Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Canada

Canada

Canada articles for deletion

Clearwater station (British Columbia)

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

No evidence of WP:SIGCOV. No reliable secondary sources cited in the article. WP:N. This "station" is nothing more than a line in a timetable and a dot on a map. 162 etc. (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Clearwater, British Columbia § Transportation: This seems like a reasonable WP:ATD, plus I have no luck finding significant coverage to justify the station's noability. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 07:46, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Communist Party (Canada)

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously soft deleted, the new page does not establish notability and is largely reliant on self-sourcing. This party is not registered with Elections Canada and is not running candidates in the 2025 Canadian federal election. Wellington Bay (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. Skynxnex (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Worth noting that the topic of the article that was soft deleted was a completely different organisation. The previous article was of an unregistered fringe Maoist group, while the new (current) article is about an unregistered fringe Trotskyist group. Regardless, like the previous article topic, this Revolutionary Communist Party has no in-depth coverage by reliable sources and should be deleted for failing WP:ORG. Yue🌙 07:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Hawksworth

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

This Canadian-American sportscaster does not have enough significant coverage to meet the WP:GNG. She worked in a lot of markets (after WJLA, she stayed in radio in Washington and then went to BetQL), but the only article that was more than cursory was from the North Shore Outlook (hometown paper). I was left wanting when I searched for sources. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Television, Sports, and Canada. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Arizona, and Washington, D.C.. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete like the nom I couldn't find any sources for the page that weren't primary and the sourcing already in the article isn't much better that said if someone can find a reliable source I may switch my vote Scooby453w (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV either in the article or elsewhere. I checked google and newspapers.com and didn't come up with anything significant that wasn't primary. Let'srun (talk) 02:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quartz Mountain mine

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

Non-notable and may not exist in this form.

This was created in 2013 and hasn't really been edited since then. Unfortunately, Bine Mai hasn't edited since 2019 so I'm unable to ask them about this as I believe they may have mixed this up with another mine.

I have looked for sources but the only Quartz Mountain mine, operated by Seabridge (mentioned in the only reference), I can find is this one but located in Oregon. There is another Quartz Mountain in the Kootenays but run by Klondike Gold.

The Government of the NWT's 2024 mining review doesn't mention this mine. The reference in the article is used to say it's one of the largest gold mines, located in the NWT, and has 2.74 million ounces. However, the source, as far as I can see, does not support these claims. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Diego Zelaya

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

The article looks like a big curriculum of his life, nothing relevant that could be useful for an article, only external links that redirects to his social media, due of its time in the encyclopedia i’ve opened this discussion. Emolga826 (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Canada, Honduras, Louisiana, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nominations like this are why it is important to check the page history before nominating. The article is in its current state primarily due to one editor; these edits can be reverted to a stable version with no issue. As a member of the Honduran Congress, the subject passes WP:NPOL. Curbon7 (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Curbon7. Mccapra (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NPOL due as a member of National Congress of Honduras. Deshittify it (revert to the last stable version) once the AFD is closed. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Bligh

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

Subject fails WP:NPOL and current sources do not help to qualify for WP:GNG. There are no sufficient independent sources that provide substantial coverage of the subject to establish the minimum GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Women, and Canada. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article could use some further expansion, but Vancouver is a global city of the type whose city councillors are presumed to pass WP:NPOL #2, and the article already contains some content about her role in the downfall of the Non-Partisan Association — as I often point out in AFDs on municipal politicians, we need to see content about the person's political impact (specific things they did, specific effects their work had on the development of the city, etc.) rather than just "she exists and serves on the budget committee", and content already present and sourced in the article already fulfills exactly that higher test. Bearcat (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat As asked at Orr's AfD, NPOL does not cover municipal politicians or councillors whatsoever, was there a discussion somewhere that said councillors from "global cities" are presumptively notable under the same NPOL that doesn't give provisions for people of that status? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NPOL #2 ("local political figures") absolutely covers municipal councillors: mayors and city councillors are literally who that criterion was written for. It's also a longstanding consensus, upheld by hundreds or even thousands of past AFD discussions on councillors in cities like New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa, London, Paris or Berlin, that city councillors in global cities are much more likely to cross the notability bar than city councillors in non-global cities — the article does still have to be more than just "So-and-so is a city councillor who exists, the end", but city councillors in global cities are very routinely kept so long as the article contains some useful and properly sourced context above and beyond "person who exists", as this one already does. See also WP:POLOUTCOMES. Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For records, I replied here as I prefer consolidating conversations. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For records, I said above that, direct quote, "the article already contains some content about her role in the downfall of the Non-Partisan Association". That, right on its face, is exactly the kind of content that NPOL #2 is looking for. In what sense is there a functional distinction to be drawn between "coverage about her" and "coverage about things she did in office", in order to claim that coverage about her role in the downfall of the Non-Partisan Association fails to contribute NPOL-building notability? Bearcat (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject is notable and passes WP:NPOL. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 23:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Parliamentarians for Israel

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

FLAG PAGE FOR DELETION.

