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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jorgito Jr Vargas

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

Spam article (and close to qualifying for WP:G11 speedy deletion) on a non-notable actor who fails WP:BIO. A search for sources turned absolutely no usable sources that would contribute towards notability. The only source cited in the article at present is completely irrelevant to the subject. Java Hurricane 21:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Java Hurricane 21:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable and unambiguously promotional. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 01:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Commment There was a slightly different version at Jorgito vargas jr (not created by the same author, but moved into the main space by them), which I've just A7/G11 speedied. I'm happy to nix this one as well, but won't yet just in case it is preferred to let the discussion run to its conclusion. (Needless to say, zero evidence of notability, in either version.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DoubleGrazing, I'd prefer to let this AFD run its 7 days in case the article creators want to contest its deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Another instance where the creator obviously has never closely read a Wikipedia article. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Full WP:PROMO. Svartner (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like WP:PROMO, this is one of the sloppiest articles I have ever seen written. I would not be surprised if the person who the article is about was the one who wrote it. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notwithstanding that the subject fails WP:GNG, the article is clear WP:PROMO. ZachH007 (talk) 19:38, 23 May 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 Minor League Baseball#Top 100 teams with the history preserved should someone wish to merge Star Mississippi 02:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The National Baseball Association's top 100 minor league teams

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

The list has no indepedent, reliable, or third party sources, and appears to fail WP:LISTN. I could not find anything online that was independent to establish that this should be a standalone list. Although everything is cited, it uses only primary sources. A possible merger target might be List of Minor League Baseball leagues and teams, but non-primary sources would be required. Flibirigit (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have not been able to identify any information about this list that is secondary commentary on the subject. Most independent sources (e.g. baseball reference) simply summarize when it was made and restate the list. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The best I could find was [[1]] but without more coverage this is probably a delete for me. Let'srun (talk) 01:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... doesn't seem really that notable.. as it didnt get much independent coverage.. also the list is kinda dated now. Spanneraol (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minor_League_Baseball#Top_100_teams. Don't see this as a notable list on its own. But in the main article I linked does have a section on it with a link. No need to create an article recreating what the link says. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails LISTN as the subject has no evidence of being notable, and I can't find any secondary sources on it. However, there may be interest in expanding Minor_League_Baseball#Top_100_teams into a paragraph rather than a single line. JacobTheRox (talk) 08:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails LISTN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:09, 22 May 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Association of Internes and Residents of Ontario

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

Article fails to meet standards for notability as it has not received significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject SapphicVibes (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - besides the insane typos (AI?) and POV pushing, even under the correct spelling, there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 01:35, 24 May 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.

Keenan Beavis

AfDs for this article:

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

Second AfD -- the first one reached a Delete concensus. This began as me trying to do a cleanup of sources and to improve the article as per WP:BEFORE but the more I worked in it the more I realized it does not meet WP:N. Sources cited are mostly WP:TRADES or WP:PROMO (in some cases actual straight-up AI SEO spam articles).

Ground News aggregate (duplicate of a UFV source)
Investers Hangout -- Very obvious AI SEO spam article
Testimonial for SEO platform that was being used as a source? This is the only source for the "Publications" section. Testimonials are inherently not independent or credible.
Daily Hive "Branded Content" -- this is a paid advertisement

Most of the articles I can find on this person appear to be the result of intensive SEO efforts rather than genuine significant coverage in independent secondary sources. The secondary sources that I've been able to find only write about him in the context of being the founder of a marketing agency. As detailed in the original AfD, the trades industry awards or "top" listings referenced in the article are not automatically noteriety claims. TonySt (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. TonySt (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete this is absolutely PR/vanity spam about a non-notable person. COOLIDICAE🕶 17:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the nominator that the mentioned 4 sources are not appropriate, however the remaining sources are OK. For example these sources have enough coverage and don't look like PR or paid placement:

-aldergrovestar.com

-bcbusiness.ca

-sauder.ubc.ca - A university website, can't be paid placement

-alumni.ufv.ca Alumini website, cant be paid

-bcbusiness.ca 30 under 30 This type of coverage can't be paid

-mnbc.ca Award win coverage, can't be paid

Also, the original AFD was in 2022 and the majority of sources cited are after 2022, so that result is irrelevant by now. Rubenpurer (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, here is a new source I have Found:

Canadian SME Small Business Magazine Page 41-43 Rubenpurer (talk) 07:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we discuss and evaluate the sources sent?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: Some coverage [2] and here [3]. Lots of coverage in the Aldergrove Star, that's probably the best one. The article needs a rewrite, badly, but AfD ain't clean up Oaktree b (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The current coverage is enough to meet WP:BIO. Also I have founded a new citation, which should improve his notability.Mysecretgarden (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:30, 25 May 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OceanMD

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

The company does not meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG based on the references given. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing via indpendent, reliable sources. JSFarman (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, Medicine, Technology, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All sources I saw were either press releases or WP:ORGTRIV. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per failing WP:NCORP. Sources are PR or primary to the subject. Can't find any WP:RS. Patre23 (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a single reliable source. If they paid for this promotion, they were robbed. Bearian (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are not enough RSes to justify inclusion. Every company does not warrant its own page, they must meet the WP:GNG which this does not. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I wasn't able to find any trustworthy sources to support the content of this page. Additionally, it does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG. Sethi752 (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks reliable sources.looks like a promotional attempt. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could not find any reliable sources. Not notable enough and I agree with the hilariously unique pov mentioned by Bearian. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 22:48, 20 May 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Healthcare Excellence Canada

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

Article about an organization, not properly sourced as passing WP:NORG. As always, organizations are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH on third-party coverage about them and their activities in real media -- but this is referenced entirely to the organization's own self-published content about itself, with absolutely no third-party sourcing shown at all.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this organization from having to be the subject of proper GNG-worthy coverage in reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Also, a company page sourced entirely to its own website and LinkedIn page constitutes original research, which we have never published, and a basic distortion of what we are - and that's not a social media platform. In 2025, everyone knows that. Bearian (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are some press releases by the Canadian Medical Association but not much else in terms of SIGCOV. --hroest 12:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of the sources on the page are self-referential, not every organization in the world warrants its own page, it must be notable enough to justify inclusion under the current framework. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination (and per Bearian). JSFarman (talk) 20:19, 16 May 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ava Industries

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

Article about a tech company, not reliably sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:CORP. As always, companies are not automatically entitled to have articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH on third-party coverage about them and their activities in real media -- but this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources, such as the company's own press releases and directory entries and the self-published websites of non-media organizations with direct business relationships with this company, none of which are support for notability. What little there is for reliable coverage comes almost entirely from limited-circulation tech industry trade publications rather than general market media, except for a single article in an alt-weekly which isn't enough to vault the company over GNG all by itself.
It also warrants note that the creator moved it into articlespace themselves without a proper WP:AFC review, even though their edit history suggests a possible (but not certain) conflict of interest (i.e. their very first edit was to post a Requested Articles request for an article about this very company, before immediately proceeding to draft and move it themselves a week later.)
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this company from having to be the subject of proper GNG-worthy coverage in reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete while the article has issues with WP:PROMO and may need a substantial rewrite, I do see some SIGCOV: here and here and they did seem to have won some sort of award/recognition: [4]. Overall the WP:THREE best sources are not that impressive and given the state of the current article I think deletion is the best way to go unless someone substantially improves the article. --hroest 21:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT - another corporate wreck of a page strangled by promotional material, press releases from "live wire" services, other unreliable sources, and trivial claims. Bearian (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:PROMO. It's a straightforward delete. Charlie (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as non-notable per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. JSFarman (talk) 20:30, 16 May 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Obvious

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a recording engineer and producer, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC.
As always, people are not automatically notable enough to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on significant coverage and analysis about them in reliable third-party sources independent of themselves, but this is completely unreferenced -- and while perusing the edit history reveals that it's had a couple of references in the past, they weren't solid or GNG-worthy ones: there was one Q&A interview in which he was talking about himself in the first person and one glancing namecheck of his existence in a deadlinked source that wasn't about him, and nothing else besides those at any point, so even if they were readded now that still wouldn't be enough.
Further, the most frequent editor of this article has been a user named "Ron Obvious V", a clear conflict of interest, and he's gone with a significantly self-promotional and résumé-like tone rather than a neutral one.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on much, much better sourcing than this article has ever contained. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, New Zealand, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I found a very small number of passing mentions of Obvious in local news. I won't discount the possibility that I'm missing some more thorough mentions but based on what I have seen he's not meeting WP:GNG. Simonm223 (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:PROMO/WP:SELFPROMO. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG. I dont see any WP:SIGCOV here. --hroest 21:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this page is emblematic of everything wrong with autobiographies. It's mostly original research, which we have never published. It's biased in favor of the subject. It's written in a style that is like Facebook or other social media that we are not. Finally, the sourcing is terrible. AllMusic is the closest to a real source, but we generally require three in depth sources, not one literally one line. Finally, when powerful individuals are trying to crush our financial viability, this self dealing is unhelpful to keeping our charitable status. Bearian (talk) 01:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that this article reads as a WP:PROMO and that it lacks WP:SIGCOV and just WP:GNG more generally. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:24, 15 May 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. Nomination withdrawn citing improvements in the article per the nominator. The consensus was keep. It is to be noted that efforts of Ldm1954 and argument of WP:NPROF#1 for a keep was also maintained by most of the keep voters. (non-admin closure) HilssaMansen19 (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kirtiraj Gaikwad

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

No Independent significant coverage about him and his work. Published scientific articles alone doesn't inherit notability. Draft was moved back to main space without adding anything valuable. Question of COI is also raised by other reviewers. Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Science, and India. Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: South Korea, Uttarakhand, Canada, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unfortunately the nominator has made a fundamental error: scientific articles are sufficient for notability under WP:NPROF#C1. At 42 his h-factor is a little low, and 300 is not that large for his highest cited paper. However, if you look at his areas in GScholar they are not high cite topics, so 42 is a clear pass of WP:NPROF. The nominator may want to reconsider. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
N.B., the nominators statement "Question of COI is also raised by other reviewers" appears to be incorrect, I see no such statements by any reviewers (myself included). Ldm1954 (talk) 11:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPROF#C1 under this there are other points too, just number of publications are not sufficient in my opinion. Regarding COI you are right, I mis interpretated "SELF PUBLISHED SOURCES " as COI. Thanks for pointing it out. Scientific articles , I mean any published article in a Journal is called scientific article and this doesn't justify notability. We need to see quality and impact of such publications. Thanks for getting involved in this discussion. Rahmatula786 (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you are not correct in your interpretation. So long as the journals are not predatory and there is no evidence of citation manipulation we accept them. (Manipulation can occur, see WT:NPROF#C1 and mathematics). However. I saw (please note tense) nothing when I checked the article a week ago. His most cited work is in Environmental Chemistry Letters which is a decent Springer journal, please see here Ldm1954 (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen your contribution in this article. I am aware of Springer journal. Let me have a review on his published articles once again. Thank you Rahmatula786 (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject passes WP:NPROF#C1, I do agree with Ldm1954. Taabii (talk) 11:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I understand the importance of independent coverage for notability. While the article may not currently highlight significant independent sources, the subject's work is well-documented in peer-reviewed journals, which are highly regarded in academic circles. I can revise the article to add more independent references and clarify any areas of concern. Regarding the COI issue, I have no personal or financial ties to the subject, but I can address any concerns on the Talk page.

