to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 08:42, 13 April 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.

Arts Council~Haliburton Highlands

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

Arts council that fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. A BEFORE search, I could not find any other sources that weren't liked to the organization or a brief, trivial mention, it has got some local news coverage, but I'm not sure if that can cement notability. Not to mention almost the entire article's tone is promotional. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Arts Council- Haliburton Highlands has received independent + detailed in local news at the very least [6][7]. The events they put on in the region have also received non-trivial coverage [8]. They received direct support from the Canadian government to start an ongoing symposium on performing arts in rural communities [9]. News about the organization has been presented in the Toronto Star as well [10] .This coverage spans at least a decade, so it's not a small burst. Between the primary source of its website and local coverage that is sometimes included in major Canadian newspapers, it seems like the council is notable + provides a significant amount of arts programming in the Haliburton region. I vote to keep though I agree the article should be updated.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply sources 1,2,3 and 5 come up with 404 pages, are they availble on the Wayback Machine? ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I malformatted the links. The links are fixed and the pages are still live. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Organizations. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is more of a promotion for the orgnaization than anything else. Was created by a single pupose editor in 2009 with not much editing from any other editor since. Probably COI issue. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - The original author itself was banned in 2009 for being an advertising account, something seems fishy here. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 07:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A lot of the article text concerns the history of arts initiatives in the area prior to the formation of this Arts Council: such content probably belongs in Haliburton_County#Arts_and_culture (suitably referenced, though). That leads to a wider suggestion that a merge and redirect may be a possibility? AllyD (talk) 07:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy with this outcome. There is probably enough coverage available to make a standalone page about the arts in the Haliburton area if the section in Haliburton County becomes too lengthy. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - although I'm starting to get on the fence of notability, the article does have a pretty large COI and PROMO issue. Maybe the article should be WP:TNT? ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 15:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the sources provided in this discussion - particularly the Toronto Star article - confirm notability. The content itself should be improved - but that's a different discussion. Nfitz (talk) 21:55, 13 April 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 delete‎. Owen× ☎ 13:16, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No Fly List Kids

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

Does not pass WP:NORG. Mentioned in passing in some articles but no sigcov outside of non-independent and opinion sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Terrorism, and Canada. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, doesn't pass WP:NORG. Media is mostly passing mentions or primary sources. XwycP3 (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : not notable Lord Mountbutter (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to dispute the claims by the nominator. There definitely exists SIGCOV, but I think it's less clear whether this should kept. I see coverage starting around 2016-2017, such as these video segments: [11][12]. CBC in 2019 reported that NFLK "represents dozens of families across Canada who have been affected by the list and pushing for change", even after the House passed Bill C-59; also in 2019 there were articles from The Globe and Mail [13] and Huffington Post [14], and a CityNews video segment [15]. In 2020 CTV News reported that members of the group were "invited to test federal remedy" to the issue; that was also covered by Global News [16]. This was a cursory search but I think there's a case to be made because of the continued advocacy by the group prior to the federal government's action in 2020. Bridget (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Before I can close, I need to ask User:Bridget, are you arguing for a Keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Yes, thank you for checking. I'll change to a keep. I'm concerned that all the other comments are simply asserting that it's "not notable" or "doesn't pass WP:NORG" without much elaboration. Bridget (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This reads somewhat like promotional content and isn't written well. It also doesn't pass WP:NORG. ^Wiinter_U 04:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. That page title sounds like something a really bored vandal would create. An editor from Mars (talk) 07:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bridget. Appears to have SIGCOV and deletion is not cleanup. मल्ल (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources are a mixture of primary sourcing that isn't support for notability at all and coverage about the general issue of kids wrongly name-matching the No Fly List — what isn't being shown is any significant coverage which has this organization as its subject. To be fair, this is different enough from the version that was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Fly List Kids Legislation (Canada) that I can't recommend immediate speedy as a recreation of previously deleted content, but this version isn't making a stronger case that this organization would pass WP:NORG at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 4 April 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.