Nothing relevant on this page. Info is already contained in the wiki pages of individual members.

It is very short as a wiki article and contains next to no pertinent information.

Most MPs listed no longer sit in commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchMonth (talk • contribs) 15:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I found a number of good sources from just a google search of the group’s name in quotes. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think this parliamentary group exists anymore, seems to have been replaced by the Canada-Israel Interparliamentary Group. I do find plenty of very old coverage about the Liberal Parliamentarians for Israel, but it's not specifically discussing the group, rather mentioning the group in the context of other events. MediaKyle (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WellPoint Systems

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

Subject doesn't appear to be notable - the current references in the article are almost (if not all) all primary sources, and upon search, I can't seem to find any reliable, secondary sources about the subject. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Canada. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, not to mention there is also a slight COI issue. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The term "wellpoint system" may be notable, but this company is not. I found this WSJ article from 2011 but nothing else that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH. If the company was worthy of notice, it would have received more coverage that meets WP:ORGCRIT since its founding 28 years ago. I would be happy to review any sources presented below should I have missed something. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fadi Hakim

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a restaurateur and filmmaker, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for restaurateurs or filmmakers. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage about their activities in media and/or books -- but this is referenced entirely to primary sources such as IMDb and the self-published websites of companies he's been directly affiliated with, which are not support for notability, with not even one hit of GNG-worthy coverage about him shown at all (let alone the several hits of GNG-worthy coverage it would take to pass GNG.)
There's also a possible conflict of interest here, as the attempted notability claim hinges in part on a coffee shop while the creator's username was "JoeCoffee37". Bearcat (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Food and drink, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the updated page with substantial references updated. Fadi Hakim has been a major player in the Toronto restaurant scene for over 30 years and a major up and comer in the comic book publishing industry in the last 10 years. JoeCoffee37 (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JoeCoffee37 is only a gamertag that I have used for 20 years. I have no association with the beverage. JoeCoffee37 (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why are so many of the potentially good links 404s? Am I missing something? Also IMDB is not generally considered a source that confers notability as it's a user-generated database, and not all films or film creators have inherent notability. Elsewhere the few articles I'm getting on GNews are paywalled so it's hard to see if they're just passing mentions, though they seem like chirpy advertorials in the local press. I am also curious as the main editor's history is also centred almost entirely around the subject, which doesn't dispell a CoI, even if it's a good faith one. I would be up for a merge/redirect to Lev Gleason Publications as a compromise and to preserve article history, and would not object to a possible future article if half of the upcoming ventures ever come to anything and garner significant coverage.

However, as a professional comics cynic, it's often the case that some entrepreneur buys rights to a dormant property, says they're turning it into the next Avengers and nothing is ever, ever heard from it again - the Fantomah TV series for example seems to have been announced in 2023 and have nothing mentioned about it outside of user-generated sources. These include a Fandom Page created at the time by a user with the same name as the article creator and not a huge amount else, which seems very odd for an actual green-lighted TV series that is actually going to happen. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 08:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Delete, possibly with prejudice. In the interest of putting off something I'm meant to be doing I had a bit of a closer look at the references. To my mind these are done in a disingenuous fashion - it has fifty refs, must be solid. But most are either 404s, user-generated or primary sources - often primary sources that do not mention the page subject.

Now, about the dead links.

Take This one; it's a 404, and is not indexed on the Wayback machine. There is a single hit on the site for "Fadi Hakim", a single quote at this press release. So... how did @JoeCoffee37 get the broken link when searching icv2 would have brought up the other? It's not the only one either. Same with Bleeding Cool - broken; only hit on the site is this, which again is a passing mention. So the question is how did the page creator find those links? It points to a page prepared offline some time ago, which is a weird thing for a random editor to do.

About the other links, the vast majority are just local business homepages which do not mention the page subject at all. Given the lack of genuine web hits on the matter, the only people who know Fadi Hakim is involved with, say, Canopy Fair Trade Coffee are people close enough to Fadi Hakim to pose a conflict of interest.

This is sort of the loop I am finding for most of the sources - coverage of them on independent websites is non-existent, suggesting only people close to the subject know what TV series they're planning or whatever.