Here are the some his independent scientific research highlights in national and internation news and scientific articles:

IIT Roorkee's eco-packaging extends fresh produce shelf life by one week

IIT Roorkee innovates nutritious edible millet straws as a sustainable alternative alternative to plastic

In a first, IIT Roorkee develops kodo millet based edible cup

Indian researchers develop nutritious edible cups to replace conventional plastic applications Bhushanpkg (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Bhushanpkg (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Note: please 'do not add those sources. Those are exactly the type of popular science/advertising which we do not want in an encyclopedia. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some independent scientist new articles.

IIT Roorkee's eco-packaging extends fresh produce shelf life by one week

IIT Roorkee innovates nutritious edible millet straws as a sustainable alternative alternative to plastic

In a first, IIT Roorkee develops kodo millet based edible cup

Indian researchers develop nutritious edible cups to replace conventional plastic applications

14.139.233.131 (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, there is no evidence to substantiate notability. Does not meet the criteria for notability as outlined in WP:GNG. Commenting by IP address signifies the same user as the article's creator. B-Factor (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
probably delete, associate professor isn't enough, and although it's true that peer-reviewed literature counts as independent, for the purposes of NPROF C1 there need to be highly-cited publications with strong impact. Gaikwad has some fairly well-cited publications, but, partly because of his alarmingly high rate of publication, there seems to be quite a high level of self-citation. Also most of his output is a very, very large number of articles of very narrow scope, and reviews; I'm not 100% convinced that this is in keeping with NPROF. Elemimele (talk) 09:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - while it's rare for us to keep an associate professor, it's not unheard of (see, e.g., Barbette Spaeth). That's true in the cases where they have gotten tenure, but have not gotten full professorship for some bureaucratic reason. However, to keep per WP:HEY, I'd really prefer that the sources found literally be added to the article. Bearian (talk) 01:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep associate professors are usually fully tenured professors, Donna Strickland was an associate professor at the time she received her Nobel prize so this should be a non-argument. Instead we should look at his actual impact in the field. His citation profile looks sufficient for WP:NPROF#1 with an h-index of 42 and a total of 16 publications with 100+ citations to pass the bar and is in line with previous outcomes of academics. --hroest 20:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being an associate professor is absolutely not evidence of non-notability. Many associate professors are notable through their academic accomplishments, and many others are not; the rank provides no evidence either way and we must look at other criteria. In this case, the citation record and WP:PROF#C1 are convincing enough to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn : I find improvement in article after being nominated for deletion. This made me reconsider my decision and hereby withdraw my nomination. Rahmatula786 (talk) 08:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update, but at this point we need to wait out the full AfD period because there still remain other delete !votes. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:17, 16 May 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 no consensus‎ which does not preclude a discussion on merging Star Mississippi 00:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lester Robert Fudge

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

Not notable per WP:BIO1E. The disaster where Mr Fudge provided aid was not particularly notable, and Mr Fudge appears to be otherwise a low-profile private individual. — Moriwen (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Canada. — Moriwen (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete barely any sources and they only cover the one event no coverage exists for anything else about him Scooby453w (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 04:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article simply isn't necessary. Info doesn't need to be anywhere outside of Cross of Valour. Leonstojka (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is Canada’s highest award for bravery, only 20 have been awarded in its 53 year history. If any Canadian should have their own Wikipedia entry, no matter how insignificant the rest of their lives were, its these 20 heroes. Capnwilly (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fudge and the other 19 recipients per Capnwilly. This is the civilian equivalent of the Medal of Honor, and the MOH is an automatic keep. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and possibly merge citation to Cross of Valour (Canada). Clarityfiend (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even a Canadian newspaper search is a bust. There is probably coverage that hasn't been digitized, but we can't show notability at this time. Would be better to find sourcing, then create the article, rather than the other way around. He's very likely notable, but no sourcing, so no article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Im gonna be honest i think the majority of these articles should probably be merged into the page where the medal is. of the 20 people who have gotten it 3 maybe 4 are more then just stubs that cite the medal citation I think a section that describes their actions would be better then having 15 stubby articles Scooby453w (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the same thing. Make a chart in the article and put their names there. Brief description if needed. Oaktree b (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not look notable. Certainly not enough to a stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - let's look at the applicable guideline, Notability.

Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Any biography, item 1 says:

"The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times"

Mr. Fudge won the Cross of Valour (Canada).

We have articles on every Victoria Cross winner yet the majority are know for just one event. The distinction from your typical BIO1E is that they did something big and they received a very high award as a result. The same applies to Mr. Fudge. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 07:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have identified two Canadian news sources with coverage, The Globe and Mail and Winnipeg Free Press, and added these citations to the article. ResonantDis_tortion 15:23, 19 May 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 Rational trigonometry. Per consensus, restoring redirect. – robertsky (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Wildberger

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

Math BLP which was converted in 2022 by David Eppstein to a redirect to a book by Norman Wildberger. Redirect replaced by Ad Huikeshoven by one paragraph on the book, plus a cite to a YouTube page (dubious as a RS). Time for some extra eyes on the question of whether to enforce the (implicitly contested) prior redirect. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect. Wildberger or his employer have put out some heavily promotional and dubiously accurate press releases about his publications and the latest one that this is based on is just that, an inaccurate press release that some credulous sources have picked up (for a long but unusable on Wikipedia discussion see https://mathstodon.xyz/@johncarlosbaez/114448643735756913). It does not contribute to WP:PROF notability and does not constitute in-depth independent sourcing. Repeating its promotional claims, which are not supported by his publication nor by mainstream mathematics, cannot be the basis of a good article. For another thing, although the paper itself is not out of the mainstream (neither in content nor in its publication venue), the claims made for it in the press release and copied into our article ("solving the world's oldest problem!") are WP:FRINGE and non-mainstream, as are Wildberger's own expressed personal beliefs. Fringe sources require mainstream balance to achieve properly neutral coverage and we don't have that. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Australia, Canada, California, and Connecticut. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as in status quo. I do not think that the regurgitated press release from unreliable or semireliable sources adds much to notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I edited the article. The reference to the book is removed. Wildberger is in the news for a recently published article on another subject than the controversial book. I added multiple newssources. I removed promotional claim. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think removing the reference to the one indisputably-notable accomplishment of Wildberger, his book, is an improvement to the article? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with David Eppstein. Without the book there is zero notability here, one paper that was published a few days ago is definitely not a pass of any notability criteria. Notability might be via a math paper which had 200 cites in other refereed articles in its first year following publication (an illustrative number). Ldm1954 (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect All of the sources about the recent paper look to be pretty much trash. Newsweek has been a worthless rag for what, ten, twelve years now? And the rest are random websites basically reprinting a press release. The only actually noteworthy thing he's done has been the book, so this should be a pointer to the book. 64.112.179.236 (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect please. No need to feed into any of the sensation-mongering. Rschwieb (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Including or excluding Norman Wildberger from Wikipedia has been, for some reason, a long-running dispute, lasting many years. I once, years ago, created an article with his name as the title. It was quickly deleted. I was surprised but decided there was no reason for me to pursue the matter. After all this time here is the issue again. I know Wildberger published a paper on some extension of Catalan Numbers. Maybe the paper is a genuine contribution to mathematics and maybe it will turn out not to be. However, why is Wildberger's inclusion such a hot topic? I really have no idea, but I wonder if there is a vendetta involved. Dratman (talk) 04:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment led me indirectly to recall Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman J. Wildberger. It was long ago and before the more recent publicity both for the current material and for his work on Babylonian mathematics, so I don't think it should be taken as precedent, but it does shed light on how long this has been going on and on the rationale for the redirection of your version, at least:

Creation of an article on "rational trigonometry": 2005 (at that time not focused on the book but on the mathematics it described)
Original creation of biography under "Norman J. Wildberger" (still visible in the history of that title): 2006 by Overlord~enwiki, immediately disputed as non-neutral
Rational trigonometry tagged as problematic based on using only the book as a source: 2009
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman J. Wildberger: 2009. I did not take part in the debate, but performed the merge that it called for.
Redirect "Norman Wildberger" pointing to same article created, 2010
"Norman Wildberger" split off as a separate biography, 2011 by Dratman, restored as a redirect by me, since at that time we had a recent consensus not to keep the two separate.
Meanwhile the article on rational trigonometry was long problematic and was tagged as having only one source (Wildberger's book) in 2009
Rational trigonometry acquired more tags including one for notability in 2013. More sources including book reviews were added, and this caused some edit-warring as editor Paul White pushed to remove any criticism from the main part of the article and link it only at the end. After more edit-warring by single-purpose accounts, SohCahToaBruz proposed that it be deleted in 2013 but Arxiloxos removed the prod as it was clearly not uncontroversial and had a previous deletion discussion.
In 2015 there was again a repeated attempt by some anonymous editors to remove critical material from the lead, and disputes over the placement of this material continued until at least 2018 when I semi-protected the article (allowing only long-term editors to change it for the following year)
In 2020 I took the initiative to change it from an article about rational trigonometry to an article about the book itself. I believed then and now that the book is clearly notable as the subject of multiple independent reliably-published reviews, regardless of whether or not any other related topics are separately notable. (I happen to have a copy of the book prominent on my office bookshelf but I hope the article reflects only the views of the published reviewers and not my own.)
Since then there have still been some disputes but overall the book article has been much more stable than the rational trigonometry article was.
Another creation of a separate biography (by another editor), restored as a redirect, 2022.

