Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Canada

Canada

Canada articles for deletion

Erica Carroll

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

WP:BLP of an actress, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NACTOR. As always, actors are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the notability test isn't in listing her acting roles, it's in showing WP:GNG-worthy coverage about her and her performances (biographical reportage, critical analysis of the films that singles her performance out for dedicated attention, etc.) But this is completely unreferenced, and while it has had footnotes in it in the past, those consisted entirely of primary sources (IMDb, her own social networking profiles, etc.) that weren't and aren't support for notability, and the article has never had a single GNG-worthy source in it at all.
Further, the only attempt at anything more than "actor who exists" here is that she received a short film acting nomination for a regional film and television award, which would be fine if the article were properly sourced but is not nationally or internationally prominent enough to confer an automatic notability freebie on an otherwise unsourced article.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass GNG on her sourceability. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coral Club

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

I removed a bunch of clearly promotional PR fluff, and really this article fails to pass any WP:GNG requirements for a company. ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Advertising. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Lilly and Jack Sullivan

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

This seems to me like a case of too soon. The article appears to fail WP:EVENTCRIT in that this is a very recent event, with only recent coverage, and any lasting effects have yet to been established. As this only just happened, there has been no analysis of events after the fact. Per WP:GEOSCOPE, this is something of only regional importance, for a province with a population of only about one million people. I asked the author if they would object to me draftifying it, and they did, so it would no longer be appropriate to do so. MediaKyle (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Updated nomination: After thinking over it some more I feel like I should provide additional context for those voting in this AfD. This tragic disappearance of two children happened only three weeks ago. There has been conflicting reported on details by reputable news publishers, which has caused a flurry of speculation on true crime forums across the net, with the overarching speculation being that the parents did something terrible to their children. In addition to my previously stated reasons of this article contravening event notability guidelines, Wikipedia should have no part in the denigration of this family. If anything, this article should be sent to draft until it can be determined that this actually had any lasting impact. It should be noted that the event notability criteria specifically states that although many tragic events receive coverage, that alone doesn't warrant inclusion. MediaKyle (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Events, and Canada. MediaKyle (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as author. I fail to see how the subject fails WP:GEOSCOPE as it has been covered both nationally in Canada as well as internationally in media outside of Canada (Newsweek, CNN, The Guardian), two of which were used as citations in the article at the time of its nomination. Regarding WP:EVENTCRIT, I would argue the subject of the article has lasting, historical significance, as it pertains to the unusual disappearance of two sibling children together under the care of their parents under mysterious circumstances, and has been described in various sources as being 'baffling' or 'strange' in nature. The scope of reporting is evidently also national and global as previously mentioned. The nominator advised on talk page discussion that "As a Nova Scotian" he was "rather uncomfortable" with the article as-is, but, with apologies, Wikipedia is not censored for the comfort of those closely involved with its subject matter.McRandy1958 (talk) 01:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, due to the coverage that this has. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage does not seem especially in depth and all sources are quite close temporally and most are close location wise. A lot of children go missing. While very sad there’s not the kind of coverage that really demonstrates a passage of WP:NEVENT PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete according to WP:EVENTCRIT, there is no indication that this event had/has any lasting significance beyond the initial reporting. I fail to see how this story has "enduring historical significance" as required by guideline. I thus strongly suspect there is no WP:PERSISTENCE to this but it may be too early to make a final judgement call on that front. --hroest 01:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I believe this article should be kept, not just for its media coverage (which includes national and international sources), but because it documents the disappearance of two Indigenous children who are members of the Sipekne'katik First Nation, the second-largest Mi'kmaw community in Nova Scotia. The Sipekne'katik leadership released a public statement expressing deep concern and solidarity: “Our Chief and Council, administration, and the entire community are united in our strong desire to see these children return home safely.”

Indigenous children have historically been erased—both physically and narratively—through systems that ignored or dismissed their disappearances. Canada’s own Truth and Reconciliation Commission speaks to this legacy. Deleting this article risks contributing to that erasure.

Whether or not this case is “resolved,” it is already notable as part of the larger historical and social context of Indigenous child disappearances in Canada. It has also drawn widespread public attention due to the unusual nature of the event (two siblings disappearing simultaneously from a home), which meets WP:EVENTCRIT.