The Comics Alliance interview is actually quite meaty but most other sources I can find are passing mentions confirming that Fadi Hakim currently owns Lev Gleason Publications, and are not enough to justify a standalone article. That and @JoeCoffee37 not disclosing an almost certain CoI and possibly intentionally cramming 40-odd useless 'references' in are enough to make me say delete, and to watch very closely for page recreation. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of fixing these links and would appreciate a little time. JoeCoffee37 (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails Notability, article isn’t well written, I gave the creator some tips on his talk page but was ignored, lacks improvement and most source are dead links, some are just passing mentions, primarily sourced to "IMDb" which is considered no reliable. I’ll pass after this. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 00:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the process of removing the IMDb links and fixing the others. I would appreciate some time. JoeCoffee37 (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JoeCoffee37 stop spamming this AFD with a copy and paste response on each votes and comments dropped by editors, I gave you a feedback on user talk page, make your statement about improvement on the article’s talk rather. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 01:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am finding no sources showing anything more than "Hurray X Restaurant opened". This isn't helped by a number of other people sharing this name but I am reasonably sure I didn't miss any GNG worthy articles. As an aside about the CoI, I find this edit to be very suspect, an IP from Toronto (maybe) correcting a birthday with no sources, and throwing in some flowery language on top. Moritoriko (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Columbia Conservatory of Music

AfDs for this article:

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

COI or UPE editing of institute with not enough in-depth coverage to show that they meet WP:GNG. C4 was declined, but still fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Education, Schools, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to List of colleges in British Columbia#Applied institutes as an ATD. Yes, it is named wrong. It likely should be "List of learning institutions in British Columbia". That is a discussion for that article though. -- Otr500 (talk) 05:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Calgary Rugby Union

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

These sporting groups do not appear to meet WP:GNG. I can find sources online that they exist, but not independent third party sources, nor significant coverage. Flibirigit (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating for deletion:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Four Corners, Brampton

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

This is the nickname for the downtown area of Brampton, which the same user created an article for, Downtown Brampton. (It's been moved to the draft space, as it's littered with inaccuracies.) Zanimum (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although I don't have as much personal knowledge about Brampton as Zanimum does, I did have some doubts about this one (just not quite enough to pull the AFD trigger) when I was working on listing the related Category:Downtown Brampton and {{Downtown Brampton}} for CFD and TFD — it seems incredibly unlikely that a street intersection at the "administrative centre" of a city's downtown would ever actually need its own standalone article as a separate topic from the downtown core as a whole, especially not when two of the four footnotes are primary sources that aren't support for notability and the overall article is so short that a sample quote in another footnote is accounting for more than half of it. This is just barely more than "Topic is a thing that exists, the end", which is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Mathewson

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

Politician whose claim to notability is not verifiable. Evidently leader of the Green Party of Ontario in 1990, though our article on the party indicates that it elected its first leader in 1993, and her own bio notes that the party was a highly decentralized organization at the time. The claim that she was the party's leader is cited to her appearance representing the party in a community television event, and a second source is given as evidence that she is not mentioned on the party's website.

There is a Katherine Mathewson contesting the riding of Oshawa in the 2025 federal election, but I can't determine if this is the same person, there is a 35-year time gap, and just running in an election does not confer notability anyway. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 12:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 12:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not verifiable Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:02, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the party existed prior to 1993, it was indeed a decentralized organization that didn't have a conventional leadership structure prior to that year — and while Katherine Mathewson was certainly a candidate for the party in 1990, I've been able to find no verification whatsoever (not even in a ProQuest search for 1990 election coverage that wouldn't have googled) that she was ever considered its leader: the hits for Mathewson exist solely in the context of her own individual campaign in Don Mills, and consist entirely of glancing namechecks of her existence as a candidate without ever saying anything substantive or notability-assisting about her at all, while the hits about the party as a whole consistently quote Jim Harris, not Mathewson, as the go-to person for any and all quotes about party policy or strategy. Not that they attribute him with "leadership" either, but he was at the very least a much more visible face and voice of the party in that era than Mathewson was.
And even if there were any proper verification that she was ever actually considered leader of the party, we long ago abandoned the notion that every leader of every political party gets an automatic notability freebie just for existing as a party leader anyway — party leaders who weren't also members of the legislature, and thus don't automatically pass WP:NPOL #1 as legislators, get their own standalone articles separately from the party only if they can be shown to pass WP:GNG as individuals, which Mathewson can't. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the above, there are also no sources in the NewspaperArchive via the Wikipedia Library that mention her or her candidacy.--Mpen320 (talk) 02:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Darnelda Siegers

