Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Canada

Canada

Canada articles for deletion

Edmonton Tool Library

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

Upon search, this tool library does not seem to be notable enough to warrant its own article. I find one [1] available reference, but it is mostly a interview. There needs to be multiple reliable, secondary sources that discuss the subject in depth, and it only seems that there is one, for which is borderline. Not to mention, the article creator seems to have a undisclosed WP:COI with the subject, as all of their edits in the mainspace seem to be about the Edmonton Tool Library. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Organizations, and Canada. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Maughn

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

No notable, independent wrestler. Sources are mostly WP:ROUTINE results, lack of in-deep third party sources about her. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tiana Ringer

AfDs for this article:

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

No notable, independent wrestler. Sources are mostly WP:ROUTINE results, lack of in-deep third party sources about her. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Benjamin Stewart

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

Non notable kickboxer. This article initially appears notable but when you look deeper it doesn't meet WP:NKICK, WP:SPORTBASIC, WP:GNG (all sources are non-independent, no significant coverage). It also has a lot of promotional aspects such as: the name of his private non-notable company, the name of his children: "They have three children together: Sidney, Saryna, and Sterling", the entire sections "Early life", "Corporate career", "Personal life", passage like "conditioned and rehabilitated himself through hot yoga"? and majority of the "championships" entries are completely unsourced which indicates close connection with the subject, potential COI? The article looks likes a vanity page to promote the subject's business interests and self-published non-notable books. This article is as vanity and promotional as it gets.

In addition, the subject's main claim to fame, his victories in WKA, WKU or WAKO, dont't pass WP:NKICK guidelines. The subject has never fought outside of these amateur competitions in "Point Fighting" or "light contact Kick Boxing", and has never fought professional kickboxing (unlike Dragan Jovanović (kickboxer) for example who went on to fight Pro). According to WP:NKICK: Kickboxers who have an amateur background exclusively are not notable under this guideline unless they have been the subject examined in detail (more than a single paragraph) in several reliable third-party sources (at least four), excluding local publications. The subject has only been covered in local publications such as the subject's home city of Ottawa: inside ottawa valley.com. Which is filled with a total of 20+ spacing mistakes. Lekkha Moun (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NKICK seems a tad strict. It wants "at least four" pieces of SIGCOV, excluding local? That's a higher bar than GNG.

~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think the Kickboxing guidelines for amateur kickboxing athletes are extremely appropriate, because it should require a lot in order to be notable as an amateur. There are so many non-notable martial arts competitions out there where you can become a "world champion" with only a few participants per category, that's why quality SIGCOV has been requested. As for pro fighters, the guidelines are very flexible: "ranked in the world top-10". I would actually change it to Top 5. So if GNG is easier to pass, the subject should have an easier time passing GNG, but unfortunately doesn't. Lekkha Moun (talk) 08:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Backyard History

