This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Canada. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Canada|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Canada. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Americas.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Fails to meet WP:NORG in meaningful ways. No sign of lasting impact or import beyond the less-than-twenty-sentence Georgia Straight piece and the old radio interview, both from early 2014, I find no real coverage. The only thing I can find from anywhere but the archives of their own website that suggests the group did anything beyond a single cooking demonstration in 2014 was a line in a 2019 blog post about Vegan Congress being an annual event at Emily Carr University. Google and Duck-Duck-Go searches were based on searching for "Vegan Congress" "Emily Carr" to avoid references to an early organization that had Vegan Congress in their name. newspapers.com search from the group's founding date in 2013 to today (for just "vegan congress") found nada. Group's YouTube page delivered 4 videos to its 11 subscribers, all marked as a decade old. Group's web page has been blank for several years now, last non-blank archived version has a single blog post from 2019, and before that, all activity is 2015 or earlier. This is a grou[p that was briefly active, did little of visibility and impact. Nat Gertler (talk) 07:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. She lacks significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. All of her roles are minor roles both in film and TV series. — YoungForever(talk)04:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, the notability test for actresses is not passed by listing roles, it's passed by showing WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about her and her performances in media to externally validate their significance. But there's none shown here, and the article claims nothing about her that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from that. Bearcat (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP of an activist and writer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for activists or writers. As always, people are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage about their work in reliable sources independent of themselves. That is, you do not make a writer notable by sourcing her writing to itself as proof that it exists, you make a writer notable by sourcing her writing to coverage and analysis about her writing, such as news articles about her, analytical reviews of her writing in newspapers or magazines or academic journals, and on and so forth -- and you don't make an activist notable by sourcing her activism to the self-published websites of the organizations she has been directly affiliated with, you make an activist notable by sourcing her activism to third-party coverage about it, such as news articles about her, book content about her, and on and so forth. But this is supported entirely by primary sources with absolutely no evidence of GNG-worthy coverage shown at all: 11 of the footnotes are just the publication details of her own writing, and a 12th is just the publication details of an anthology that one of her pieces was in; one is a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person, which would be acceptable for use if the other sourcing around it were better but does not help to get her over GNG in and of itself per WP:INTERVIEWS; another is just a YouTube video clip of her speaking, which she self-published to her own YouTube channel; and all of the rest is content self-published by non-media organizations she's directly connected to -- which means absolutely none of the footnotes are GNG-compliant at all. Again, the notability test doesn't reside in the things she did, it resides in the amount of GNG-worthy coverage she has or hasn't received about the things she did, and nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced better than this. Also note that normally I would just have sandboxed this in draftspace as improperly sourced, but another editor has already done that and the creator just immediately unsandboxed it right back into mainspace without actually improving the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of sourcing; there are simply no stories about this individual in RS. This [1] is a student newspaper and this is primary [2]. Most of the sources used in the article aren't useful either. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even modifying the search to just "Funbag Animation" doesn't turn up much. This is the best I could find and its only passing mentions. Unless anybody finds something significantly better than that its a delete. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the (rather obvious) typo in the first link, User:Alien333. I don't know what you mean by paywalled. Not only are they are both accessible with your Wikipedia library login, but WP:BEFORE in Section D.2 (WP:CONRED) says to make use of the Wikipedia Library. Which is an absolute must if editing in the area of Canadian subjects, given most of the nations major papers can be found there, but not in Google or even newspapers.com. So I believe this is a BEFORE failure. Also, the former, Funbag is mentioned 8 times. Nfitz (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found several articles. Here stuck a deal with UTV. Government of Nova Scotia reports. Sale of assets after bankruptcy here. Book 'Reading between the Borderlines' also mentions it. Other articles are also there. Changeworld1984 (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles have Funbag in the headline itself and deal with the studio. These are not passing mentions. And these are just examples that this company has been reported on before. Changeworld1984 (talk) 00:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has an entry in a major music encyclopedia, which is copiously referenced in the article already. If it's covered by other encyclopedias, it should be covered in this one. Chubbles (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This entire article about a BLP is original research with virtually no citations. The single reliable source I see is The Encyclopedia of Popular Music but this is a tertiary source, not a secondary one. Lacking ANY direct detailing in applied or provided reliable secondary sources, this is not a keep. BusterD (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tertiary sources are built from secondary sources and by definition indicate the presence of multiples of them. Since when can we not use encyclopedias to source this encyclopedia? (I've written literally thousands of articles sourced from other encyclopedias). Chubbles (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, my page creations aren't nearly as numerous as yours and my older creations are not very good at all. But I didn't boast of creating thousands of articles without using reliable secondary sources as you