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

Subject fails WP:NPOL and there are not sources to establish WP:GNG/WP:ANYBIO. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Canada. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All the coverage I can find is not significant, mostly just routine coverage or mentions/small interviews in articles related to Sechelt. Almost all the sources are from a small local newspaper, and their LinkedIn (which is likely a sign that significant coverage does not exist). DeanWithersLover (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although mayor for a few years, most of the article is about her failures to get elected as a politician. Not notable.Blackballnz (talk) 09:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]
- 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]

Paul Barbeau

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

Article subject requests deletion per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and as a relatively unknown person per WP:BIODEL. See VRT Ticket 2025041610019291. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Music, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Weak Delete: The variety article mentioned on the page has a great significant coverage, but otherwise not much. Archive.org shows a couple of press release pdfs for his work. LastJabberwocky (talk) 05:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is imcomplete, his career continues until 2025 but this is cut short at 2011. This seems innacurate and probably better to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.140.33 (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Beyond the cited references, I've found some additional coverage:
1. A 2012 article from Le Journal de Montréal, "À la bonne place au bon moment," discusses Barbeau's transition from music videos to cinema, his produced films, and his views on public funding for films. This provides significant coverage, reinforcing notability.
2. Another La Presse article from 2012, "Paul Barbeau: laisser une trace", is an interview focusing on his motivations for directing "Après la neige," his career risks, and personal reflections. This adds to the significant coverage.
  --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
APPLE LINK FOR À NOUS L'ÉTERNITÉ ( WE HAVE FOREVER)

https://tv.apple.com/ca/movie/a-nous-leternite/umc.cmc.4w0rembphu3uypc1hz0ivhu86?l=fr-CA

The present article does not even mention anything about this or We Had It Coming another film he directed.

À nous l'éternité ( We Have Forever)

Winner at the Talhassee Film Festival

https://tallahasseefilmfestival.com/2019/04/10/2019-tff-award-winners-announced/ 70.81.140.33 (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Article is innacurate and deals with sources that date to 2012 when in fact producer has been recently active as a director and producer in past 5 years. Page badly constructed 70.81.140.33 (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find it amusing all this discussion about articles not relevant when more than half of the articles were deleted.

How about this article: https://www.ledevoir.com/culture/cinema/586159/cinema-we-had-it-coming-la-chasse-au-monstre -- Le devoir is the most important newspaper in Quebec. That's in 2020... the wikipage as presently constructed stops in 2012... which is laughable..

How about this article?

https://variety.com/2019/film/news/media-luna-acquires-we-had-it-coming-the-friendly-man-cannes-1203195188/

How about that article. It's Variety. I'm sure you heard of it. Notable enough?

How about this film that Barbeau directed? À nous l'éternité ( We Have forever)

It's on APPLE.

Notable enough?

How about this one?

Producer on Woman of the Hour... in Variety again..

https://variety.com/2024/film/reviews/woman-of-the-hour-review-anna-kendrick-the-dating-game-1236181953/

How about this one?

Producer on Novocaine

https://variety.com/2025/film/reviews/novocaine-review-jack-quaid-1236331924/

All Variety articles...

I don't know what people in this discussion, wish to find out more but this page as I wrote previously should be DELETED. An administrator if you look at the history... Arbitrarily deleted 75% of it and stopped it at 2012... Without mentioning anything after 2012... so this page has been vandalized and damaged and all those articles were there previously. So I strongly suggest that you just delete this article page as it is dated and does not show anything of the past 12 years of the director / producer's career.

Thanks 70.81.140.33 (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review of We Had It Coming

https://screenanarchy.com/2020/10/febiofest-prague-2020-review-we-had-it-coming-artful-thriller-battles-objectification-masculinity.html/1

https://filmthreat.com/reviews/we-had-it-coming/

None of these films are mentioned in the article. 70.81.140.33 (talk) 00:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - as a producer, he's not automatically notable, and the reliability of some of the sources online are questionable; only the Variety is certainly reliable and maybe the La Presse articles. Bearian (talk)
Keep In addition to the sources given above, and in the article, there is coverage of his films in Le Devoir (We Had It Coming , 2020 [1], Après la neige (2012) [2], and À nous l'éternité (2019) [3], [4] (same paper, but different journalists). L'Acadie Nouvelle also has an article about Le rouge au sol (2005) [5]. I am not clear why the subject has requested deletion (is there some reason why the grounds for request can't be stated in the AfD?), but the facts that the article is out of date and content has been added and deleted several times are not reasons for deletion. The article can be updated using reliable sources, which the Canadian newspapers (including The Gazette (Montreal) and La Presse already in the article) surely are. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Rebecca. I'm not saying that the page should be deleted per say... I'm saying left as is, it is coompletely arbitrary to only mention his first film as director (and least notable) than the two others. Same thing for his producing career. Why stop in 2012? So if this page was vandalized and does not mention the entire career, I understand the reasoning behind wanting it deleted. It's incomplete, errenous and misleading. Unless all those articles go back in there. This IMDB link, shows clearly all that he is done and most of his work is nowhere to be seen here...