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 delete‎. While I disagree with some aspects of investigation into this article subject such as reviewing their social media accounts, it's impossible to dismiss arguments that find some information in this article factually untrue and based in self-published sources. I also see a consensus to Delete this article as several Keep arguments rest solely on his reported status as "the youngest candidate" and it appears that he was a candidate for a nomination, not a candidate in an election so he would not be covered by NPOL. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jäger Rosenberg

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

Delete or dratify per WP:BIO with WP:TOOSOON in mind. Several citations are repeated, but of the sources given, the only independent publishers are Coast Reporter and My Powell River Now, two small local news sites / blogs. The rest are primary sources from the NDP or Jäger Rosenberg himself. The coverage by the news sites is largely routine due to the current election cycle, with the only point of notability being Rosenberg's young age, which in my opinion is not enough for standalone notability.

If Rosenberg is elected next month in the federal election, then he would have a stronger case for having an article due to his notability as an MP. Until then, however, this article should remain in the draftspace, especially in its current state with citations being limited to primary sources or local coverage. Yue🌙 22:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Yue🌙 22:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not notice this before starting the AfC discussion, but Talk:Jäger Rosenberg#Nomination for deletion was started two days prior without an actual AfC being started. That discussion already contains arguments from other editors to delete / keep. Yue🌙 23:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Running for MP doesn't inherently indicate notability and agreed on being a young candidate as well. Also worth noting that his provincial campaign was only for a nomination race, and not the general election at large. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this kid wrote the article himself. Running for office does not make you notable, neither does being young. Winning does. 2001:569:F085:B000:B0EB:2BE3:59A7:DF80 (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, As already stated, I am not him. It's really funny you think I am. I think most of the point for why we should keep this article are already on the talk page, but I'll say some again. Being the youngest candidate to ever run is very notable. For someone of that age to be approved to run either for a party nomination or be approved as a major party candidate is very notable. Yes, he hasn't won an election (yet), but lots of other candidates who didn’t win have pages because their candidacy is notable in some other way. There are reliable sources talking about the historical nature of his candidacy—yes, most of them are local to his riding, but that isn’t all that uncommon. I'll admit that maybe I was a little hasty to publish this article, I haven’t written very many, but that doesn’t mean it should be deleted. At the moment, he is notable and it is likely that notability will only grow, and if it fades away, then it can be removed at a later date. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Politicsenthusiast06 I'm wondering about that image you uploaded as own work, how did that work? He paid you to take the photo? He kindly sat down in a studio for you to take it? Or you took the photo from Coast Reporter? Yeshivish613 (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is used fairly regular on his social media's it was on Coast Reporter. I did not take the original photo. This was the first time I uploaded a picture to wikipedia so I am unfamiliar with the procedure around it. If I did it wrong, oops. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Politicsenthusiast06: Courtesy note that I have tagged the image for deletion at Wikimedia Commons. I invite you to familiarise yourself with the policy on licensing media (the graphic is a good reference to refer back to whenever you want to upload images). Hiàn 15:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep

Most of the arguments seem to already be presented here. Running so young is notable and he seems to be already making his mark. The sources are fine. Arguments for removing seem a bit flimsy and based on a seemingly false assumption. RobertR47 (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I ran for office at 18 too. I am not notable enough to have a wiki article, neither is this kid. 2001:569:F085:B000:F81D:FABC:B22A:78FE (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's a footnote at this point, and such a footnote belongs in the article of the election. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. His candidacy is historic enough to earn a page. Carolebax (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis? 18 year olds run in pretty much every election. There have been at least a half dozen between the 2019 and 2021 elections, most of whom are probably more notable for other reasons. None of them are here for the common denominator of they all lost. 2001:569:F085:B000:F81D:FABC:B22A:78FE (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's notable is that he ran at 17. Which would make him the youngest candidate to ever run. Hence why his candidacy is historic. Carolebax (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that notable? I personally did that myself in a previous election. It’s not some mythical story that comes once in a generation, it happens every time. 2605:B100:918:7F6C:388E:9117:BEB:1C4C (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You said before you ran at 18. Did you really run in the last election at 17 or are you just making it up for the sake of your argument? Carolebax (talk) 03:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a valid argument; please clarify why you beleive this candidacy is notable. DeanWithersLover (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify. If he really is "the youngest Canadian to seek elected office," he could be notable on that basis - however, that claim would need to be much more strongly supported in the article's sources - which are mostly WP:ROUTINE coverage of his campaigns. Just running for office, of course, is not sufficient to pass WP:NPOL. Madg2011 (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an article for vanity purposes lol. Rushtheeditor (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I note that two account expressing "Keep" viewpoints here, RobertR47 and Carolebax, are both brand new accounts with zero-to-almost-zero activity outside of this deletion discussion. Sockpuppetry in a deletion discussion is not OK; refer to WP:BADSOCK Madg2011 (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I note that the two accounts expressing "Delete " are just IP addresses, likely both under the control of the same person. RedBlueGreen93 09:02, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this individual would need more dedicated coverage beyond the sources here. Being young and running for office in itself does not make someone notable. JSwift49 22:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Dratify - Looks like a historic candidacy. Moondragon21 (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, historic on what basis? Young people run in every election 2001:569:F085:B000:E4E5:8ADC:6286:481 (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. What sources provide SIGCOV establishing notability? Just being "the youngest" isn't enough, even if it is true.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has received significant media attention from secondary sources and is very notable as the youngest candidate to seek elected office in Canada. RedBlueGreen93 08:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What sources do you have? Yeshivish613 (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Draftify, if it would be that historic there would be more sources discussing it than local news. We don't decide what's historic, we look at reliable sources and reflect that. Yeshivish613 (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As previously stated User:Politicsenthusiast06 contributed most of the content to this page. While they have repeated the assertion they are not the candidate, they also have appeared to contribute information which does not appear to be publicly available (for instance, Rosenberg's exchange to Fulda, Germany). Using the Coast Reporter's digital archive tool Digital Archive, and reading all articles around the election, I could find no reference to this detail. Searching on My Powell River Now , I could also find no such reference. It is also not on Rosenberg's campaign page https://jagerrosenberg.ndp.ca/. Keyword searching google also showed no results. How would User:Politicsenthusiast06 know this then? It seems highly likely this was written by Rosenberg, and tracks with the account's history which includes repeated references to Rosenberg.

To address specific claims:

"making him the youngest Canadian to seek elected office" The only source for this claim is Rosenberg's campaign page which is not a neutral source. Rosenberg ran for the nomination for the NDP in the riding Powell River-Sunshine Coast https://www.coastreporter.net/local-news/heres-who-is-considering-seeking-the-ndp-nomination-for-powell-river-sunshine-coast-8209413. However, Neill won the race, making Rosenberg NOT a candidate in the 2024 BC Provincial Election https://www.coastreporter.net/politics/randene-neill-wins-powell-river-sunshine-coast-ndp-mla-nomination-after-close-vote-9042891. To reiterate, as Rosenberg was not nominated, he was never a candidate for the BC NDP, making the claim he was the youngest candidate false. Moreover, even if you take the logic that he was the youngest running for nomination, this is not backed with any evidence, and local nomination races are not usually throughly documented, making the claim functionally impossible to verify.

"He holds dual Canadian and

German citizenship

." This does not seem notable, and while I have not sourced this claim it likely is another piece of evidence towards the page being authored by Rosenberg.

"Rosenberg is known for his advocacy on mental health, environmental issues, and democratic reform." While these are certainly topics he is interested, I can find no tangible action Rosenberg has taken. The source for this claims seems to be an

interview with the Coast Reporter

, where he expresses interest in these topics; however, given his lack of action I do not see this as notable.

Claims such as "His campaign received notable support" are not sourced, and the NDP have not released the voting data from the nomination. Rosenberg did not receive any other media coverage, nor any other quantifiable forms of support.