I don't know whether this history sheds any light on why this has been such a matter of dispute, but I hope it helps. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect. It's definitely not impossible this paper could become notable but I don't think that what look like blog posts copied from a press release are enough for notability of the person. Sesquilinear (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The new work on the power series solution to polynomials is mathematically legitimate and pretty cool, though I don't know how important. It's published in the American Mathematical Monthly which is where the AMS puts articles of general mathematical interest that aren't too technical. I wasn't aware that he had written a book. I don't know what he means about not believing in irrational numbers, but that seems to be a thing with combinatorialists: Doron Zeilberger is very respectable, and doesn't believe in infinite sets (i.e. he believes that the set of integers is finite, aka ultrafinitism). Anyway I don't have any objection to keeping the article. I don't know anything about an earlier controversy if there was one. Wildberger fwiw has a Youtube channel with a sizeable viewership (127K, not bad for a math channel). I've only watched one video (the one about the recent work on polynomial solutions) and it was informative and watchable. 2601:644:8581:75B0:EDBF:1B48:1FC1:48B8 (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect – Nothing about Norman Wildberger seems to even remotely meet the bar of notability. We need to be especially cautious of anything that is hyped in the pop-press, because this triggers a "this is cool" response in the enamoured who then include it in WP. (This is aside from the distaste that I have for self-promotion, and boosting his viewership through WP is just icky.) —Quondum 12:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect - Notablility is not established with the sources. Certainly not enough for a stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:56, 18 May 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. ✗plicit 23:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sulekha Ali

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The attempted notability claim here is two "hit" singles not supported by any verifiable evidence that either song ever actually charted on any IFPI-certified charts — but since music promoters have a tendency to indiscriminately ascribe "hit" status to any song that an artist wants to highlight in their PR kit, we can't just take the word "hit" as a notability lock in and of itself without proper sourcing for it. But otherwise, this is strictly on the level of "she is a musician who exists", and is supported solely by a single deadlinked article on Digital Journal, a user-generated "citizen journalism" platform where anybody can submit any self-created public relations "news" they want to, which thus doesn't count as GNG-building coverage — and even if we ignored all that and accepted it anyway, it would still take more than just one source to pass GNG regardless.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable without much better sourcing for it than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Somalia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete no indication she passes WP:NARTIST / WP:GNG and the so-called hit does not seem to have been widely played in any of the charts as the nominator explains. --hroest 21:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Fails WP:Basic. One ref only and notability is not clearly established. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:51, 18 May 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.

Edmonton Rugby Union

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

Amateur sporting organization which does not assert WP:GNG. I found sources online that it exists, but nothing that was third party, independent, nor reliable. Flibirigit (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Rugby union, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 09:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Merrithew

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. His film and TV credits are not particularly significant and his company is unnotable. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Television, Theatre, Health and fitness, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I think this is the same actor whose performance is discussed here and here. Together with the rest of the articles, the Globe and Mail article I think an overall picture of just passing the GNG emerges. --hroest 20:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That first link is just a passing mention, as are most of the sources in the article itself. The Globe and Mail article is paywalled, but about his unnotable company. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:55, 25 May 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redsenol

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

This seems to be a brochure of an alternative medicine product of both questionable notability and questionable efficacy. The lack of medical citations, and lack of results on Google Scholar is very uninspiring, even less so the company's own website (I won't link it here, but Google "Redsenol" and it's the first result). Reading the article Ginsenoside suggests that there actually aren't very many studies regarding the effect of ginsenosides on humans, but I'm no pharmacologist and that could be wrong. In any case, unless medical sources can be found, this should be deleted. MediaKyle (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Medicine, and Canada. MediaKyle (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator. There is a lack of reliable, independent resources covering this compound. Lacking a structure it's hard to do more research. Seems to be one clinical trial for the compound, so maybe in a few years this article can be rewritten but for now it's just another natural product someone is trying to commercialize. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No SIGCOV in RS. Maybe WP:TOOSOON, but not likely. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Nomination. Clearly lacks scientific evidences in reputed journals. No significant other reports.Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks sufficient coverage. Every company cannot have their own page if they are not sufficiently notable. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Anonrfjwhuikdzz, a compound that is in clinical trials, not approved and not discussed in the literature is not notable. Could also be a redirect to Ginsenoside. --hroest 20:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks WP:SIGCOV and also agree with issues raised by nominator. Hence, must be deleted. VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator. Reads like product promotion for a supplment. WP:NOTNEWS Ramos1990 (talk) 21:26, 17 May 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.

Birchmount Park-Warden Woods, Toronto

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

I don't think this neighbourhood exists; none of the sources cited mention it and I can't find anything else online. There is a Birchmount Park and a Warden Woods, but they are not a thing together. Nominating for AfD since there's a contested PROD, but fairly certain this is a neologism. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Canada. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-existant neighborhood. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 01:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - these appear to be adjacent areas covered in a single article. Perhaps a split is in order. ~Kvng (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One appears to be a shopping mall and the other a park. I'm not sure if either is notable and the sources here appear to be all primary. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:14, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
split into two articles, both are notable geographical areas that have coverage but there is no precedence to have them together in one article. --hroest 20:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting this article would mean creating two stubs with only primary sources. Why not just create both articles now if the sources exist? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Scarborough, Ontario. Seems more relevant there than a stand alone article. Not seeing why this residential area is notable. Seems like general information and sourcing is not significant. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:29, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. BD2412 T 03:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Hamilton, Ontario municipal election

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a future municipal election, not yet showing sufficient reliable source coverage to demonstrate that it would already need an article now.
As always, while we permit articles about future elections at the federal level to exist practically as soon as the public finish voting in the previous one, that's because there's actually substantive stuff to say about them: public polling on the popularity of the incumbent government, tracking changes in party leadership and seat standings, content about political issues, and on and so forth. But we don't generally maintain articles about city council elections this far in advance, because at the city council level all there is to actually say is idle speculation about who might or might not run, and that's all that's present here.
The article, further, is not adequately referenced to show that this is already the subject of any significant coverage as of May 2025 – three of the six footnotes are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and two more are from a hyperlocal community blog that doesn't count as a WP:GNG-worthy source at all (but were misrepresented in the citations as coming from a different publication than they really did, until I corrected them). Just one article comes from a real GNG-worthy newspaper at all, which is not enough all by itself.
It also warrants note that even Toronto doesn't have an article already in place about its 2026 municipal election yet, and Hamilton's hardly qualifies as more notable than Toronto's.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the spring or summer of 2026, when there actually starts to be meaningful stuff to say and real candidates filing their nomination papers, but we don't need this to already have a Wikipedia article in 2025. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. These are fair points. A counter would be to note that the 2022 Hamilton, Ontario, municipal election page was created in September of 2020 – a full 25 months prior to the vote. Each election page is also used to include information on mid-term elections in the term prior to the vote and a by-election is very likely to occur in the coming months. The preliminary information on the page can be updated (it was originally copied from the 2022 page) as the City of Hamilton website already includes information on the 2026 vote. The Hamilton Spectator's coverage of the election has already begun and CBC Hamilton has similarly been publishing articles about possible changes to the city's voting system. As interest in the election begins to pick up, it seems more logical to keep a running record of candidate announcements, possible voting system changes, and issues rather than delete the page and start over again in May of 2026 when there may be a significant amount of information to include. All said, I am content to follow the will of the community on this. All the best. HamOntPoliFiend (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- delete. The only content here is pure speculation about who could be potential candidates. Once that is removed (as it should as their potential candidacy is based on speculation) there is not much left of the article. --hroest 20:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Only 17 Months Away, and the article will be needed even earlier. Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think TOOSOON applies in this situation.--User:Namiba 14:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not TOOSOON in my view. There's also WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST to consider. Schwede 66 22:28, 22 May 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.

Croire (album)

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

Album fails WP:NALBUM, a cursory search does not help either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment I did find this in depth review [5] but not much else and the article is pretty devoid of information. --hroest 17:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is newly created. SRamzy (talk) 23:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not appear to have secondary sources to pass WP:NALBUM. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 23:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found no reviews either, and without this, it fails WP:NOTINHERITED. It somewhat charted, but this is completely fine to only mention on the artist page. Geschichte (talk) 08:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM#2 appearing in at least two country charts. --hroest 14:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From NALBUM: "All articles on albums or other recordings should meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Where is the coverage? Without that, as you can see, charting doesn't help. Geschichte (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The charting references are to reliable sources in the music industry, which are independent of the artist. SRamzy (talk) 10:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources". Geschichte (talk) 05:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created the article because the album forms part of a notable artistic shift for Natasha St-Pier. The artist is one of the best known contemporary female French pop artists, known for her appearance in Eurovision Song Contest 2001, and for a string of hit albums of a strictly secular nature. Her shift to a Catholic devotional theme created considerable comment, as is reflected in the biography on the RFI website: note that this significant coverage in a reliable, independent source. SRamzy (talk) 10:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:SRamzy if this was so significant in her musical biography, there should be a couple of article that discuss this that appear in WP:RS. Could you provide any such discussions of this album in particular and add them to the article? --hroest 19:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disconcerted by the fact that SRamzy uses such subjective reasoning in their !vote. Significant coverage has been looked for, but not found. The album fails the sigcov guideline as well as WP:NOTINHERITED. Geschichte (talk) 05:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte you want to unbold this one, since you already !voted above. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Missd that! Geschichte (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete some useful information here and there but not deep discussion regarding this album. Only a couple of interviews, which is clearly self promo, no independent third part coverage such as album reviews. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 06:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aimer c'est tout donner

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

Album fails WP:NALBUM, a cursory search does not help either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep per WP:NALBUM#2 as this has been on the charts in at least three countries FR, CH, BE [6] reaching a top position of 23 in France. --hroest 14:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep The singer herself has a level of notoriety in the francophone world that probably would make even the most obscure production notable. Superboilles (talk) 07:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why says so? Other sources must decide that, not any one Wikipedia user. Geschichte (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From NALBUM: "All articles on albums or other recordings should meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Where is the coverage? Geschichte (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, however if reliable sources that show third part independent coverage I will reconsider the vote. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 06:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I found two good sources with SIGCOV (one already was on the wiki page): [7] and [8]. ProQuest has more results but I don't have full access to confirm their usefulness. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 16:35, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To have a discussion on whether it is a redirect or a keep per policies for a clear consensus and to evaluate sources shared above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 10:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:NALBUM says an album is notable if it has appeared on any country's national music chart. lescharts.com is listed in WP:GOODCHARTS as a reliable charting source. It was also certified gold in France (also a WP:NALBUM guideline). — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article has been significantly improved since I nominated it and the editor has made it clearer on why they think NALBUM is met, and I agree with them; the gold certification coupled with the national chart (all which the article wasn't representing as of my nomination), is sufficient NALBUM pass for me. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:19, 27 May 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. Without socks, we have unanimous consensus for deletion; the sock keep !votes basically also argue for deletion, in their own way. asilvering (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hosting Controller

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

None of the references establish notability. I see only a few relevant hits on Google (The company name is very generic, though.): [9][10][11][12] and similar. All of them seemingly fail all criteria of WP:SIRS. This PDF could possibly have some SIRS coverage on the product, but I think that that is too little to establish notability. Janhrach (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Canada. Janhrach (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

I would like to respectfully oppose the deletion of this article.