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0044867/?ref_=fn_all_nme_1 70.81.140.33 (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep': Per the above findings and arguments. LastJabberwocky (talk) 05:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://ctvm.info/bctq-le-quebec-a-cannes-le-film-splittsville-tourne-a-montreal-selectionne-au-festival-2025/

So many producer credits are missing. If the producer credits can be added as well as directorial and the page is worthy of being Kept. If not, should be deleted as not Actual and accurate. 70.81.140.33 (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I tend to weigh heavily requests made under BLPREQUESTDELETE, and this producer is actually low-profile. I don't think anyone would argue he passes WP:GNG, but he arguably does pass WP:NBIO as a producer under WP:NCREATIVE. However, it's marginal enough that I think we should come down on the side of the request. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Cramer

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

Article was created by the subject's son in 2006 (edit: looks like Cramer edited his article a few times under Dylanrcramer12 (talk · contribs) and Dylanrcramer (talk · contribs)) and has survived for nineteen years with a single source – the subject's own website. I found two news articles on Dylan Cramer (one, two), but they do not mention any major works or accomplishments. The book Journeys to the Bandstand has a chapter on him and his father, but is unlikely to mention anything that would make him notable (or there would be other news sources reporting on it). Cramer appears to be a local Vancouver musician who does not satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Iiii I I I (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, Music, and Canada. Iiii I I I (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subject does not appear to meet any of the 12 criteria for WP:MUSICBIO. I searched newspapers.com as well and found many notices about upcoming performances and the like (mainly in Vancouver area) but I don't see any sigcov to support WP:BASIC either. Zzz plant (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a close call because the musician has gained respect from other musicians, and that generated some basic coverage among afficionados, but unfortunately I must agree with the in-depth conclusions by the nominator and previous voter. There simply isn't enough with which to build an encyclopedic article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well as the book chapter and news pieces highlighted by the nominator I found two staff-written album reviews at AllMusic here and here. Haven't done a full search yet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the above, I found reviews for All Night Long at JazzTimes, All About Jazz, de:Rondo (Musikmagazin) [6] [7] [8] and in an index for Jazz Improv (magazine) [9]. I only searched for that one album. The fact that reviews are found across continents negates the "local musician" claim. Geschichte (talk) 07:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He meets WP:NMUSIC with the reviews found by the previous two editors, plus the chapter, plus there are long articles about Cramer and his first album (The First One, DSM, 1998, later re-released as Remembering Sonny Criss) in the French language newspaper Le Devoir (from the opposite side of Canada), one of which says "Il faut connaître Dylan Cramer. ... Cet album, il faut en goûter chaque note. Car Dylan Cramer a ceci qui est trės rare: chaque note mérite le doigté le plus fin qui soit." (You have to know Dylan Cramer. ...With this album, you have to savor every note. Because Dylan Cramer has something that is very rare: every note merits the finest fingering possible.) Plus, WP:MUSICBIO#5 says "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels" - he has released 3 albums on Nagel-Heyer Records. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Compelling arguments on both the sides. More input from community is appreciated. Also, a source eval would be great.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 12:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trish Doan

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

I am the creator of this page. I have felt kinda guilty about this for a while because I think I did a terrible job at it. My reasons for deletion are as follows:

1. Most of the article is based on an web source from the Headbanging Moose, which I realise now is unverifiable/not an interview. In one recent search I found it was citing text from a Tumblr interview (alas that too was inaccessible). Either way; bad source, which makes up most of the article. Also, Hergirlrock and trishdoan.com are primary sources

2. Most of the reliable source coverage about Trish concerns her departure from the band in 2008, or her death in 2017. I feel both of these can be explained just as well in the Kittie band article or in other related articles (i.e. the documentary stuff)

3. When I made this page, I thought I was doing so primarily because I though Trish was an underrated bassist on Funeral for Yesterday and I wanted them to be known for other stuff outside of their struggles. In hindsight and in other words, I was trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I am kinda more accepting of the fact that shit things do happen to people. I recognise the feelings I had at the time (aka when this was made; 2023) reflected my life situation which I didn't think I had a way out of at the time, and as such my edits were kinda projections of that mentality. I'm in a better place now (in part thanks to Funeral for Yesterday, actually) but I still feel as though I failed. If I made things worse, I am sorry.