" ... included a notable endorsement from Avi Lewis". When you actually look at the source, Lewis says "this is not a formal endorsement"

Lewis's Post

. While supportive, labelling this as an endorsement is a gross and misleading misinterpretation of his words.

"Rosenberg's candidacy was officially approved very shortly before the vote and faced procedural obstacles" The

source given

does not mention this, making it an inaccurate citation. Also, while this is just conjecture, the "procedural obstacles" could likely be a a lack of support, as the nomination procedure usually includes acquiring a certain amount of supporters. I mention this because it could potentially contradict the claim of receiving notable support.

"Rosenberg's campaign was the first time a Canadian under the age of 18 was permitted to run for office, as he would have turned 18 by the time of swearing-in." This is simply not true. Just for reference, I found

this candidate

who was actually nominated, and ran for election. Again, Rosenberg lost the nomination race.

"... has volunteered with the Vote16 campaign". The source given does not mention this claim. A source for this claim cannot be found online, suggesting another instance where Rosenberg contributed to their own page.

"leading to unanimous support from the local NDP association". This is called acclamation. While a small critique, writing in this manner distorts the situation.

In conclusion

: This page should be deleted. It seems to have been written by the candidate and is rife with misleading and inaccurate claims.

DeanWithersLover (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again I am not him. I wouldn't say I am close to him but I have met him before and follow his accounts including his personal pages. We are from the same general area.
German Exchange and Fulda: The article references Rosenberg’s semester abroad in Germany, which was covered in Coast Reporter. The specific town (Fulda) is listed in a publicly accessible Facebook post by Rosenberg, which is also cited. While the Coast Reporter didn’t mention the city by name, both sources support the broader point.
Candidate Page Information: It’s my understanding that the NDP candidate websites are managed centrally by the party itself rather than by individual candidates. I would generally assume a major party like the NDP would have internal fact checking to back up any claims they post on their websites.
Candidacy Status: Rosenberg was officially (presumably) registered with Elections BC as a nomination contestant. In British Columbia, nomination races are a formal part of the electoral process and require financial disclosure and regulatory compliance. Just like in U.S. presidential primaries candidates are recognized to have run for President, even if the candidate does not win the nomination, so too should Rosenberg’s candidacy be considered valid and notable under Wikipedia’s criteria. He was not merely a declared aspirant; he was approved and participated in a regulated nomination election.
Dual Citizenship: Rosenberg has publicly mentioned his dual citizenship—Canadian and German—on several occasions, especially on his personal (private) account and intermittently on his campaign one. Which is why I am aware of it and included it. That said, I agree that since there’s not currently a permanent public source stating this clearly (at least that I have found), it should be removed or marked with a citation needed tag until a more verifiable reference is available.
Policy Focus: The article’s mentions of his focus on mental health, the environment, and youth enfranchisement come directly from a Coast Reporter interview and are consistent with his campaign materials.
Avi Lewis: Lewis did offer strong praise of Rosenberg’s capabilities and platform early on, stating his endorsement was waiting on the nomination formally beginning. While that may not count as an official endorsement at the time, Lewis did later endorse Rosenberg—though I couldn’t find a strong enough source to cite that directly. But the NDP's press release and Coast Reporter article's wording around Lewis does also strongly indicate his support and likely endorsement of Rosenberg. Calling it "gross and misleading misinterpretation of his words" is a massive exaggeration.
Procedural obstacles: This was written based on a Reddit thread I read about his supporters being prevented from voting. Based on conversations I've had, it seems to be a relatively widespread belief that there were issues in that particular race. But because I couldn't find any actual reliable sources on it I kept it very vague. On his Facebook he has a post about being formally approved as a nomination candidate, and it's dated very shortly before the nomination meeting date (June 8), I thought I had included that as a source but I guess I forgot.
Vote16 Involvement: While I couldn't find third-party coverage of Rosenberg’s involvement in the Vote16 BC campaign, he’s posted about it multiple times in stories on Instagram. Since stories aren’t permanent, it might be justified to remove.
Acclamation: The wording was based off the Coast Reporter article.