If there are concerns that the article is too recent, it should be moved to Draft, not deleted. But it should not be removed entirely from Wikipedia.

— TruthTold1988 (talk) 05:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smoking Gun Interactive

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

Disputed PROD. Appears to fail WP:NCORP. Sources mostly relate to Age of Empires: Castle Siege, so I suggest redirect or merge there. IgelRM (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Canada. IgelRM (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not mostly. Only three (2, 3, and 4) out of the six sources in article Smoking Gun Interactive relate to Age of Empires: Castle Siege. And the nominator is actually proposing a merger, not a deletion. This should go through the Wikipedia:Merging process, not the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion process. --Neo-Jay (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liquor Tax Act

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

The page doesn't cite any sources, and it never has. The article should be moved to draftspace as this is a niche topic and sources may be found if given time. I went searching and couldn't find any independent sources. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is ineligible to be sent to draft as it was created in 2006, per WP:DRAFTIFY. I'm seeing what look like hits in Google books, but I'm not too knowledgeable on provincial legislation to be able to tell. The webpage for the act says it's been repealed, although you said it wasn't, so I'm a bit confused. MediaKyle (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked out sources in Google Books, none the ones I looked at discussed this act, they were about either taxes of liquor in general, or about taxes on liquor imposed by other jurisdictions. Per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1078979320#Proposal_to_ban_draftifying_articles_more_than_90_days_old_without_consensus, the page cited by WP:DRAFTIFY says articles over 90 days old can be moved draftspace with consensus at AfD. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Finance, Law, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete the article provides little to no information and there are no WP:RS with any sort of discussion of this law in detail relating to Ontario.--hroest 17:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UsefulCharts

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

I was originally motivated to create this article since I am a fan of its content. Looking back on it, it is mostly poor sources or interviews or short coverage. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 11:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Companies. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 11:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Internet, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: First four sources (although first two of them short) seem to meet SigCov. They can't all be non-RS. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree, there are several independent WP:RS that discuss the subject in depth including the Vancouver Sun. --hroest 17:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Z[reply]

Buzz marketing

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

Written as a WP:PROMO, there is no evidence of notability and passing WP:CORP. Only things that show up are a marketing strategy, and nothing about the company. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 16:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Marketing buzz. Google search for "buzz marketing" kelowna reveals CORPTRIV (directory pages, lists of marketing companies, etc), not SIGCOV. Although the page has existed since 2005, it was a redirect to various pages until a 14 May edit; re-redirectifying it is probably the best approach. Anerdw (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - while totally and blatantly spam, this is a useful search term. Bearian (talk) 04:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree the redirect should be reinstated and the WP:PROMO article removed. --hroest 17:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran Sells

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

WP:BLP of a person not properly sourced as passing any Wikipedia inclusion criterion. The attempted notability claim here is that he was a production assistant on television talk shows, which is not "inherently" notable without WP:GNG-worthy sourcing for it, but the sole footnote is a directory entry rather than anything that would build GNG.
This was also very likely a self-promotional autobiography, as it was created by a single-purpose account named "PhillyGuy23", while the subject apparently attended Temple University in Philadelphia and would have been exactly 23 years old at the time this got created.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable without much, much better sourcing for it than this. Bearcat (talk) 06:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, Canada, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 06:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom. A WP:BEFORE targeted search using Jimmy Kimmel and John Carpenter keywords doesn't turn up anything. Amazing that this survived 16 years, with nothing new being added. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 06:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it violates WP:GNG and WP:BIO, there are no RS covering the subject. --hroest 17:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

J.M. Tory

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

Biography of a person not properly sourced as passing any Wikipedia inclusion criteron. The only attempt at a notability claim present here at all is that he was related to other people -- but notability is not inherited, so that isn't grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself. But there's absolutely no documentation here of him doing anything more than having brothers and sons and nephews, and the only sourcing on offer is from a user-generated genealogy site that doesn't constitute support for notability either. Bearcat (talk) 06:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 06:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to James Marshall Tory. Same initials, seems reasonable to me. I haven't dug too deep into the whole Tory family thing yet but it seems to be legitimate and not just a genealogy project, although you're right that this particular Tory doesn't seem to be anything special. MediaKyle (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like this belongs in Wikitree or some other genealogy website. --hroest 17:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Divine Mercy Catholic Elementary School