// Chchcheckit (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, South Korea, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kittie. Thanks to the nominator for being honest. Per Wikipedia's rules for the notability of band members, evidence is needed that Trish Doan accomplished additional notable things outside of Kittie, but that just didn't happen. Info on her early bands and day jobs are fan trivia but don't pass the notability test. On the other hand, her achievements within Kittie, and sadly her death and how it affected the band, are Kittie-specific and can be adequately described at their article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I lean more towards Redirect then: the point about how it affected the band is very much described on Fire (Kittie album) and Doan has mentions in two other album articles (FFY and I've Failed You) anyway. // Chchcheckit (talk) 14:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keep well sourced article. If the page cannot be kept, it should be redirected to Kittie. --Jax 0677 (talk) 09:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The history of the article should be kept in tact, so the page should not be deleted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
understood Chchcheckit (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I don't think deletion is an appropriate decision given the nominator's rationale, and I don't think merging the article is better than the status quo of keeping the article as it is because the rationale doesn't make sense. Paraphrasing but "I think this section can be covered in another article so we should get rid of the whole article" isn't convincing and doesn't make a clear connection to deletion policy. The sourcing seems mostly fine to me because most aren't unreliable and of course a niche musician is going to be covered mostly by outlets in their niche. Having reporting after certain events isn't a disqualifying factor at all either; I'm not sure what is meant by that. Yue🌙 06:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean in the sense that most of the text used to make the body of the article is based on unreliable sourcing so it's like Chchcheckit (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge with Kittie: In solidarity with the page creator, Chchcheckit. There are three sections individualizing Trish Doan from her band. "Early life" is based on two sources and both seem to be dubious (hergirlrock.com. and THE HEADBANGING MOOSE), especially as primary sources for this section. "Return to Kittie and Kittie.." is based on self-published source (robmccallumfilms.com) and has a nice but brief sentences on her depression. "Death" is the best section, but it would be sad article if 90% of it is about the subject's death. Most of the information backed up by reliable sources can be merged with Kittie. LastJabberwocky (talk) 10:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "It would be sad article if 90% of it is about the subject's death" is NOT a good reason to delete the page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  which is not the point Chchcheckit (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April Hutchinson

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

Does not meet WP:NATHLETE, and the page is almost entirely comprised by primary sources not independent of the subject for statements of fact, primary sources of non notable sporting events, low quality unreliable blogs such as Reduxx, and generally unreliable or outright unreliable news sources such as Fox News, Rebel News, and New York Post on issues related to GENSEX to the point where once those sources are excised the subject does not meet any form of notability even as an Anti-Trans activist. Page was accepted after a series of failed reviews despite no edits between the last review pointing out the problems with the page and the acceptance by a separate reviewer, which may explain some of these problems. Relm (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:Draftify or Delete I believe this article was not ready to come out of draft space, and the editor who worked on it had not responded to the critique of the previous submission or touched Wikipedia since. I think the issues with the page are substantial enough to consider outright deletion, but sending it back to draft space for the original author - should they return to the project - to continue to get used to WP:RSP may be sufficient. Relm (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is false.

Here are the current citations and sports accomplishments that are notable:

North American Powerlifting Federation

Megyn Kelly Show

Open Powerlifting

Alberta Assembly

CBC News

New York Post

NBC 15 News

London Free Press (2)

Fox News (2)

Newsweek

Outkick (2)

CTV News

Sports achievements:

North American Regional Powerlifting Championships

Gold medal – first place 2022 Panama Masters 1

Silver medal – second place 2022 Cayman Islands Masters 1

Nationals

Silver medal – second place 2022 Newfoundland Masters 1

Gold medal – first place 2023 British Columbia Masters 1

Central Canadian Powerlifting and Bench Press Championships

Gold medal – first place 2021 Ontario Masters 1

Ontario Provincials

Gold medal – first place 2022 Ontario Open

OPA Masters and Open Provincial Powerlifting Championship

Gold medal – first place 2023 Ontario Masters 1

Reduxx has one single article.

This request is not accurate. QcAmbitious (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crossposting from the talk page[10]

Please familiarize yourself with WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NATHLETE, WP:RELIABLE, WP:PRIMARY/WP:SECONDARY, WP:INDEPENDENT, and WP:DUE.

A source existing does not make the source notable, nor does it make it reliable. Wikipedia prioritizes reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

This page is primarily built on primary sources not independent of the author, or which do not provide any semblance of notability such as the direct links to event placements and her personal details. Primary sources are okay in some circumstances, but in this case all that would be left in early life is a link to her own page cited to a claim that she was born in Ontario. Career beginnings section is exclusively cited to primary sources. So far there is nothing to suggest this person is notable as an athlete, just that their athletic profile exists. If someone made a page for me and cited my USChess profile, that would not make me notable as a chess player - what would is if reliable secondary sources discuss my play.