I think I covered more or less everything. Many of your points are valid, but I hope I cleared up some of the misconceptions. I still believe I was justified in making this article and that Rosenberg is noteworthy enough for this article to remain. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 03:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. However, I am still firmly in favour of Delete.

I notice you've changed your story. On March 25, on Rosenberg's talk page you said "We're from the same area though and have probably met before". Now you say you "I have met him before". What has changed? Moreover, as you now claim to have a personal connection to the candidate, I would refer you to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. It's impossible to prove who you are, but it is possible to point out your account's alarming edit history.
I appreciate the clarity. However, as the only source for the claim is a personal facebook post, this hardly seems notable for inclusion. Moreover, it points to a broader lack of substance regarding Rosenberg's candidacy.
It's not possible to ascertain the NDP's internal processes in this scenario, and an assumption is not a valid base for a significant claim. You still have not provided any evidence for this claim, which, I note, you have repeated on numerous occasions in other articles. In addition, Rosenberg was never a candidate for office at 17. While he ran for nomination, he lost, which is significantly different than running for office.
I never disputed that Rosenberg ran for nomination. However, you draw a false equivalency here: A presidential primary and a local provincial riding nomination differ significantly in notability. I reiterate my claim that his candidacy is not notable enough for a page.
Thank you for acknowledging that. Adding information from "his personal (private) account" is not a valid source for claims, and a violation of his privacy.
You did not respond to my claim: I contested his notability in the areas of mental health, the environment, and youth enfranchisement, not whether these are his interests. I cannot find any notable action he has taken on any of these topics; if he is to be labeled as notable in these fields I would appreciate it if you could provide evidence.
Calling something which is clearly labelled as "not a formal endorsement" and endorsement is a gross and misleading interpretation of his words. Yes, he indicates support, which I did not dispute, but he does not provide an endorsement. A "likely endorsement" is not an endorsement. An uncited endorsement is also not an endorsement. Moreover, I also dispute the relevance of an endorsement to the overall page; while certainly Avi Lewis is of note, not everything which he supports is notable.
A reddit thread you read, or conversations you claim to have had are not a reliable base for even a vague claim. An accusation of this nature against the NDP's voting system is significant and potentially libellous. I can find no mention of this in local reporting, nor by the NDP. If you have any evidence, I would strongly encourage it, but as of now I strongly believe this claim is invalid. A late formal approval could indicate a variety of things, including, as I previously conjectured, a lack of support.
Again, adding information from "his personal (private) account" is not a valid source for claims, and a violation of his privacy. Moreover, as the organization has seemed to make no reference to his involvement at any time, this seems highly irrelevant. Also, I question how you retain so many details about Rosenberg's prior stories, unless they are saved that seems quite odd.
While this is of less note than the other issues, I will note that Wikipedia entries should not be simply based off of other wordings. Rather, they should prioritize accuracy and conciseness.

I believe my points remain valid. While it is impossible to know if you are Rosenberg, the specifics and inconsistencies seem quite evident. However, that is secondary to the main point of my disagreement: Rosenberg is not notable enough for a page.

He has not won any elections for public office.
Simply running for MP is not notable.
Young candidates run for election all the time, it is not of significant importance.
The media attention surrounding his campaign is insignificant, and is likely afforded to anyone who puts their name forward for election.
The individual has done little of note beside attempting to run for office, leaving there insufficient information for a page.
Many of the claims made about his notability are either demonstrably false, or severely unsubstantiated.