just did above. BusterD (talk) 05:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the examples I saw were reasons to extol any virtue in your choosing to create these pages without actual direct detailing, merely their highest accomplishments as recounted (in miniature and at a distance) in dictionaries. Please see my note on User talk:Mdann52. These are people, not just subjects. When people die, Wikipedia's sourcing standards remain important. BusterD (talk) 06:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles weren't the reason I said what I said; the ones that are sourced to Grove are, and Grove is the most comprehensive English-language jazz encyclopedia in existence. I did not request any showering of praise for the articles you singled out - all I did was point out that they meet our guidelines for inclusion. This is all starting to get rather badfaithy, and it's off-topic to this discussion, so you can direct all other helpful hints for improving my editing to my talk page. Chubbles (talk) 06:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:PSTS. They're not forbidden but article should be primarily sourced to secondary sources while using primary and tertiary sources sparingly. It's not about the number of sources, but how much of the article's key contents are based on things other than secondary sources. Graywalls (talk) 04:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That policy (WP:TERTIARY) is largely geared toward guiding people to cite original research over things like first-year summary textbooks. It doesn't address notability, because tertiary sources do establish notability if they are reliable, and the cited source certainly passes WP:RSTERTIARY. Chubbles (talk) 05:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cleverly ignoring my first point that this was an OR BLP with no reliable secondary sources, yes, I'll concede we occasionally use tertiary sources. We don't generally base articles solely on such coverage, however. So you have presented a single encyclopedia as RS. Nothing else? Delete. BusterD (talk) 06:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's because people don't write encyclopedia entries, in major (reliable) encyclopedias, without a base of secondary source material from which to draw. In any case, this will seal the deal: he meets WP:MUSIC by having a charting record - he reached #199 on the Billboard 200 in 1969 (as Merryweather & Friends, playing in a band with Steve Miller, Dave Mason, and Charlie Musselwhite) with the album Word of Mouth. My source is The Billboard Albums, 6th edition, p. 697. Chubbles (talk) 06:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the closer is doing favors, I'll ask the closer something for me too! FTR, this article was written as a BLP, but the subject died while it was still grossly unsourced and made up. How about vast sections of purely original research? Doesn't matter? May we keep my delete assertion because somebody pulled this entire article out of their empty library of sources when the subject was still living? Does BLP only apply to edits on article while the subject is STILL alive? We can freely make up stuff about dead people? Good to know! BusterD (talk) 04:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BLP would have applied when the material was written, but not now, I'm happy to agree. Doesn't mean it can't be made up, and I suspect the article will get stubbified after this discussion. Unsourced statement can still be removed even if not a BLP, just there isn't an automatic presumption of removal on site. If it fails WP:V, it can still be removed (and if this is kept, I think this article will be pruned back substantually). Mdann52 (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we can't prove what's written with sourcing and citation, then somebody literally made it up (as far as attribution is concerned). Might even be true, but just an assertion without sources. I would be satisfied with an outcome which kept but stubbified this article. And while I'm sure I have shown irritation; I'm far more irritated to be told "I've done this thousands of times" and the random examples look mostly like this (needing stubbifying)! BusterD (talk) 05:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in addition the the encyclopaedic reference, there's also stuff like ProQuest2776468179 in 2023 from the foreign publication PopMatters, along with briefer mentions, such as in Peoplehere. Not to mention lots of reviews in magazines, such as in 1974 in Billboardhere. Seems to be a lot of stuff in Cashbox. There's no doubt that the article could, and should, be improved; but that's not a deletion criteria. Nfitz (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think Chubbles' interpretation of WP:RSTERTIARY is more correct. The PopMatters and Billboard reviews found by Nfitz, along with any other offline articles from the time, seem like enough to meet WP:GNG. hinnk (talk) 22:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources identified in this discussion including an encyclopaedia, Billboard, and Pop Matters so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the coverage in the article is from February 2024 when she left the entertainment company Nijisanji. Beyond that, I've found two reliable sources that do not cover this topic (Siliconera 1, Siliconera 2). Wikipedia's notability criteria discourages articles on people notable for only one event, which this article seems to cover. Most of the content featured in the article also seems to be a content fork of the article Nijisanji. I suggest deleting the article or turning it into a redirect to the Nijisanji article. ArcticSeeress (talk) 08:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you found two other reliable sources, User:ArcticSeeress , for different events, and this "event" has significant international coverage (has anyone checked in other languages?) in major publications, such as in India], then surely GNG applies, and WP:1E doesn't apply? I feel I'm missing something. Nfitz (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you found two other reliable sources - Maybe I should have worded my opening statement better. I only found one reliable source (Siliconera) that talks about the subject beyond the single event, per WP:GNG: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability".
and this "event" has significant international coverage (has anyone checked in other languages?) in major publications, such as in India, then surely GNG applies, and WP:1E doesn't apply - I'm not sure I understand this. WP:1E makes no reference to the geographic breadth of the sources. The coverage being international does not change the fact that most of it is about a single event. Also, I could not find sources in any other languages; sources generally also have the original word in Latin writing, so I'm certain you could find them pretty easily by searching "Dokibird". ArcticSeeress (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]