The 'women's rights advocate' claim is sourced to a Megyn Kelly appearance. Megyn Kelly's show - and syndicated television news generally speaking - is not a reliable source.

The activism section is sourced to a vimeo video by the subject, rebel news (not a reliable source [11]), a link to assembly minutes (Primary source); and then a citelist of a podcast, two WP:UNDUE blogposts, and a link to a primary source from an anti trans advocacy group.

So now we get to the Controversy section.

Hutchinson gained attention after being removed from the "Resilient London: Meet Your Neighbours" exhibit at Museum London, Ontario, due to her comments on transgender athletes.

This claim is cited to 7 sources. CBC News (mostly reliable with the caveat that it's state funded), Reduxx (a hate blog), another blog, the New York Post (Unreliable per WP:NYPOST), a local affiliate of NBC which does not actually contribute to the claim but rather is just a primary source for the comments themselves, London Free Press (A local newspaper), GB news (unreliable, and would be deprecated if it was cited more [12]), and Fox news (unreliable WP:FOXNEWS).

We then have an accidental double cite of the same CBC news article, Newsweek (used to be reliable, but now isn't WP:NEWSWEEK), True North (definitely an unreliable news source and I'm happy to take that to WP:RSN if you want confirmation). We then have Fox News again, Daily Citizen (an anti LGBT advocacy group, not a news source), true north again, and then Fox News a third time. Next is a triplet of sources, the first to a blogpost, the second to Sportskeeda - which I have never heard of but I will assume for the benefit of the doubt that it is fine, and Outkick (which is under FOX News). Outkick again, and the earlier local newspaper from her home town.

The personal life snippet about alcoholism is sourced to Gamesday London (sports section of the earlier local paper) and CTV which is fine.

So after all of that, we are left with:

A single CBC article and potentially a Sportskeeda article covering her comments and the aftermath, and the CTV article about her alcoholism.

That's 2, possibly 3, reliable secondary sources at best to provide notability. This is a local interest story picked up by anti trans advocates, but she is not even notable for that relative to other figures like Riley Gaines. This person does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Relm (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Sportskeeda is considered unreliable. JoelleJay (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Relm (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Sport of athletics, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources about the subject speaking out about trans women participating in powerlifting, e.g. The London Free Press, CBC News, a local NBC news affiliate, The Montreal Gazette (November 2023) and The Windsor Star (June 2024). There are also two articles before this time in 2022 about the subject's path to powerlifting in The London Free Press and CTV News. I can understand how these could be missed given the multiple non-independent, non-Wikipedia notable references in the article. Nonetheless, the article appears to meet WP:BASIC. Not sure if article meets WP:NATH as there is no Wikipedia policy guidance on this; the subject has placed 1st five times and 2nd two times in competitions. Note that this article cleared the WP:AFC process last month. Nnev66 (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These were not missed and were discussed in my above post save the Montreal Gazette and Windsor Star (not in the article to my knowledge). The issue is that of the sources which are left with the exception of CTV News and CBC News, these are all local papers - and they're all covering the same two local interest stories about this person. There is a paucity of reliable sources above the local level, and what they cover does not seem to make this individual notable as an athlete or as an activist. In regards to the AFC, the article was declined three times, and the last one in January - the page received no edits between being declined for serious issues and being accepted by a different reviewer last month. Relm (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - RelmC, this is a lot to read here. But before I spend too much time reviewing all these sources: you appear to have struck your draftify/delete. You don't say why. Was this because it is assumed as nom.? Or did you strike because you are withdrawing the nomination? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My vote was striked by Nfitz who - correctly as I understand it - striked my vote as the one who nominates is presumed to be voting to delete. Hope this clarifies. Relm (talk) 12:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, yes, thanks. It is correct that the nom. vote is assumed, but I wasn't clear on that being the reason. Now I am. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep although I would almost be happier with draftify, based on some concerns about the way the page is presented. If we keep it I would support removing the activism and controversy sections altogether in favour of a couple of sentences in the career section limited to the most salient details unless and until secondary sources are written about that issue. But it is a keep because we appear to be over the threshold for WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. But only just, in fact. Sources must be secondary, and I don't think the trans women participation reports qualify. Now, we could get into long discussions about that, but let's be clear: the question of what is primary or secondary in a source depends on the question being asked of it. A source such as this one [13], mentioned above, is primary for the matter of report (that a trans athlete saw a backlash) but secondary in any background given about Hutchinson. But it doesn't give us any significant background. The statements made by Hutchinson are primary reporting regarding the matter that is the occasion of the article. To put that another way, what can we say about Hutchinson from that and similar articles? We are writing a biography, and if the only thing the source adds is that she said something relating to the matter of the trans competitor, then that is primary reporting - and WP:BLP is clear that we should be waiting for secondary sourcing for that. Nevertheless there are other articles, particularly those that talk about her overcoming addiction, that tell us significantly more about her and from which an article can be written. Indeed, that was why she was in the Museum London exhibit in the first place. Having said all that, there is indeed an issue that much of the coverage is local. She is an inspiring local interest story. I am not presonally convinced she is very notable beyond that, but I believe the Wikipedia consensus would generally find someone with this amount of coverage crosses the line. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would be useful to have further analysis on extent of reliable sourcing and whether the GNG/BIO is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find articles about her suspension for saying things people didn't like, I don't think that meets notability here. I don't see enough about the athletic career otherwise, just not enough for an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gnews brings up about 6 pages of hits, only about the ban over what this person said. There is nothing from before that time to show a notable athletic career. The numerous wins suggest notability, but it's not an automatic pass. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just for clarification, there are two articles in WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV of the subject's powerlifting achievements noting she overcame alcoholism. The London Free Press article states that in 2022 "she was the best women’s Masters class lifter in Canada, ranked in the top four in the world"; there is also coverage of her powerlifting in 2022 in CTV News. Her comments on social media in 2023 about transgender women participating in competitive women's powerlifting got a lot of coverage in non-independent, non-reliable sources (which have been removed from the article) but also in several secondary RS articles including CBC News, The Montreal Gazette (November 2023) and The Windsor Star (June 2024). Her advocacy got her suspended but the Canadian powerlifting governing body did address the concerns. So this isn't just about the subject creating a social media frenzy or saying things people didn't like. Nnev66 (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep – There are some reliable sources such as CBC News and the Canadian newspapers Montreal Gazette and Windsor Star. In the last week about 7,000 bytes of poorly sourced content has been removed from the article. Some further content could be trimmed, but I think this article marginally crosses the line for notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Foresters House