Hosting Controller is a long-standing and recognized name in automating service provisioning, user management, billing and metering for various on-premises and Cloud services including web hosting, Microsoft Exchange, SharePoint, Skype for Business, Azure and Microsoft CSP program, with over two decades of history and global usage. While the company name may appear generic, the product and brand "Hosting Controller" have a distinct and established presence, especially within the Windows hosting and hybrid cloud automation space.

The following points support notability:

External Review:

There are third-party sources, including [industry articles, hosting review platforms, and integration announcements] that cover Hosting Controller’s product offerings, partnerships, and impact in the hosting industry. These sources include:

Articles in web hosting review platforms.

Mentions and integrations with Microsoft Exchange, Hyper-V, and other enterprise systems.

Inclusion in hosting control panel comparisons and industry whitepapers.

Longevity and Industry Use:

Hosting Controller has been active since at least 1999, with a consistent product line evolving with market demands—from shared hosting control panels to hybrid cloud automation solutions.

Product Uniqueness:

Its support for hybrid environments (Windows/Linux/cloud) and integration with platforms like Microsoft Exchange, SharePoint, and Office 365 sets it apart from more common cPanel-style products.

Potential Sources:

The company documentation (e.g., whitepapers, PDFs) may not seem like SIRS at first glance, but many are cited or used by third parties in evaluations, comparisons, or implementation case studies. I’m happy to help surface more third-party mentions if needed.

Given the depth of its niche, industry presence, and long-term use, I believe Hosting Controller meets the criteria for notability and request that the article be improved rather than deleted. Zaighum Khalique (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please name the URLs you have found. I haven't found anything except the said PDF document. Janhrach (talk) 08:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. As requested, I am sharing specific third-party and platform references that demonstrate Hosting Controller's notability and industry relevance:

In-depth third-party coverage:

▶"Hosting Controller Delivers a Hybrid Automation Solution for Service Providers" – HostingAdvice.com (2021)

This is a professionally written and independently published piece that provides a detailed overview of Hosting Controller’s features, hybrid automation value, and market differentiation. It qualifies as a secondary source under WP:SIRS.

Industry presence on major platforms:

▶ AWS Marketplace Profile

▶ Microsoft Azure Marketplace Listing

These are not news articles per se, but they establish Hosting Controller’s integration and credibility within top-tier enterprise ecosystems. Inclusion on these platforms requires vetting and compliance, reflecting notability in its niche.

Given this, I respectfully request that the article be retained and improved, rather than deleted. Zaighum Khalique (talk) 05:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As for the latter two sources, they are neither secondary, nor independent from the subject. As for HostingAdvice, their website is blacklisted on Wikipedia, because someone has spammed links to the website, which is a good indicator that they publish paid-for content. Also, the author of the article you mentioned seemingly only publishes promotional articles. Janhrach (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

I respectfully oppose the deletion of this article.

Notability and Independent Coverage

Hosting Controller has been profiled by a well-established industry publication, HostingAdvice.com, in the article “Hosting Controller Delivers a Hybrid Automation Solution for Service Providers,” which provides an in-depth, independently written overview of its features, market positioning, and hybrid cloud value proposition

HostingAdvice.com

.

Integration in Major Enterprise Ecosystems

The product’s listing on the AWS Marketplace underscores its enterprise credibility—participation in AWS Marketplace requires rigorous vendor vetting and demonstrates real‐world use by customers across Amazon’s ecosystem

Amazon Web Services, Inc.

.

Likewise, Hosting Controller is available on the Microsoft Azure Marketplace, reflecting its validation as a turnkey control-panel solution for Azure virtual machines and confirming its alignment with Microsoft’s partner quality standards

Azure Marketplace

.

Longevity and Global Adoption

The software has been in continuous development since 1999, evolving from a Windows-only control panel to a full hybrid-cloud automation suite used by over 5,000 organizations in 125 countries

HostingAdvice.com

.

This two-decade track record evidences sustained industry relevance and distinguishes it from ephemeral or trivial products

Wikipedia

.

Unique Feature Set and Industry Impact

Compared to generic cPanel-style offerings, Hosting Controller’s hybrid multi-cloud support (Windows/Linux, on-premises and public clouds) and deep integrations with Microsoft Exchange, SharePoint, Skype for Business, and Office 365 set it apart in the Windows hosting and CSP market

hostingcontroller.com

.

Independent analyses on hosting review platforms and whitepapers routinely include Hosting Controller in their comparisons of enterprise control panels, further demonstrating its recognized niche impact

Wikipedia

.

Conclusion and Request for Improvement

Given its significant third-party coverage, enterprise-scale integrations, and longstanding market presence, Hosting Controller clearly meets WP:SIRS and WP:GNG criteria for notability. Rather than deletion, the article should be retained and expanded with these reliable sources to improve its coverage and verifiability. Casaidealeriparazioni (talk) 09:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete. This is spam, standard BEFORE shows nothing meeting SIRS, there's nothing in ProQuest or Gale either, and honestly what exists is so far from the bar I can't believe the socks expected anyone to take them seriously. Even if there were such sources, this would still be spam, so blow it up. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No SIGCOV in RS. Article has mostly primary sources and I didn't find any more. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To engage participation for a clear consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 06:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I believe this article should be retained. Hosting Controller is featured and independently reviewed on platforms like SoftwareWorld, SourceForge,Capterra ,monovm and oxtrys — all of which recognize it as a credible cloud and hosting control panel. These third-party sources establish notability and show real-world usage beyond just primary claims. AhmadMasood321 (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)— AhmadMasood321 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete I searched for "hosting controller" "Syed Hashmi" (the company CEO) to get beyond the generic name results, and still nothing independent and reliable shows up. Fails WP:NCORP. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources provided by the socks provide WP:SIGCOV let alone WP:SIRS. This is WP:PROMO spam thats got to go. Jumpytoo Talk 23:15, 25 May 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 06:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole White

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

WP:BLP of an activist and unelected political candidate, not properly sourced as having a strong claim to passing inclusion criteria.
The attempted notability claim as a politician is that she was the first out LGBTQ candidate in a provincial election in her province, while the notability claim as an activist is that she was one of the several people who challenged Saskatchewan's marriage laws in the short time between Halpern and the Civil Marriage Act. But as always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, and have to show that they were already notable for other reasons independently of the candidacy.
However, the "first LGBTQ candidate" thing is completely unreferenced and unverified (and note that we have seen more than one case in the past of people who were claimed as "first member of X minority group to do a thing" who turned out, upon investigation, to have been preceded by other people the article's creator just hadn't heard of, so we can't just take random internet users' word for it without sourcing), so that's not an instant notability freebie that would exempt her from having to pass WP:GNG on her sourcing — and it's questionable whether it would even be all that historically significant even if it were verifiable, given that her province had already elected at least two out LGBTQ municipal councillors (and one MLA who admittedly wasn't out at the time but came out later) before her.
Meanwhile, the same-sex marriage lawsuit is referenced solely to a brief glancing namecheck of her existence in a magazine article about the overall case, rather than any significant coverage devoted specifically to her own personal role in it, and the rest of the referencing here consists entirely of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all. And, for added bonus, none of the other plaintiffs in the lawsuit have Wikipedia articles at all (not even the one who was also one of the city councillors whose time in office preceded White's campaign), and this article does absolutely nothing to demonstrate that White was somehow more individually notable than any of the others. And even on a WP:BEFORE search, about all I can find is a small blip of WP:BLP1E coverage upon her recent reception of an award that still isn't highly meganotable enough to confer an instant notability freebie in and of itself on a person who's otherwise poorly sourced.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have a stronger notability claim, and better sourcing for it, than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep it seems this is the same person that got this award? It seems just this Governor General's Awards would make her pass GNG. It also seems like she is notable for In 2021, Nicole’s tireless advocacy during her pregnancy resulted in the removal of the requirement for parents to be biologically related to be listed on their child’s birth certificate, aptly named “Alice’s Law” in honour of her daughter. I also think the profile in Sasktoday is enough for WP:RS. --hroest 16:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Passing GNG requires quite a bit more than just one reliable source, and the Governor General's Award in Commemoration of the Persons Case is not the same thing as the high-level Governor General's Awards in literature or the performing arts. It would be a valid notability claim if the article were well-sourced, but it is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt a person from having to have a lot more than just one GNG-worthy source. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I think this is the same person [13], but it alone isn't enough for notability. Rest of the sources now in the article aren't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment I did some further analysis on this subject and the main news stories over the last few years: [14] [15][16] [17] [18] [19] [20][21][22][23] and of these I believe the following have WP:SIGCOV in a WP:RS:

three in-depth profiles, one of which is the subject (CBC)

in depth profile in CKOM

In-depth profile in Sasktoday

-- overall I see 10 news articles in RS that quote her / interview her of which there are three which contain in-depth profiles of her specifically. Together with the awards, three good sources and a bunch of other mentions/interviews should be more than enough for GNG. --hroest 12:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people can show enough local human interest coverage in their own hometown media to claim that they passed WP:GNG, without actually having any meaningful notability claim that would be expected to enshrine them in an international encyclopedia for posterity — so GNG doesn't just count the number of media hits you can find on a person, and also takes into account the context of what that coverage is being given for. Sources that quote or interview her, for example, are not support for notability, per WP:INTERVIEWS, so most of those links aren't doing anything to help — and of the three you identified as the most substantive, they amount to local human interest coverage in Saskatoon, and aren't supporting anything that would constitute a nationalized or internationalized notability claim. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would not claim notability beyond her province, however there is no requirement for national prominence to pass WP:GNG. WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable media which means we have the basis to write an article about her that is based on solid information. Here we have three relatively high quality and in-depth profiles of her in reputable outlets. Furthermore, it is clear that she had a significant role to play in the advancement of LGBTQ rights in her province, being at the core of 2 legal battles for civil rights. Personally I find that interesting and worthy of preservation for the future. --hroest 21:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Sasktoday article is the best of the profiles provided by hroest. There is no question that the subject is interesting, but interesting is not sufficient for a stand-alone page. Also, passing WP:GNG is "not a guarantee" and "editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page." --Enos733 (talk) 05:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As well as the coverage identified above by hroest, I've so far found coverage of her in newspapers from states other than Saskatchewan, from 2004-2021, including a profile in the Ottawa Citizen in 2013 [24], as well as coverage in Alberta and Toronto newspapers of her work getting donations of menstrual supplies to northern Saskatchewan communities and coverage in BC and Ontario of her same-sex marriage case. RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources indicate sufficient notability per GNG. Mifflefunt 00:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete somewhat difficult to search for, the sources above are helpful, but the best one - directly on her - was also submitted to a local paper by her company. I do think that there's a chance this could be draftified, resubmitted and kept, but given the poor sourcing, BLP issues, and the lack of a clear GNG pass, I don't see how we can keep this unfortunately. (The Ottawa paper is clearly not GNG-qualifying, it's a feature on "everyday citizens.") SportingFlyer T·C 07:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The few sources do not establish notability. Merely being a activist is not enough for a stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:16, 18 May 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.