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

Fails WP:ORG. Insignificant coverage in reliable sources; mostly self-sourced sources or trivial coverage. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Companies. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, none of the media references are "trivial", they are all stories ABOUT Backyard History - which is itself published in 12-20 papers across Atlantic Canada (and has spawned 3 books, a television show, podcast, etc) - and functionally none of the sources are "self-references', they are the NB Authors government site, the province's largest media Telegraph-Journal, CTV, Yahoo News and CBC - those would be among the largest regional news outlets that exist nationwide - in addition to being referenced on the SJ tourism site, his alumni newspaper and other small outlets. (I'm not him, I've never met him, I noticed they are also used as a source on 9 different Wikipedia articles about Atlantic Canadian history). Fundy Isles Historian - J (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did an analysis of the sources originally present on this article, after it was tagged for notability and that tag was subsequently removed. My analysis is available on the talk page for the article, and determined that significant coverage specifically about Backyard History is lacking. I did some major Googling, and turned up some additional sources which were then added, but the bar for web content is decidedly higher and I'm unsure if this has met it. I do however believe that with the references on this article, along with others that discuss Andrew MacLean, an article about him could be created which this could then be redirected to. I would prefer to abstain from voting on this one, and this comment should not be interpreted as support for keeping or deleting this... Just wanted to provide some context. MediaKyle (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Cormier, Kristina (2024-01-03). "Un balado sur les histoires méconnues du Canada atlantique se transforme en livre" [A Podcast About Little-Known Stories From Atlantic Canada Is Being Turned Into a Book] (in French). Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Archived from the original on 2025-05-31. Retrieved 2025-05-31.
  The article notes: "Backyard History est un balado qui explore les histoires méconnues du Nouveau-Brunswick et de l'Atlantique. Ces histoires sont désormais offertes dans un livre. Le livre, disponible uniquement en anglais pour le moment, a vite trouvé preneurs. Ce succès a surpris l'auteur, l’historien Andrew MacLean de Fredericton. La première impression s’est rapidement écoulée et il attend une réimpression au cours des prochains jours. Le balado anglophone Backyard History est né lors de la pandémie. Il transporte ses auditeurs dans le temps afin de découvrir des légendes, des histoires connues ou méconnues du Canada atlantique qui datent de nombreuses années et même de siècles."
  From Google Translate: "Backyard History is a podcast that explores the little-known stories of New Brunswick and the Atlantic region. These stories are now available in a book. The book, currently available only in English, quickly found buyers. This success surprised the author, Fredericton historian Andrew MacLean. The first printing sold out quickly, and he expects a reprint in the coming days. The English-language podcast Backyard History was born during the pandemic. It transports its listeners back in time to discover legends, well-known and little-known stories of Atlantic Canada that date back many years, even centuries."
2. Cochrane, Alan (2025-04-03). "Backyard History author carries on tradition of storytelling: Andrew MacLean has compiled three books, weekly newspaper columns, website and podcasts with actors who bring old stories to life". Telegraph-Journal. p. A10. ProQuest 3186672039. Archived from the original on 2025-05-31. Retrieved 2025-05-31.
  The article notes: "Andrew MacLean has turned his passion for historical research into a brand called Backyard History, with weekly newspaper columns, three books, a website and podcasts telling unusual stories from Atlantic Canada. From the tale of the Dungarvon Whooper in the Miramichi to rum-runners shooting it out with police in Bouctouche, and a Russian bomber landing in Miscou Island, MacLean says he's carrying on the Maritime tradition of storytelling, while researching the facts behind them. ... His three books include "Backyard History: Forgotten Stories From Atlantic Canada's Past," volumes one and two; and "Rebellious Women in the Maritimes," which includes stories about women who have done extraordinary things, told through various letters, diaries and historic documents."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Backyard History to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first source--six sentences long--could be described as "trivial mention". The second source is a bio for Andrew MacLean. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An article about the subject, with the subject referenced in the headline, exclusively about the subject and its creator, is not a "trivial mention". "Trivial mention" is when there's an article about a car accident and it says "a nearby bystander, author Andrew Maclean, whose program hits Bell TV this summer, says the green pick-up truck swerved just before the incident". Fundy Isles Historian - J (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a couple important things to note here. First of all, Backyard History is described in the article as a "history project" - it is a newspaper column, podcast, and 5-episode docuseries at this time. The Telegraph-Journal is not an independent source, as they are one of the main publishers of the Backyard History column, it's still a good source but may not contribute to GNG for this reason. The CBC Radio-Canada article I think would contribute to GNG, but that's really about it - there's much more coverage about Andrew MacLean than there is about Backyard History specifically. MediaKyle (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Black (businessman)

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

Lack of notability; all sources are about company actibvities not him. TheLongTone (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the opinion that he lacks notability. There are numerous articles covering his views on the tungsten industry, and he also serves as the CEO of Almonty Industries already listed on Wikipedia. For now, I think it would be good to gather more opinions from others and discuss further. Monthlywiki (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Monthlywiki I think you mean to vote KEEP, if so add in Bold to the front. Interviews and being a CEO of company do not contribute to notability. However, if there are other articles that you know of that have coverage of him personally and not about the company, please share the best ones here. For now I will vote Delete, but should you find good coverage, I will check and may change my vote. Mysecretgarden (talk) 04:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, England, Canada, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. – References are passing mentions, interviews and about the company, etc. I don't see enough news coverage for him to qualify.Mysecretgarden (talk) 04:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. – Please refer to the articles on him. #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 It's not a complete search, so there may be more out there.Monthlywiki (talk) 10:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of the above, the two I could open do not establish notability since they are not about the man himself but are coverage of the business activities he is involved with. The other four were error 404 page not found.TheLongTone (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just fixed errors. Thanks for your comment. Monthlywiki (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the links, but all the sources are about the supply of tungsten not Lewis Black.TheLongTone (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My analysis of the sources above:

1 PR

2 Interview
3 Interview, and about the companhy
4 A statement by him (not about him)
5 Interview
6 An interview (youtube)

Lamona (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Normally I would agree that articles simply about a role of being CEO of a company lack notability but this is such a specialized area (tungsten) that it seems that the subject himself is the only person sought out for comment on the industry as a whole. I agree it is a 50-50 call but even the source material is more about the nature of worldwide tungsten supply rather than the work of his company. RJCarr72 (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stats say that this user has only 59 edits. Also, the article creator User:Monthlywiki is listed as having 69 edits. As I note below at User:SerenaYun these are the only two edits made by that user. User:RJCarr72 sent multiple drafts "Lewis Black" and "Lewis Black (businessman)" to AfC which failed. While it's quite legit for new users to participate, both in article creation and AfD, I'm concerned about the overlap of these accounts.