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

Article about an office building, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for office buildings. As always, buildings are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis of their architectural, historical, social or cultural significance -- but this doesn't make any meaningful notability claim over and above existing, and is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability. The only reliable source present here at all is an insurance industry trade magazine, which is here solely to tangentially verify the name of the company's CEO rather than supporting any information about the building in its own right.
Since it's the headquarters of a company that does have an article under WP:CORP terms, any information we need about its head office can easily be contained in the company's article -- but in order to qualify for its own standalone article as a separate topic from the company, it would need a much stronger notability claim, and much better sourcing for it, than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not appear to have sufficient notability to pass WP:NBUILD. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 23:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not appear notable, could not find any meaningful sources. silviaASH (inquire within) 06:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles about designated heritage buildings is something that we should be expanding on Wikipedia. This is a prominent and very well-known building - you even see mention of it in fiction, such as [ short stories] by Austin Clarke. There has been coverage over the last half-century, such as this significant trade article when it was sold in 2022. There was national media coverage when it was constructed, such as in the Globe and Mail (ProQuest 1270450320). Even if the article isn't deemed worthy of inclusion, it's most certainly should be merged and/or redirected to Foresters Financial. Nfitz (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is a designated heritage building then it passes WP:GEOFEAT. But I can't see any evidence that it is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two Autumns in Paris

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arts Council~Haliburton Highlands

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Arts Council- Haliburton Highlands has received independent + detailed in local news at the very least [14][15]. The events they put on in the region have also received non-trivial coverage [16]. They received direct support from the Canadian government to start an ongoing symposium on performing arts in rural communities [17]. News about the organization has been presented in the Toronto Star as well [18] .This coverage spans at least a decade, so it's not a small burst. Between the primary source of its website and local coverage that is sometimes included in major Canadian newspapers, it seems like the council is notable + provides a significant amount of arts programming in the Haliburton region. I vote to keep though I agree the article should be updated.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply sources 1,2,3 and 5 come up with 404 pages, are they availble on the Wayback Machine? ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I malformatted the links. The links are fixed and the pages are still live. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Organizations. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is more of a promotion for the orgnaization than anything else. Was created by a single pupose editor in 2009 with not much editing from any other editor since. Probably COI issue. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - The original author itself was banned in 2009 for being an advertising account, something seems fishy here. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canada proposed deletions

Canada speedy deletions

Canada redirect deletions

Canada file deletions

Canada template deletions

Canada category deletions

Canada miscellany deletions

Canada deletion review

Canada undeletion

Canada deletions on Commons

%