Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Canada

Canada

Canada articles for deletion

Western Canada Wilderness Committee

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

I believe the topic fails to meet GNG. While I'm not the greatest at looking for sources, the only coverage I found was mentions of the organization in relation to protecting an owl species, but nothing that covered it at length. Also, while I realize that the present quality of the article doesn't determine its suitability, the condition right now is a big problem. The entirety of the current content was written by an employee of the organization named Stephanie Gribble, and is entirely sourced to the org's own website (yes, there's one other citation, but it only verifies when a law was passed and says nothing about the article subject). -- Fyrael (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organizations, Education, Environment, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Carex species in Canada

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

I created this page in March 2025 when I was still quite new, but I literally copied and pasted the entire list from List of Canadian plants by family C § Cyperaceae, without any citations. Afterward, I added a few random sources about sedges in Canada, but it's still not that great. Furthermore, this probably isn't even notable enough to be a separate list; the only other list of Carex species is List of Carex species, which lists all the species, not just species from a single country. There are no articles on List of Carex species of the United States or any other country. I got the idea to create this page because the Carex entry at "List of Canadian plants by genus C" had a red link to this page. A better solution would be to delete this page and paste the list at "List of Canadian plants by genus C#Carex". 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 02:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organisms and Canada. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 02:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 02:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. @Balsam Cottonwood:, kudos for realizing you may have made a mistake and attempting to fix it through a formal process. I've had this list on my watchlist since I came across it as a new page. I watchlisted it with intentions of nominating it for deletion, but also had intended to message Balsam Cottonwood to explain why I thought it was a bad idea.

The worst part of this is that it was forked from the entirely unreferenced Wikipedia list List of Canadian plants by family C § Cyperaceae.

The maybe less worst part of this is the whole set of lists under List of Canadian plants by family which is largely unreferenced, incomplete, potentially out-of-date, and not being maintained. Plantdrew (talk) 04:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good call, I agree with

nom and the observations made above. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frida Ghitis

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

Badly formatted, is of no relevance or notability, reads like a CV rather than a Wikipedia page. Scientelensia (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Journalism. Shellwood (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only bring up articles or opinion pieces written by this person, nothing about them... I suppose if more book reviews are found, could have a chance at AUTHOR, but I couldn't find any. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Television, Canada, and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seyed Javad Mowla

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

Don't see any evidence this academic meets WP:NACADEMIC. Has found publication success, but that's not sufficient for notability. Orphaned article. ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Biology, Medicine, Iran, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to pass WP:Prof#C1 based on GS record, albeit in a highly-cited field.

Peter New

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

I nominate this article for deletion because the subject is not notable and references do not show that the actor passes WP:NACTOR. as an IP I can not finish the nomination process. All of the references right now are unreliable or mentions with no sig cov 2600:1011:B03A:9C5:A43F:90D:A2C4:9E5C. (Procedural nomination on behalf of an IP) Toadspike [Talk] 22:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Comics and animation, and Canada. Toadspike [Talk] 22:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two out of the three sources currently listed in the article are Youtube videos (unreliable) and the third is a passing mention from a source that does not appear to be independent from the subject. The subject inexplicably also has 37(!) translations on other language Wikipedias, which leads me to believe that there may be some WP:COI or WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY at play. Madeleine (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great Lakes megalopolis

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

This requires a lot of explanation, but quite simply, there is no such thing as a Great Lakes Megalopolis. The article is based on overinterpretation of a half-century-old prediction of the future that never came to pass, with heaps of WP:SYNTH and some nice glossy photos on top.

Let's look at the references: Refs. 1 and 2 are to population statistics. Ref. 3 is to a 2005 report by the Regional Plan Association, which talks about a "Great Lakes Megaregion" (not the same thing, never uses the word "megalopolis", is narrowly focused on transportation, and seems to have had no influence); Ref. 4 is a reprint of a 1967 book of speculation by futurists that again never uses the term "Great Lakes Megalopolis"; Refs. 5 and 6 are to Constantinos Doxiadis (more on him in a moment), and Ref. 7 is on a different (but superficially similar) topic. The remaining references are just to economic and population statistics.

Doxiadis seems to have coined the term Great Lakes Megalopolis and wrote about it a lot in the late 60's-mid 70's, including a dedicated 1968 scholarly paper [1], and several reports to the US and Canadian governments (e.g. [2]. However, the reports are primary sources, and the paper (as of last October) had been cited all of 9 times in 56 years (Web of Science), mostly by urban planning studies from China that used the term only in passing. The only non-Doxiadis-linked source I can find discussing the supposed megalopolis is this report to the Canadian Ministry of State: [3], which again is primary, and from 1976. Nothing specifically about this concept has been published since as far as I can see.