Jon Hartley

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't think a great deal has changed since the previous AFD which I closed as G5, but was clearly going to end in delete otherwise. I'm unable to find any sources that come close to meeting WP:BIO and with an h-index of 10 it's unlikely that WP:PROF is met. SmartSE (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. SmartSE (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Keep Appears to be notable enough with his media presence and recognition. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid rationale. Where are the sources providing substantial, independent coverage? SmartSE (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt. Far WP:Too soon for WP:Prof. No GNG as few sources are independent of the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:07, 1 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Far WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF for this current PhD student. I guess there could be a case for WP:NCREATIVE with the podcast, but I do not see the reviews or other signs of impact (anyway, that would tend to make a case for a redirect to an article on the podcast). No other notability is apparent; in particular, I am not impressed by inclusion in listicles. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding on my delete rationale. The subject has published several papers, some of them in good journals, as in the GS profile. All academics publish papers, and this in itself is WP:MILL: we look for impact for WP:NPROF notability. At first glance, the first paper is highly cited, but the citation count combines a paper of the subject (which has no citations) with a paper of some of his coauthors. The second item also combines several papers, although less abusively. In a high citation field, I don't think that this demonstrates the needed impact: it would be surprising for a PhD student to have the necessary notability. Authoring pieces in the popular press is similar; we do not consider reporters to be automatically notable. For WP:NPROF C7, I'm seeing a small number of quotations in a quotable field, and I think this also falls short. GNG notability appears to hinge on whether inclusion in a listicle contributes enough. Past discussion has been fairly skeptical of this. My view is that it contributes only slightly. I also wish to comment that I am concerned about a pattern where relatively new accounts that have not previously shown an interest in AfD leave a "keep" !vote here approximately halfway through a string of 10-20 AfD discussion !votes. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Further expanding on the GNG case. Later keep !votes made a better case for GNG. I am still not convinced -- I do not see independent coverage in reliable sources. The wharton piece is highly non-independent. The USA today opinion piece is authored, so not independent. I discount the Forbes listicle coverage, although I note that past discussion at AfD of similar listicles has gone in both directions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia:Notability (people) says :"Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources."

Hartley is recognised as "notably influential" within the realm of ideologies, extending beyond his biography as a subject of secondary sources. His contributions to various news outlets, along with his role in conducting interviews with contemporaries and prominent figures AND being interviewed by them for his research, underscore the significance of his work in the field

1. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-:inflation-canadian-government-borrowing-billions/

2.https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jon-hartley-trudeau-should-listen-to-elon-musk-on-productivity

3.https://conversableeconomist.com/2024/03/13/interview-with-stephen-levitt-my-career-and-why-im-retiring-from-academia/

4.https://capitalismandfreedom.substack.com/p/episode-28-steven-d-levitt-freakonomics

5.https://americancompass.org/critics-corner-with-jon-hartley/

6.https://johnbatchelor.substack.com/p/the-future-of-canada-with-jon-hartley

I created this page because I believed his information was fragmented across various sources on the internet, and it would be worthwhile to compile it all in one place on Wikipedia.

Another criterion under WP:NACADEMIC states that a subject must "have had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." This criterion seems to apply to Hartley, given the influence of his research published in journals such as...

1.Journal of Financial Economics https://static1.squarespace.com/static/568f03c8841abaff89043b9d/t/660506eb488a1777a90db94a/1711605484880/HartleyJermann_2024_JFE.pdf

2.Publications under Harvard Business School https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=67312

3.Publications under Economic Letters https://static1.squarespace.com/static/568f03c8841abaff89043b9d/t/63eabdb744edb5235541b0b1/1676328375934/HartleyEL2021.pdf

4.Publication under Jurnal of Urban economics https://static1.squarespace.com/static/568f03c8841abaff89043b9d/t/63eabcff916adf2105c011b0/1676328191950/GyourkoHartleyKrimmel_JUE_2021.pdf

Fenharrow (talk) 10:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that this meets the 7th criteria of WP:NACADEMIC due to his publications in the Journal of Financial Economics and his appearances/contributions to mainstream media sources and think tanks. He seems to have been frequently interviewed by prominent institutions, the Wharton School as an example. This also seems to be notable since he has been covered in various RSes such as The Globe and Mail, National Post, and more. Lastly, there are lots of professors who have fewer or a similar amount of RSes, content, and notability and remain on Wikipedia and are not being nominated for deletion. Examples include but are not limited to Herman Clarence Nixon, Daniel Nugent, Thomas Sakmar, Avery Craven, James L. Fitzgerald, Lawrence M. Friedman, H. Gregg Lewis, Guy A. Marco, and more. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gjb0zWxOb Sorry but I dont see how writing a couple of articles in newspapers qualifies for NPROF#7, can you specify what exactly his impact was? If such an impact was indeed present, then it should be possible to find WP:RS to cover this impact, without such sources I think NPROF#7 will not apply. While he did write articles in Globe and Mail and NP, he was not covered by these outlets as far as I can see (see WP:JOURNALIST), the coverage would have to be a profile about him to count towards notability. Most of the people you listed had a long and illustrious academic and public career and were notable due to their academic impact as indicated by experts in the field, not really comparable to here (actually making the point here that this is WP:TOOSOON. --hroest 14:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wharton School article, published by a highly reputable academic institution, clearly qualifies as a profile and underscores Hartley's recognition in academia. But even putting WP:NPROF aside, I think it's evident he independently meets WP:GNG. Per WP:SIGCOV, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is the standard, and that is plainly met here. This includes not just op-eds he authored, but also interviews such as in L'Express. This coverage goes well beyond routine mentions and shows that he is regarded as a notable public commentator and scholar. GNG simply requires reputable, independent sources, which he has here. Also, extensive op-eds should not be so quickly dismissed as they are directly relevant to NPROF#7 which requires that, "The person has had substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." I found he has published work ranging from Globe and Mail, National Post, and USA Today. These are not blogs, they are professionally vetted publications that only platform notable experts. This certainly conforms with the requirement of NPROF#7. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete clear case of WP:TOOSOON, likely notable in a few years. Writing/publishing articles does not make a person notable by itself, see WP:NPROF and WP:NJOURNALIST so I dont believe that the listing of articles above contributes to notability. --hroest 20:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

expanding on this based on the comments regarding him passing WP:GNG or WP:BIO, I truly dont see WP:THREE independent reliable sources that have in-depth coverage about him (in fact I dont even see one, there is a piece from his alma mater, there are opinion pieces that he has writen himself but nothing about him from an independent source). --hroest 15:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article seems to have been deleted previously due to a lacking of sources that were acceptable by our standards at the time of its prior publication on Wikipedia. However, as of 2025 there seems to be more than enough reliable and independent sources covering the subject of the article. In the two plus years since the prior AfD, sources for the subject appear to be better and more relevant and independent. The subject is pretty clearly active and well established in academia. WP:SIGCOV easily passes. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - winning a made up in one day Forbes award for an up and coming but run of the mill academic. WP:NOTFB. I'm willing to change my mind about this if evidence of full tenure or high citation numbers is added. Right now, he's a fellow at a think tank that has long ago become subject to donor pressure. Ping me. Bearian (talk) 09:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Jon Hartley meets the criteria for notability under WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC, and concerns about WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTFB do not seem to be applicable in this case. His research appears to have been published in reliable journals such as the Journal of Financial Economics, Journal of Political Economy: Microeconomics, and Economics Letters. A Google search reveals Hartley to have been featured in sources including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, USA Today, and National Post. The sources demonstrate significant coverage and in reliable, independent sources, meeting WP:GNG. His recognition by Forbes in their 30 Under 30 list for Law & Policy in 2017 further demonstrates notability. Unclasp4940 (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Publishing papers is what every academic does - it definitely does not confer notability. Similarly, the articles in reliable sources are written by him, not about him and that is a crucial difference - the coverage is not about him. SmartSE (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just publishing stuff contributes nothing to notability. It is having the publications noted (cited) by others that gives notability through WP:Prof#C1. There is nothing like enough of that here. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Meets GNG so the arguments about the SNG (which I did not analyze) are not relevant. IMO exceeds the norm for GNG compliance, including several GNG references. Article really needs expansion using material from those references, but that's an article development issues rather than one for here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
North8000, I respect your opinion and experience on AfDs, and I always aim to be persuadable. Would you perhaps detail how you think the sources meet GNG and SIGCOV? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've done several thousand NPP reviews and will tell my overall "take" on it. I look at it holistically, including the multiple relevant guidelines and policies combined and the normal community standards of applying them. Using the reference numbers in the article version as of the date of this post, IMO #2 and #5 meet the norm for GNG interpretation, even if not 100% bulletproof. The Forbes listing (with bio) bolsters that. High ranking places providing his bio are not GNG but also reflective. Same with what's in some of the other sources. As noted I don't think that the academic SNG is needed, (and I've not analyzed that) but at quick glance some strong and detailed arguments have been presented that he also meets the SNG which would be a "belt and suspenders" thing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a lot of experience with the SNG, and I do not think he is very close to meeting WP:NPROF C1 (the main criterion). WP:NPROF C7 is pretty consonant with GNG. Of course, a pass of GNG suffices. As far as that goes, the Wharton piece (#2) fails independence, and I do not place weight on Forbes. I agree that source #1 should be given some weight, although it is an WP:RSOPINION by the subject. I will mull over. Thank you! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The "Forbes 30 Under 30" designation is not made-up per WP:MADEUP. It involves a thorough vetting process by industry experts too, not just journalists. Overall, the subject's work meets WP:PROF's first stated criterion, and his Google Scholar profile shows a strong body of work in economics that has been cited extensively. The page can be improved, but it's worth keeping in my view. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
how did you evaluate his academic profile? His GS profile is far from reaching any of the 8 criteria outlined there. Neither his citation count nor his h-index is anywhere close to a pass of the "average professor" test. Yes it is impressive for a junior researcher, but nowhere close to a lasting impact on his discipline. We cannot go on future potential but on available evidence. --hroest 03:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His GS profile is a long long way from meeting WP:Prof#C1. Maybe he will come up to standard in future but not yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like WP:NPROF is a red herring here. At any rate it would be really quite extraordinary for someone to pass WP:NPROF before they've even got their doctorate. What isn't clear to me from this discussion is whether he meets WP:GNG in spite of not meeting WP:NPROF.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Gerrysay (talk) 11:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The "lasting impact on his discipline" standard feels like an arbitrary threshold (e.g. to quantify "lasting" is inherently subjective). This guy seems impactful enough to clear the bar. Doctorstrange617 (talk) Doctorstrange617 (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think he's quite reached the level of PROF, and don't see multiple independent GNG qualifying sources Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hoover_Institution#Members I do not think he has enough notability or source coverage for a stand alone article like this. He seems mostly known to be a Hoover Institute fellow. Considering that the previous AFD result was pretty much SNOW delete, this may be a decent alternative. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Review of the references and presence based on Google search and author's profile, suggests that, in my opinion, there's sufficient independent coverage and notability through media coverages, interviews, and invited opinions as "analyst and economist." It's true that he might be up-and-coming, but that doesn't inhibit inclusion on WP at the moment with current information. WeWake (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: To meet WP:GNG, I don't see any independent, reliable, secondary sources in the article and I couldn't find anything online. The Wharton article is not independent: the subject was a student there. Forbes 30 under 30 (2017) is two sentences. Mercatus, MacDonald-Laurier, Hoover are not independent. Where are the independent, reliable sources with significant coverage?