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

Non-notable run-of-the-mill elementary school. Only independent coverage cited is a database entry; nothing beyond the school district found on search. Could reasonably redirect to Toronto Catholic District School Board. — Moriwen (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Christianity. — Moriwen (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 18:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: schools are not inherently notable, here there is no significant coverage that I can see and thus fails WP:NSCHOOL. --hroest 20:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per WP:ATD and longstanding practice. Pertinent details can be added to the school board article which already has a mention of it. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Burkart

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

non notable actor, a minor role in a notable series, and otherwise unnamed and non-notable roles in other series, ranging from a background actor to completely unnamed background actor. COOLIDICAE🕶 22:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Last of Us, Once Upon a Time and Tell Me a Story: The Life of J.L. Tramel. Maybe be enough treasure to prove the person. Matthewhayana (talk) 01:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The notability of an actor is not established by listing roles, it's established by showing evidence that he has received WP:GNG-worthy coverage in reliable sources about him and his performances — i.e. newspaper articles about him, magazine articles about him, books about him, and on and so forth — but absolutely no GNG-building sources have been shown here whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability and poor quality sources. Barry Wom (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No in depth coverage as required for WP:GNG and regarding WP:NACTOR It seems all his roles were minor. --hroest

Agnes Gallus

AfDs for this article:

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

Article previously deleted in November 2024 before being recreated in draft form this winter and then moved back into mainspace about two weeks ago, but still not properly sourcing any meaningful claim to passing WP:NARTIST. As always, artists are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage and analysis about them, but this is still based mostly on the exact same primary sources as the first time -- gallery shows sourced to the self-published websites of the galleries that held them rather than GNG-worthy coverage about the shows, a piece about her life and death written by her own daughter, and on and so forth.
The very few new sources that have been added still aren't reliable or GNG-worthy either, however: there's a PDF copy of a book that apparently has one of her drawings in it, where we would need to see media reporting "Agnes Gallus drawing selected for inclusion in book" as a news story to deem her notable for that, and there's her paid-inclusion obituary in the newspaper classifieds.
There's still nothing here that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass GNG on much, much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Possible COI? See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harrietchan. Family? PamD 07:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've undeleted the previous version to give editors visibility of what has been before so that their thinking can be informed. Schwede 66 23:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback, @Bearcat. I understand and appreciate Wikipedia’s policies around notability and reliable sourcing, especially in accordance with WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. That said, I would like to respond to a few points regarding the article in question:

Substantial Revisions: After the article was deleted the first time in November 2024, I significantly revised and expanded the content to better support notability. The second version has undergone considerable editorial improvement thanks to the thoughtful contributions of @buysomeapples, who helped refine its tone and structure.

New Sources: While I acknowledge that some sources may still be borderline under WP:GNG standards, I’ve actively worked to include more third-party references. Some of these include published catalogues, archived media pieces, and mentions in group exhibition reviews—not just self-published gallery pages. I’m continuing to search for stronger secondary coverage and am open to suggestions on more specific types of sources that would help meet the bar.

Concerns About Bias: I want to gently raise that the recurring deletion of this article—despite ongoing efforts to improve it—feels disheartening, particularly in light of the many articles on male artists with similar levels of coverage that remain on the platform. While I fully support Wikipedia’s neutrality and sourcing policies, I hope we can also be mindful of how systemic bias can unintentionally influence these decisions. My intention is not to accuse any individual editor but to invite a broader reflection on how we apply notability standards consistently across gender lines.