In conclusion, I maintain this page should be deleted. DeanWithersLover (talk) 06:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. DeanWithersLover has raised several key points here. There is no reason for this article to exist, even if the numerous problems with it were rectified. The sheer amount of misinformation, demonstrably false, or unsubstantiated claims here is incredible. 2001:569:F085:B000:1402:2C5C:CB35:C2B8 (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another IP address, probably run by the same person, just repeating the same things. Carolebax (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't provided any argument here. While you seem to be very confident the page should be deleted, you haven't provided any substantial evidence or arguments to back that up. Moreover, seems like an odd criticism from an account which has little to no history besides this page. DeanWithersLover (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just gonna respond to the first thing said because the rest is more or less us just repeating the same points. And I respectfully disagree with you. As I said there is no conflict because me and him have no close or personal relationship. Before I said probably because I think I met him before but wasn't entirely sure. Now I know I have because I briefly met him at an event. Still no conflict however, I have also met Pierre Poilievre, John Rustad, Patrick Weiler, and other politicians, but have no personal relationship to any of them and try to keep any biases I have out of my edits. Also nomination candidates are legally candidates for election in BC and Canada, so it counts regardless of your own personal philosophy. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 05:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is repeating the same point: the article should be deleted. I find it quite telling that you will not respond to most the claims. If his candidacy was so notable, it should not be hard for you to argue.

I do not make my assessment of whether he was a candidate based upon "personal philosophy"; it is based off the definition provided in the Elections Act.

Becoming a candidate is regulated under Section 63. For your reference: "An individual becomes a candidate when all the required nomination documents are accepted for filing and a certificate is issued by the district electoral officer under section 56 (8) or by the chief electoral officer under section 57 (8)"
Now, referring to Section 56, a candidates nomination papers cannot be accepted until the time the election is called. The nomination meeting took place on June 8th, making it impossible for Rosenberg to have fulfilled this requirement.
Referring to Section 57, while papers can be filed beforehand, they will not be processed until the election is called, again making it impossible for Rosenberg to have fulfilled this requirement.
Rosenberg never appeared on the election ballot, and therefore was never a candidate.

To reiterate, Rosenberg was never an election candidate for the 2024 BC Provincial election, making him legally NOT a candidate.

While it is impossible to prove you (Politicsenthusiast06) aren't Rosenberg, let's recap:

Your story on your relation to Rosenberg is inconsistent, and your only response is just you had a sudden recollection of "an event". Seems odd.
You frequently have added claims about Rosenberg to a variety of pages, which seems like odd behaviour for someone with only passing knowledge. While not telling by itself, in combination with these other factors is odd.
Your source for Rosenberg's Vote16 involvement is remembering Instagram stories from his private account, which seems incredibly strange for someone who couldn't even correctly remember if you had met.
A new point: Looking at the edit history of your account, you have a variety of edits focussed on the German election. Note, that Rosenberg was also recently in Germany and claimed to have been involved in that election. Did you just happen to share the exact same interest in German politics, at the same time as Rosenberg?
Similarly, you have also made edits relating to youth suffrage, such as on the Age of candidacy page. That is also a topic Rosenberg claims to be interested in. Just a coincidence?
Your page for Rosenberg includes a variety of information which is poorly sourced and very difficult to impossible to find online. While I do not care to check every claim you have made, there seems to be a pattern of you retroactively finding sources that back up your claims. One that did stand out to me was Rosenberg's middle name: where did you obtain that information

I could go on, but the point is clear. DeanWithersLover (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a little side note: I notice that since my comment Politicsenthusiast06 has edited the page to change the middle name to simply "M" from the previous "Matthias". DeanWithersLover (talk) 07:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's what on the elections Canada page and 2025 Candidates Wikipedia page. Just making it consistent. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting how those pages only include "M" yet you knew his full middle name. Perhaps it is publicly available, but by not actually responding to any of my claims you make it seem odd that you knew that information. DeanWithersLover (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Evidence of COI

Adding to my prior point about COI, I have found near-damning evidence showing that Politicsenthusiast06 is Rosenberg. While editing the page Randene Neill (who won the nomination for Powell River-Sunshine Coast), I found edits by Politicsenthusiast06 and 2 IP accounts on November 8th, 2024. The edits by the first IP account added detail including:

Calling the nomination contest "hotly contested"
Adding "Jäger Rosenberg - who was the young person to ever run for office in Canadian history, still being 17 at the time of the vote"

The second IP account fixed a citation error from the previous edit 20 minutes later. Looking at the IP addresses of the edits, the first was made by 2003:c5:bf3a:9d81:e868:2de9:27fd:93c5 and the second by 2003:c5:bf3a:9d81:b4e6:ac40:c33d:d519. Using https://ipinfo.io/, these addresses both trace to Fulda, Hesse, Germany (account 1)(account 2). This is during the time Rosenberg was in Fulda as confirmed on his facebook.