Lamona (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is about a notable business figure with significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Lewis Black is the CEO of Almonty Industries, a publicly traded company involved in the global tungsten supply chain. He has been featured in international media outlets, including Reuters, Mining.com, Korea Times, and others, particularly in relation to strategic resource issues and the reopening of South Korea’s Sangdong Mine. The subject meets the general notability guidelines (GNG), and his role in the mining sector, especially in the context of critical minerals and geopolitics, contributes to encyclopedic relevance. If there are concerns regarding tone or sourcing, these can be addressed through edits and improvements rather than deletion. SerenaYun (talk) 07:29, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So where are the sources to support this claim?? TheLongTone (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. https://www.mining.com/tungstens-emerging-supply-chain/

2. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/28/china-controlled-rare-earths-account-for-3-pounds-of-an-electric-car-ev.html

This would be enough for the sources you requested. SerenaYun (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are the only two edits that this user has ever made. Lamona (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources primarily about the person. The company already has a page. That page has some un-encyclopedic PROMO for Black, which I will remove. Lamona (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Smith (composer)

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

Fifteen years after being tagged as a possible COI BLP with insufficient sourcing, this article still contains no reliable sources. A Google search turns up nothing of note for me, either. BD2412 T 02:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. BD2412 T 02:36, 27 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]

Delete Clear WP:NCORP fail. Wikipedia is not a directory of every non-notable company. A merge would not make sense, as they also created Solitaire and have multiple potential targets. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:28, 30 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 06:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Wikipedia does have a gender imbalance but it's guidelines are applied equally to everyone. If you know of any articles about male artists that don't meet guidelines, those should also be improved or deleted. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:19, 25 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]

Fair, NARTIST #4d was the main thing that made up my mind but I can see how it's an edge case. I wouldn't say that it meets GNG at all. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citation 1 - Saskatchewan: Art and Artists is connected to two separate major Saskatchewan galleries, the Norman Mackenzie Gallery and the Regina Public Library (Dunlop Gallery) - her work was collected/shown at both of these galleries. These are professional, not personal affiliations. That’s what art galleries do - they publish biographical information about noteworthy artists in their collections. These are highly regarded galleries which makes her inclusion noteworthy.

Citation 3 - SKNAC - Saskatchewan Network for Art Collectors - is a separate organization. Again, evidence she is recognized by this group as a noteworthy artist in Saskatchewan.

Citation 6 - the publication of her work in Kate Waterhouse’s book is an example that her work was published in an independent booklet with no personal affiliation.

Citation 7 - her work was exhibited posthumously by SK Arts - a respected organization. This citation was added to address an earlier query from the previously deleted Wikipedia entry requesting “proof” she did in fact exhibit her work at notable galleries

Citation 8 - another posthumous exhibit organized by a separate organization, the Saskatchewan Arts Council, again, addressing query re: Citation 7

Citation 9 - again, addressing query re: her work in permanent collections, in this case the University of Regina - again, a separate organization. Her work is part of the prestigious “Presidents’ Collection” as part of a donation by Morris Schumiatcher, a noteworthy lawyer, art patron and art collector.

Clearly, there are several notability-supporting sources, as above, re: her work collected and exhibited in several notable Saskatchewan galleries and organizations, namely the Norman Mackenzie Gallery, the Regina Public Gallery, the Saskatchewan Arts Board a.k.a. Saskatchewan Network for Art Collectors, the University of Regina President’s Collection I do not understand how his is “borderline”.

If the concern is re: personal affiliations, I suggest removing Citation 2. Harrietcyy (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:47, 28 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]

Keep - As previously noted by others, we're up to multiple polls, covered in reliable secondary sources, [2], we were running the 45th election opinion polling page (that eventually became the 2025 Page) with Less polls than this in 2021 [3]. WanukeX (talk) 19:56, 25 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!} 22:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re Keep. since some of the previous arguments for deleting the page no longer exist such as User:Hannes Röst said “there isnt even a single poll in the article, the current table only contains the 2025 election result.” There is now six polls from three polling companies. King4852 (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is clear that the article is building up, no need to delete it. Haers6120 (talk) 06:12, 31 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 [4]. 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]

Delete I am not finding substantial/sustained sources to support this article. The Encyclopedia has a single paragraph, as does the book discovered by PARAKANYAA. The accident was 1993, and I did find one newspaper article from 1998 that is substantial but it merely reiterates the facts of 1993. I went through many dozens of hits to find one that was not from the immediate time of the accident or another accident reported in that area. I don't see WP:LASTING. A redirect to the list of accidents sounds fine - I don't think there could be a merge because it is already in that list. Lamona (talk) 02:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any more support for a Merge/Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 1 June 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]

Delete. A merge makes no sense based on the sources we have, which are two photos for sale on Getty Images, a permanent dead link, a city council resolution about a frickin' bus shelter which does not verify the claim it is cited for whatsoever, and two pieces about a house that happens to be nearby (to this nonexistent, synthesized area). Toadspike [Talk] 21:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Canada proposed deletions

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

%