For WP:PROF#C1 (academic influence through paper reviews and citations), the subject has one highly cited paper "The local residential land use regulatory environment across U.S. housing markets: Evidence from a new Wharton index" but no others. More is needed. Some here have argued for WP:PROF#C7 (popular influence), but one interview in L'Express and a little-known podcast doesn't meet the standard to me. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MouseCursor ^{or a keyboard?} 13:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm surprised that this has generated so much discussion when it seems like a fairly clear-cut case to me. If we have determined that WP:PROF is not met, that makes things easier as WP:BIO is less subjective. I still don't see anything which demonstrates that BIO is met - Forbes is independent, but not substantial; Wharton is substantial, but not independent (they are writing about their student and these kinds of articles are inherently promotional and several keep !voters do not seem to acknowledge this). Those are the only non-primary sources where he is the subject, articles he has written are of no use for determining notability. SmartSE (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:NPROF is a red herring here. According to NPROF, this guideline "is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline. It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under the general notability guideline or one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines."

I agree this seems like a "fairly clear-cut case". But I think the sources provide clear-cut case for keep given the sourcing which meets WP:GNG.

In particular:

1. WP:SIGCOV

2. Sources are sometimes not independent, but most are.

3. The "Presumed" aspect of GNG does not guarantee inclusion, but it looks to me like a standalone page here has more support than not.

4. I added several new RSes that I found, including some Spanish sources that discuss ex-Governor Jeb Bush and Hartley in the same sentence since they founded the Economic Club of Miami together. This economist is pretty obviously notable in my opinion. [25][26][27][28][29][30]

Lastly, @North8000 also has the right approach in saying, "Using the reference numbers in the article version as of the date of this post, IMO #2 and #5 meet the norm for GNG interpretation..." Gjb0zWxOb (talk) Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - This is extremely on the line imo, but the subject seems not to meet WP:GNG. The only independent coverage that's even slightly in-depth is the Miami Herald article (pretty good imo) and the Forbes editor profile, which I quote here in full: Hartley cofounded Real Time Macroeconomics, an economic research organization creating new macroeconomic health indicators using internet based data such as job openings, layoff announcements, and self-reported wages. Hartley is a policy expert and contributor for Forbes and the Huffington Post. This is likely a case of WP:TOOSOON, as a smattering of expert quotes, non-independent profiles, and media interviews is the typical coverage for a person who is not yet but will become notable. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should note: I wasn't able to access in full the L'Express and El Nuevo Herald articles. The first seemed like an interview and the latter seemed like passing mentions, but if they contain significant coverage it might be useful to quote here in full the paragraphs that discuss Hartley directly and in depth. Suriname0 (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since you wanted the full text quoted out, here it is for your convenience. As you indicated, the Miami Herald article goes into Hartley's founding of the Economic Club of Miami deeply and the purpose of the club and its conference. Specifically, in the article subsection entitled, "How the Economic Club of Miami Started," it goes extensively into Hartley's involvement:

"The Economic Club of Miami was started in 2021. Hartley had started coming down from New York to visit his parents in South Florida and felt like while finance professionals were moving to Miami, they did not have the same type of events or programs they had up North. Hartley reached out to Jeb Bush Jr. who he got to know working as economic advisor to Jeb Bush’s presidential campaign in 2016, and in January 2021, they put together a Google document to brainstorm about creating the group. Lourdes Castillo, a veteran public relations professional and executive, and Jeremy Schwarz, joined, too. All four are co-founders and Hartley serves as chairman."

Hartley is interviewed extensively throughout the article such as here:

"'Our goal is to build the signature emerging markets finance conference that brings financiers from around the world to talk about the trajectories of Latin American economies,' Hartley said in an interview with the Miami Herald. 'And both ways: outsiders investing in Latin America and Latin Americans investing elsewhere.' Recent growth and opportunities in South Florida will be a topic of discussion but without skipping over the emerging challenges, said Hartley, also an economics PhD candidate at Stanford University."

And here "'It won’t be just about investing,' Hartley said. 'We will discuss housing issues in many different respects including the supply of affordable housing.' Not attending but likely to be talked: new Argentine president Javier Milei. 'Milei is sort of a catalyst agent for economic liberalization in Argentina,' said Hartley, 34, the chairman of the Economic Club of Miami, and so, 'with that, you’ve seen a resurgence of interest in investing in Latin America.'"

Hartley is also the lead photo of the article and the subtext of the photo reads, "Jon Hartley giving the introduction at an Economic Club of Miami event on November 7, 2022 featuring Kenneth Griffin of Citadel and Miami Mayor Francis Suarez. Held at Miami Dade College."

In respect to the other articles, this Nuevo Herald article says the following (translated to English for convenience), "Its other founders, businessman Jeb Bush Jr. and economist Jon Hartley, are also scheduled to speak at the private gathering of about 130 people." This prominently puts Jeb Bush and Jon Hartley in the same sentence, Bush is obviously a notable individual and it is listing Hartley and Bush as co-founders of this organization it is writing a piece on.

In this Nuevo Herald article, it reads: "Now it's Miami's turn, now ready to play in the major league. The city has earned a place at the 'same table' with executives from major companies, says Castillo, who serves on the board with Jeb Bush Jr., attorney Jeremy Schwartz, senior advisor to Mayor Suárez, and economist Jon Hartley, the club's president." Once again, the article, that is writing extensively about Hartley's organization, puts Bush and Hartley in the same sentence, demonstrating his notability and bolstering his case to be notable enough for inclusion in this article.

This Nuevo Herald article is a repost of the Miami Herald article (since this is the sister paper), which contributes to the fact that this meets WP:SIGCOV given that this information listed above about Hartley was widely distributed in various languages (which also includes the L'Express article, which is obviously in French).

Given that you mentioned the L'Express article, I will cover the most key points here. This is essentially an interview with this publication that covers Hartley's thoughts on the Trump Administration. Here are some key excerpts (translated to English for convenience, "In this profusion of analyses, Jon Hartley, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, a think tank close to the Republican Party, and a doctoral candidate in economics at Stanford University, provides insight. To understand the protectionist shift in the United States, the researcher discusses the emergence, within both the left and the right, of a 'neo-populist' movement that challenges several foundations of the old neo-liberal consensus in Washington, including adherence to the principles of free trade." Now onto the interview, "L'Express: Do you share the fears of Kristalina Georgieva, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), regarding the consequences of the trade war between China and the United States on global growth? Jon Hartley: Regarding the potential long-term negative effects of the trade war on the global economy, I am more optimistic than most commentators. Chinese manufacturers depend in part on their ability to export to the United States, and American consumers are very happy to find cheap products from China. These factors are likely to eventually force the two countries to come to the negotiating table. It is also possible that some Chinese trade will be diverted to the United States via other countries, as has already been the case in Vietnam since the late 2010s." This demonstrates that Hartley has a notable opinion per WP:SIGCOV given that he is being interviewed in depth as a notable policy expert worthy of interviewing. The article also asks Hartley about Trump's trade policy, once again demonstrating above average notability, "'Does Donald Trump really have a trade strategy, or is he moving blindly? Donald Trump considered the asymmetry in trade barriers to be fundamentally unfair. And it's true that historically, most countries have imposed higher tariffs on the United States than the rates the United States imposed on them. Donald Trump's tariff increase in early April has opened negotiations with several countries. It's not impossible that, at the end of these negotiations, tariffs will eventually be lowered reciprocally, and in that case, this would be favorable to free trade. This is the most desirable scenario.'" I also plan on adding a couple more articles that bolster notability by showing that Hartley was Jeb Bush's 2016 economic policy adviser. I also found a Bloomberg article that discussed the Economic Club of Miami and quoted Hartley and mentioned Bush and him in the same sentence again. "Their arrival spurred last year the creation of the Economic Club of Miami, which hosted Monday’s event. 'We are trying to capture the zeitgeist of this Miami moment,' said Jon Hartley, chair of the club, which counts Jeb Bush’s son as one of its founders." I think this should do more than enough to bolster notability, not to mention all of other articles that were there before that I didn't even discuss here. Is this the information you were looking for or do you need anything else? Gjb0zWxOb (talk) Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Gjb0zWxOb, this is helpful, thanks for quoting from the sources. These excerpts suggest to me that none of the other sources you quote from (excepting the Miami Herald piece) constitutes WP:SIGCOV, which continues to leave me ambivalent about keeping this article. (On that note, you might consider reviewing the language used in WP:SIGCOV: most of those articles are trivial mentions of Jon Hartley, and the interview is not a secondary source – see WP:INTERVIEWS. Notability in Wikipedia terms means receiving significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, not by being quoted alongside notable people or giving media quotes.) Thanks, Suriname0 (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMO few articles meet a stringent interpretation of GNG. IMO this one meets a typical community application of GNG. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do think most BLPs meet WP:GNG (edit: or some other SNG, like academics or authors) fairly strictly, hence my ambivalence, but I agree this is not far from GNG interpretations of frequently-cited media experts. A hard call here, I don't envy the closing admin. Suriname0 (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Miami Herald article meets WP:GNG as it has extensive quotes from Hartley and showcases him speaking as the main picture of the article. His face is literally part of the article. Additionally, the event was not for a convention he was simply an attendee or speaker, but for the Economic Club of Miami, of which he was a founder. This event included other notable people from multiple industries and domains, such as Ken Griffin of Citadel financial, Miami Mayor Francis Suarez, Anthony Scaramucci, and Jorge Quiroga, the former president of Bolivia. Agnieszka653 (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian economic crisis (2022–present)