Now linking Politicsenthusiast06 to these edits. The account Politicsenthusiast06 was created on November 8th, 2024 at the same time as the IP account edits. Nine minutes after the second IP account edit, the account Politicsenthusiast06 makes its first edit, editing the page to continue adding more detail about Neill.

-

At this point, there is overwhelming evidence that Politicsenthusiast06 is Rosenberg. This article exists only for vanity purposes. DeanWithersLover (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Basically, the subject's notability comes from the fact that he ran for political office at the age of 17. I see a lot WP:RECENTISM, as there is nothing stopping more young candidates from applying in the future. Svartner (talk) 10:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Furthermore, he did not actually run for office at 17, he ran for a nomination, which I believe is an important distinction. DeanWithersLover (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable candidate and sourcing is not that good. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:24, 8 April 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.

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 redirect‎ to List of political parties in British Columbia#Historical parties that never had seats in the legislature. ✗plicit 06:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Columbia Excalibur Party

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

Fails WP:ORG. I found no in-depth coverage in reliable sources after searching through Google and provincial archives (Vancouver City archives + UBC Library). The now defunct party achieved insignificant results in the one election it contested (less than one-tenth of a percent in 2013), so there is no obvious claim of notability.

Of the 6 sources cited, 2 are primary sources, 2 are blogs, 1 is routine local coverage for the election cycle, and 1 is a routine registration list from Elections BC. I found one more article from a minor news publisher that accepts articles from the general public. A lack of reliable and in-depth coverage indicates a lack of lasting significance as well. Yue🌙 05:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. Yue🌙 05:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of political parties in British Columbia#Historical parties that never had seats in the legislature – Where the party is mentioned (and per others AfDs). Svartner (talk) 10:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yue: thoughts? it's lio! | talk | work 07:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think the redirects are unhelpful and unnecessary. However, as nobody has really engaged with the AfDs on this topic area specifically (minor parties in BC), I am not strongly opposed to also closing this discussion as a redirect. Yue🌙 07:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on redirecting to the above target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as discussed. I'm fine with deleting as well - but redirects are cheap. Nfitz (talk) 21:52, 13 April 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.

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. Star Mississippi 15:09, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Bourret

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

I can find zero google news results. Zip. Google Search results give a paragraph, max, of coverage. Jay Cubby 02:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Badminton. Jay Cubby 02:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Radio Canada piece from 2020, on his role as school sports director during COVID. This is possibly the same itw. here an article on him from 2004 (non-Olympic). Mentions from the 2004 Sydney Olympics here, here, here. Some non-independent news on his role in Badminton Canada here, here. Mentioned here from a 2002 competition. Apparently the General Director of Sports Montreal, Inc. ([17]). Quoted here in news piece from 2024. --Soman (talk) 10:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The Radio Canada article is more about the school Bourret was at than him specifically, but the RDS article provides the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSBASIC. Let'srun (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:27, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Canada at the 2004 Summer Olympics#Badminton as ATD, because there seems to be not enough in-depth coverage of this person to meet WP:GNG. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, per coverage found. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Philippe Bourret placed gold at the Pan American Games and is also in reliable sources including Radio Canada and RDS. Kansas Reimer (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's not great, and the state of the article is parlous, but I agree that the RDS source contains material that is secondary about the page subject (although primary regarding his return, of course). It has significant coverage, is independent and reliable. Multiple sources are needed, but on the basis of this and the weaker sources, I think it would be wrong to delete this page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:30, 13 April 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.

Canada proposed deletions

Canada speedy deletions

Canada redirect deletions

Canada file deletions

Canada template deletions

Canada category deletions

Canada miscellany deletions

Canada deletion review

Canada undeletion

Canada deletions on Commons

%