I remain committed to improving this article in line with Wikipedia’s guidelines and am grateful for any constructive advice or mentorship on how best to proceed. Harrietcyy (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep I accepted the draft because it seemed to meet WP:NARTIST 4 and because Ref 1 seems substantial enough (Saskatchewan: Art and Artists) seemed substantial enough. I won't be bothered if this gets deleted though, it's a borderline case even if it is interesting. BuySomeApples (talk) 09:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear; Saskatchewan Art and Artists is a biographical sketch in a non-WP:GNG-worthy directory self-published by a gallery she was directly affiliated with — and even if we ignore all of those problems and accept it anyway just because it seems "substantial", it still takes a lot more than just one notability-supporting source to establish passage of GNG. So that wasn't a solid notability-locking source to begin with, and wouldn't be enough all by itself regardless. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aminu Abdallah

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

Made 30 appearances in his career for Championship teams before disappearing from the sport. Fails GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ghana. RossEvans19 (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 04:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Svartner (talk) 05:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling for the 46th Canadian federal election

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

Article about an opinion poll that is not yet discussed in reliable sources (can't really think whether the two sources at the associated draft is reliable enough). It was prodded, but I objected the prod since I believed it was invalid despite the endorsement. Note that the most recent election wrapped up just three weeks ago so I felt that this article with almost no documentation in reliable sources is way too soon. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 20:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has no references and is just a small table. Google News is a dead end full of WP:SIGCOV violations. This could be a case of WP:SOON or it could just fail WP:GNG. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article was created despite there already being concensus that it should currently be in the draft-space. This article shouldn't exist -- it is too soon for it to be moved out of the draft space, and a draft with the same title already exists. The two sources used in the draft are absolutely reliable -- they are from Nanos polling, a large Canadian pollster, so it is clear that the original nominator for deletion in this article is unaware of Canadian politics. ArchMonth (talk) 17:44, May 19, 2025 (EST)
Delete there isnt even a single poll in the article, the current table only contains the 2025 election result. --hroest 16:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Articles for opinion polls are almost a given whenever there are opinion polls to be shown, and in this case there are already three opinion polls in the three weeks since the election (which I have just added to the article), and considering how Nanos (a reliable source) keeps releasing one poll per week this will only be set to grow. I cannot see how can this be WP:TOOSOON: when would be an appropiate time for showing these opinion polls to casual readers at the 46th Canadian federal election? Just merge the associated draft into this article. Impru20^talk 08:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We're up to four polls now, five when the Abacus poll reported by the Star will be added. There is no longer any valid reason for deleting this article. I endorse Impru20's suggestion of merging the draft (which is now a bit behind) into this. CASalt (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is likely to be updated in the future with more polls. There are currently three, although others in this discussion have suggested more are to come. ArchMonth I am aware of Canadian politics; otherwise, I would not have made a new article on the matter in the first place. However, when I created the article, I was not aware of the draft page, although I have no objection to Impru20's suggestion of merging the draft page into this page whatsoever. King4852 (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! This stub served its purpose and is now getting populated. I, for one, see value in a page that will be populated, even though it may currently be quite bare - in this case because there were no polls when it was created. That in itself is useful information. 199.167.116.95 (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accident at Lac-Bouchette

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. I'm unable to find sustained significant coverage in English or French. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Canada. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the sixth deadliest traffic accident in Canadian history and the death of 19 people is not a notable event? Many lives and generations were affected by this tragic event, worthy of remembrance. 142.169.16.244 (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least merge/redirect to List of deadliest Canadian traffic accidents. I oppose the argument above. Death toll is not notability. However, there are some OK sources. This article needs to be renamed. Mentioned in this article in the Encyclopedia of Canada.... not particularly long, but not passing, and I do think being in a national encyclopedia is a claim to something stronger than a normal book. Also in this academic book [1]. Not particularly long but not passing. There are also many hits on BAnQ numérique (Quebec news archive) past 1993... some is fairly local, so it only moves the needle a bit, but if we have notability establishing sources it would help to build the article. Just a warning for anyone who tries to search BAnQ it has one of the worst search interfaces ever. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No enduring - sorry - impact, fails WP:EVENT per nom. Also WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I don't see any consensus here. In AFD discussions about accidents, often editors offer arguments on whether or not they think an event was notable. That doesn't matter. Please focus on the sources and whether there is SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 [4] 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 [5] 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): [6] and [7]. 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]

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.): [8][9][10][11] 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)[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]

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. [12][13][14][15][16][17]

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)

Canada proposed deletions

Senior General Counsel (via WP:PROD on 21 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

%