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 no consensus. After extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus to delete. In fact, there is at this point little support for outright deletion, some support for redirecting (which is effectively deleting but also acknowledging that the subject is noteworthy for mention somewhere in the encyclopedia), and a thin majority favoring keeping the article on the basis of sources that are meagre but not impermissible for use. I would suggest that those advocating for keeping the article continue searching for sources. BD2412 T 23:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Neiszner

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

Article about a hockey player, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for hockey players. The leagues he played in, the American Hockey League and the ECHL, are specifically listed in WP:NHOCKEY as conferring notability only if the player "Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top-10 career scorer, first-team all-star)" -- but there's no claim being made here that he ever achieved any such thing in either league, and he hasn't been shown to pass WP:GNG either as the article is referenced entirely to content self-published by the teams he has played or worked for rather than any evidence of independent coverage in third-party media sources.
The article has, additionally, spent 18 full months with WP:BLP-violating nonsense like "He is currently an ambulance driver in Alberta. He once smiled, but really didn't like it. Chris also had the pleasure of providing the Rebels staff with water in their mouths." in it until I found and poleaxed it just now, which isn't a deletion rationale in and of itself but does speak to how many responsible editors have actually seen the article.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable without much more and better sourcing for it than this. Bearcat (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Whenever I see an AfD on a article on an obscure hockey player such as this, I tend to flicker my gaze to the top of the screen to see if Dolovis -- an editor eventually community-banned from new article creation, and responsible for creating thousands of articles on NN subjects, often in direct defiance of notability guidelines -- was the perp. Bingo! In any event, there's never been any iteration of NHOCKEY under which this player, whose career was multiple rungs below top flight, has been considered presumptively notable. Ravenswing 12:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Red Deer Advocate gave extensive SIGCOV of him, e.g. 1 2 3 4 5 6. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Versions of the above links that will open through Wikipedia Library: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- Also this story from the Las Vegas Review-Journal. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are four significant article about him provided above. 1 4 5 6. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 12:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Local coverage in the home market of the team he played for isn't sufficient in and of itself to give a minor-league hockey player a GNG-based exemption from WP:NHOCKEY. We'd have to see nationalizing coverage, not just the Red Deer Advocate alone. Bearcat (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

coverage isn't sufficient ... [for a] GNG-based exemption from WP:NHOCKEY – ?? NHOCKEY is an inclusionary criterion, not an exlusionary one (and a broken one at that -- if you meet NHOCKEY, you may be notable if you pass GNG; if you do not meet NHOCKEY, you may be notable if you pass GNG). The only thing that matters is whether he meets GNG, and national coverage is not necessary for that. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as a distinction between "inclusionary" and "exclusionary" SNGs. GNG does not just count up the number of media hits and keep anybody who's surpassed an arbitrary number, without considering the context in which the media hits exist — as I've said more than once, if GNG just concerned itself with the number of sources a person had, and didn't care about whether the context of what the person was getting covered for was actually of any broad or sustained public interest or not, then we would have to keep an article about my mother's former neighbour who once got a blip of media coverage for finding a pig in her front yard. (Hell, if all GNG cared about was the number of media hits that could be found, and didn't measure for whether the context of what those hits existed for passed any notability criteria or not, then I would even be able to claim that I qualified for an article.) So media coverage doesn't just have to hit some arbitrary number of clippings, and also has to verify passage of one or more notability criteria. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sport-specific sub criteria is just leftover stuff from before WP:NSPORTS2022 that wasn't participation based (all of the participation criteria was removed). None of the individual sport guidelines have been updated with replacement criteria so we're pretty much just left with skeletonized guidelines that offer unhelpful advice like likely to be notable if they've been inducted into the hall of fame. There's isn't even any guidance currently on football, gridiron football, or baseball. In regards to NHOCKEY, the only NHL guidance mentions first-round draft picks, which is obviously too strict given all of the blue links at 2017 NHL entry draft (and there's never been an overabundance of hockey players anyway). ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Right now, it looks like Wayne Gretzky fails NHOCKEY. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He does fail NHOCKEY. I suggest an AfD. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV does not exclude local coverage, and makes no mention of national coverage. Flibirigit (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Local coverage isn't excluded from usability, and I never said it was. But local coverage is not necessarily enough to hand a person a GNG-based exemption from normal inclusion criteria all by itself — unelected candidates are not exempted from NPOL just because they can show a handful of local campaign coverage in the local media of the area where they were running without any evidence of broader significance, actors who don't otherwise pass NACTOR's achievement-based criteria are not exempted from them just because they can show a handful of "local aspiring actor gets first bit part in movie" coverage in their hometown media without any evidence of broader significance, high school and junior league athletes are not exempted from the inclusion criteria for their sport just because they can show a handful of hometown local coverage without any evidence of broader significance, local bands are not exempted from having to pass WP:NMUSIC just because they got a few hits of "local band plays local pub" in their local newspaper without any evidence of broader significance, and on and so forth.
If a person is properly established as passing an SNG on an actual inclusion criterion, then we genuinely don't care whether their sourcing is "local" or "national" — but if a person's coverage isn't establishing passage of any specific inclusion criteria, and instead you're trying to argue that they get over GNG purely on the number of media hits that exist in and of itself, then a local vs. national coverage test does come into play, because lots of people can show some evidence of local coverage in contexts that don't pass encyclopedic standards of permanent international significance. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON and WP:WALLOFTEXT may apply here. Flibirigit (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the only coverage were a couple of articles from Neiszer's home town of Craik, Saskatchewan stating that he made it to a WHL team, I'd probably agree that he does not meet GNG. But he has much more extensive coverage from Red Deer, Alberta, which is not his home town (or even his home province) plus significant coverage from Las Vegas, Nevada, which is not even his home country. That's not to mention a lot of insignificant coverage in other newspapers in other ciites. So he actually has not only national coverage, but international coverage. Rlendog (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Red Deer Advocate is a perfectly acceptable source for demonstrating significant coverage for notability, which has no "national coverage" requirement, and the Las Vegas Review-Journal provides an additional source of significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment while not really an international outlet, there are at least 6 articles from the Red Deer Advocate here which would count towards notability. However, my problem is that they do not seem to be very in-depth which makes me wonder whether there is enough material to write an interesting article that goes beyond the Hockey stats. --hroest 19:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources seem quite limited and I don't think it passes WP:BASIC. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG with multiple sources of SIGCOV listed above. NSPORT doesn't have any reasonable sport-specific guidance on stuff anymore since WP:NSPORTS2022 so this is all we have to go on. Just following the rules. Can't have it both ways. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer This is due for close or relist today, but I don't see any source review. Could we get a relist to do that properly. My first observation is that 6 of the 7 sources come from the same newspaper, and so these would only count as a single source for purposes of GNG. The links have ot been set up through the Wikipedia library so I will need to do a bit of work to review them, but that is at most one source. The other, the Las Vegas Review, is a report on their return, but is primarily an interview, so the biographical information is not independent, and is primary. I think this needs more work. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 09:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Source review - Thanks for the relist. I have now looked at the six sources above, and here is my assessment (in conjunction with my earlier comment about the Las Vegas Review source).
The following are all from the Red Deer Advocate, a local paper for Red Deer, Alberta, Canada. They are mostly from one staff correspondent. One is from an alternate staff correspondent. The page subject is only associated with the Red Deer Rebels. The Red Deer Advocate is owned by Black Press, but coverage of a player on the local team in a local paper is clearly WP:ROUTINE or of questionable independence. To be notable, the player must surely be noticeable beyond the local paper.

1 (Meacham, 2001) Looks like SIGCOV, and secondary. As above, questionable independence. ?
2 - Not SIGCOV. N
3 (Meacham, 2005) Looks like SIGCOV, and secondary. As above, questionable independence. Additionally information appears to be obtained via interview, and aspects of this are primary reporting. ?
4 (Meacham, 2010) Looks like SIGCOV, and secondary. As above, questionable independence. ?
5 (Rode, 2005) This appears to be a write up of an interview, so the biographical information is not independent. N
6 (Meacham, 2003) Looks like SIGCOV, and secondary. As above, questionable independence. ?

The six sources count together. While some are excluded, there is SIGCOV here in this local paper about the local team. But can they be used for notability? Certainly not on their own. They provide some useable biographical information, but they do not indicate notability. GNG requires multiple sources in any case. If we had national coverage at this level, we would keep, based on the coverage, but as things stand, if this is all we have, we are not yet at GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in our guidelines suggests that coverage by a "local team in a local newspaper" is of "questionable independence" or necessarily routine. And the Las Vegas article (which is not an interview) is not Red Deer, or even Alberta, or even Canada. So there are multiple sources, and not just national coverage but international coverage. Rlendog (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very much disagree with the source review above. The Review-Journal is an ~800 word story on him that is not solely an interview. Sirfurboy seems to be stating that any story that has any quotes or such is automatically non-independent, but that is clearly incorrect and including quotes from closely related people is a feature of almost all good sports reporting. Review-Journal is SIGCOV source 1. Then we've got an avalanche of coverage from the Advocate. "Questionable independence"? No, the paper is not owned by the team or anything like that. Being local does not mean non-independent! And there is no requirement that a subject receives national coverage. The Review-Journal has SIGCOV and then the Advocate has SIGCOV. That's multiple sources with SIGCOV, and that meets GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly everything in the Review is indeed from an interview. I missed that 89 words of direct quotation actually come from Glen Gulutzan, his coach, saying:
Early on he's had some offensive success, but what we can count on him for is the same game every night. That's why he's good for our younger guys. His game doesn't fluctuate every day. It's the same every day.
"He kills penalties, plays in front of the net on the power play and on 5-on-5 he's defensively responsible. We know every night we can rely on him in tough situations. He's just a well-rounded player, and that's how he has to be to get to the next level.
Other than that, the only material that is not directly from the subject is that he spent last season in France (signed because of his agent), his offense has improved, he scored 23 points in 26 games, and he is reunited with Justin Taylor. This is primarily an interview with a returning player. Where is he returning to? Las Vegas. And this is the Las Vegas Review. What is not interview is news reporting, city wide but local. Again, if we had any national coverage it would be different, but coverage of who is rejoining a local team is routine, match reporting is primary and interview content is not independent. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's 260 words of coverage of Neiszner that is not from quotes – that's SIGCOV. There is no requirement that the coverage be non-local. Whether you personally judge it to be "routine" because its of a "returning player" is irrelevant. The only thing that matters, aside from it being reliable and independent (which it is), is whether it is in-depth coverage (SIGCOV), which it is. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we're discounting "local" coverage and entire sources because they have some quote material (which is standard sports journalism), then there are a decent amount of NHL players that wouldn't even pass GNG. Would an article on a Philadelphia Flyers player in The Philadelphia Inquirer not count since it's "local"? Only All-Star caliber players and those who have played for 10+ years will have national SIGCOV. I'm not going to "die on the hill" (for lack of a better phrase) for this minor leaguer but I would for an NHL player. Here is an example of a Q&A type interview that wouldn't count towards notability. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes can be valid coverage, especially if they are not from an interview with the subject. Rlendog (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source. - see WP:IV. As we want biographical SIGCOV of the player, the quoted information is primary, and cannot be used for SIGCOV. What we can take into account is the question of why the interview happened. Why did a newspaper believe interviewing this subject was important? Does that indicate notability? But that takes us to the occasioning of the sources, and relevant here is that these are coverage of the local team, and this is run of the mill stuff. Look at the 89 words from the coach above: it's just talking about him as a team member. We need something more here. If the subject is notable, someone other than the local paper will have taken note in something other than simple team news reporting. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source. – correct, which means that the quotes in the article cannot count as coverage of the subject. However, the ~260 words written by the journalist on Neiszner is coverage that counts as SIGCOV. All good sports journalism includes quotes, so you're suggestions that including quotes automatically makes sources primary and unusable would make basically all sports SIGCOV unusable, which is very obviously in error and a ridiculous assertion that I have never before come across in my five years of participation at hundreds of sports AFDs. Once again, whether you personally think this is "local run of the mill stuff" is entirely irrelevant; all that matters is whether there is SIGCOV in reliable sources, which we have here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I make it 171 words and I already dealt with that above. It tells us that he spent last season in France (signed because of his agent), his offense has improved, he scored 23 points in 26 games, and he is reunited with Justin Taylor. The source is primarily an interview in local press about a returning player. It is routine, and the occasion of the source (that he is a returning player) makes that information primary. Biographical information may be secondary, but there is no independent biographical information to speak of. It is almost entirely not independent. And we routinely treat routine local press more cautiously for notability. You are attempting to make this a black and white, any two sources and it's in. That's not what the policy says. What it actually says is this:
"Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.
Under the accompanying note it adds "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic." If we had one national source, I'd accept these take us to multiple sources, but they are simply not enough on their own. Thus, at this stage, my !vote is ~~Delete~~. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how you get 171, but it is ~260. Per GNG, a topic is notable when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It says nothing of "routine local press" being discounted. And I'll add that the Las Vegas Review-Journal is no small-town paper, but a large one, the largest in the state of Nevada. That the source is about a "returning player" is irrelevant; once again, the only thing that matters is if there's SIGCOV. It is not primary, and that there's some quotes in the article does not make it so, for quotes are a feature of all sports journalism. The suggestion that quotes automatically make a source unusable is ridiculous and would result in the deletion of the vast majority of all sports articles. National coverage is not required... BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And let's not forget that IV is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Rlendog (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But not wrong. The policy it is based on is found in WP:PRIMARY. See note d. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But the relevant issue of whether quotes within a secondary source count as primary is not in WP:PRIMARY. Rlendog (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like wikilawyering around the margins. Look, if you are writing a biography, everything the subject of the biography says about themself is a primary source and not independent of the subject, by definition. That is not just Wikipedia saying so. This is true everywhere, and should be self evident. It is also the policy (as I have shown) and the guidance (as I have shown). What you can seek to do with interviews is demonstrate that the fact of the interview makes a case for notability. That is, the occasion of an interview should be considered. It is not a mechanistic thing, but clearly if someone is being interviewed by a variety of different news outlets, there will be a reason why they are being interviewed. I've argued, in the past, that a subject was likely to be notable based on the range and duration of interview material. But that argument is quite apart from the GNG one. For GNG, interviews are neither independent nor secondary. There is no wiggle room there. They are not. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: it's not per definition that interview material is primary; see Wikipedia:Interviews#Primary or secondary?. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which says The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source. I already quoted it. What an interviewee says about themself is primary. Please note that this is exactly what I said. We are not talking about an interviewee talking about the right way to varnish yachts for our yacht varnishing page. We are talking about interviewees who are talking about themselves, for the question of what to put in their biographical articles, as I made very clear. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made the note as your general advice What you can seek to do with interviews is demonstrate that the fact of the interview makes a case for notability. can be read as the content of an interview is always primary. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of that changes the fact that the article written by an independent journalist who decided to include the quote (or used information from an interview in their article) is secondary. None of what you have "shown" changes that. And the statement that you quoted is solely in the essay WP:IV, not in any of our guidance or policy. Rlendog (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And your claim that "everything the subject of the biography says about themself is a primary source and not independent of the subject, by definition." But some of the quotes you want to exclude from the Las Vegas article are from the subject's coach, not from the subject. But in any case, the journalist who chose to include those quotes in their article is not the subject and not even related to the subject so it should be self-evident that the article is secondary, even if WP:IV was a guideline or policy.Rlendog (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is just repeating what has been discussed above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Direct quotes are always primary, and when they come from someone affiliated with the subject they are not independent either. The only interview content that can contribute to GNG is secondary commentary by the interviewer; neither quotes nor "the fact the newspaper decided to interview them" counts as independent secondary SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As SIGCOV of the subject is provided. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 07:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an article from the Las Vegas Sun about Neiszner. Not the most enlightening, and it does contain some quotes from the subject, but another independent, reliable source that felt this subject was worthy of an article. Rlendog (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd closed as keep, but have volunteered to relist per User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chris_Neiszner May weigh in more later when I'm back online.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Wranglers page where he is mentioned. Per NOPAGE, we do not have to have an article just because coverage exists, and I think the very local-interest-news, interview-based slant of the current sourcing makes it hard to write a truly encyclopedic article on the subject. JoelleJay (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could pretty much make that sort of argument to get rid of any topic I want. "Yeah there's SIGCOV to meet GNG, but I don't like this subject and therefore I declare it to be unencyclopedic and it should be deleted per NOPAGE". There's no requirement that sources be non-local and it isn't "very local-interest-news" either, as e.g. the Review-Journal is the number one paper in Nevada. I don't understand a redirect to the Wranglers either, as they weren't even the top team he played for. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is Red Deer Advocate even hyper local? According to Media in Alberta, it's the No. 6 paper in the province. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And if the Review-Journal is not the number one paper in Nevada then the Las Vegas Sun is. And both have carried articles about Neiszner. Rlendog (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Six articles in the Red Deer Advocate (circulation 5,579) about a Red Deer Rebels player/coach are surely local-interest news. An interview in the Las Vegas Review-Journal about a Las Vegas Wranglers player is also still local-interest news. There can be significant coverage that is nevertheless not particularly encyclopedic enough for a standalone. This is more in line with PAGs than an editor insisting brief local blurbs are SIGCOV for someone who meets their personal standards for notability but are not SIGCOV for random other subjects (this isn't a reference to you specifically). JoelleJay (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No in 2010, it was circulation 83,987 per the Media in Alberta page linked above. We can't use the current figures. Physical newspapers are pretty much dead. They were already dead by 2010 too. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources provided are mere "brief local blurbs". Some of them are to a degree local, but being local does not prevent them from meeting GNG. Rlendog (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article on his coaching career. Some from the Calgary Herald. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Procedural note that the AfD was closed but reopened for a second time, see User_talk:HilssaMansen19#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chris_Neiszner. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Las_Vegas_Wranglers per JoelleJay. I have struck my delete above in favour of this ATD which makes sense as the subject is mentioned there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- See my comment above: I don't understand a redirect to the Wranglers either, as they weren't even the top team he played for. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm also baffled at the suggestion to redirec to the Wranglers. Neiszner is mentioned at Red Deer Rebels as an assistant coach, and played for higher level teams than the Wrangers. Flibirigit (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  What redirect would you suggest? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep the biography, and no redirect is needed. My opinion has not changed that he meets GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What higher teams did he play for? The article only mentions the Wranglers professionally. The Red Deer Rebels are a junior and amateur team. The Wranglers is clearly the best redirect, if not deleting the page - especially as he is mentioned there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment genuine question - why are you suggesting this - The Wranglers is clearly the best redirect, if not deleting the page - especially as he is mentioned there.
    
    in a reply to
    
    @Flibirigit mentioning they do not want any redirect or delete. Keep the biography, and no redirect is needed. which itself was a reply to your What redirect would you suggest? comment above. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Wranglers are ECHL (third-tier); he also played for two teams in the AHL (second-tier), mentioned in the infobox. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Which is entirely unsourced. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      See this link in the article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Which shows almost his entire professional career was at the Wranglers. Also is it correct? This one does not mention Texas Stars at all [31]. If he had any significant professional career outside of the Wranglers, it seems odd we have found nothing about that in several weeks of discussion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough coverage exists to satisfy notability standards. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 02:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note for closer the concurrent discussions at User_talk:HilssaMansen19#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chris_Neiszner and User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chris_Neiszner which you may or may not wish to take into account when closing. Star Mississippi 03:01, 22 May 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

CIRE-TV (via WP:PROD on 14 May 2025)
CFSO-TV (via WP:PROD on 14 May 2025)

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

%