TL;DR: The Great Lakes Megalopolis was an obsession of one single futurist, Constantinos Doxiadis, and the concept seems to have died with him in 1975, having little to no influence or acceptance today. And besides, WP:SKYISBLUE: You have to drive across open farmland for hours to get from Chicago to Detroit, and again from Detroit to Toronto; on what planet is that a megalopolis?

On top of that, practically everything in this article can be found in Great Lakes region. I would not oppose a selective merge to that article, or to the article on Doxiadis (since this is clearly his baby). As it exists, this is an article on a nonexistent subject. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Canada, and United States of America. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Great Lakes region per nom. This is all just fluff listing what exists in the region, duplicating the main article and presenting basically nothing unique. Reywas92^Talk 14:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this article needs some cleanup (why, oh why are some "sources" Wikipedia?), but the subject itself is notable: I see 275 Google Scholar articles and hundreds of Google Books noting the subject, including many present-day books. We are not concerned about whether the original paper is heavily cited (because the paper is not the subject of the article) but rather whether the Great Lakes Megalopolis is noted, which it clearly is. Additionally, the idea that a megalopolis cannot have any farmland in it ("You have to drive across open farmland for hours to get from Chicago to Detroit, and again from Detroit to Toronto; on what planet is that a megalopolis?") misses the point that fertile farmland must exist for any large megalopolis to prosper (Why else is New Jersey, in the Northeast megalopolis, called the Garden State?) The idea that this mega-corridor "didn't come to pass" also seems a bit silly, looking at population density maps from Toronto to Detroit and from NW Indiana to Milwaukee. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Practically all of those 275 Scholar articles are trivial passing mentions, except for the first few, which are all by Doxiadis or his associates in his vanity journal Ekistics. The Google Books results are little better; of the ones I reviewed, the only one approaching significant secondary coverage is this one: [4], which I don't have access to but which appears to be discussing the idea as a historical concept (p. 70-71) rather than an extant entity. But even if we accept this book, we have this one and the original paper...not enough for an article this elaborate and detailed. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little concerned that you have referred to Ekistics as a "vanity journal". Vanity journals, as a rule, do not have a peer-review process. Ekistics as a peer-reviewed journal started in 1956, and is still operating today, with editorial board members from around the world. In truth, Ekistics has been evaluated by the independent ERIH Plus organization as peer-reviewed and with a verified scientific board. JSTOR holds its papers. But the paper also appeared in Proceedings of the IEEE - The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, vol. 56, number 4, dated April 1968, and that is clearly also not a vanity journal. And discussion of the Great Lakes Megalopolis also appeared in Time Magazine, with the article's author writing, "Another area is growing even faster, and will ultimately pose bigger problems. This is the potential "Great Lakes Megalopolis," which will soon stretch without interruption from Pittsburgh to Chicago, by the year 2000 will contain a population of 45 million. Fortunately, in the opinion of City Planner Constantinos Doxiadis, the great heartland megalopolis has a natural focus and headquarters in Detroit — if the city will only rise to the challenge." As the area had more than 45 million residents by 2000, it seems as though Doxiadis was right. I'd add the Time magazine article as a source, but it's already present. America 2050, an international coalition of governmental agencies, discusses the Great Lakes Megalopolis extensively. I'd also add this source to the article, but it, too, is already present. NASA took the Great Lakes Megalopolis seriously when they wrote: "In the emerging Great Lakes megalopolis, which shows signs of extending from Green Bay, Wisconsin, to Buffalo, New York, in the not-too-distant future, the peculiar meteorological effects of the Great Lakes often exacerbate this interregional transport. When continental air masses advert across the relatively warm lakes in winter, any plume moving over a Great Lake will be rapidly dispersed. Turbulence generated by the convection rising from the surface can be extreme, sometimes to the point of generating a myriad of miniature waterspouts or "steam devils."" Any deletion would be moot anyway: dozens of US governmental agencies use the Great Lakes Megalopolis in current literature: National Parks Service (2013), US Forest Service (2023), Office of General Services (2019), National Institute of Health (2022), etc. Why on earth would we delete an article about a subject noted by NASA, NIH, USFS, NPS, USDA, OGS, and other government agencies? Because you think a 69-year-old journal is a "vanity journal" and "the concept died with" the author, even though he died in the 1970s, and the term is in use right now by multiple US government agencies? There's the slightly better argument to merge this article into Great Lakes region, but that, too, is problematic: the maps in the infoboxes of both articles reveal the problem with such a merger: the Great Lakes Megalopolis extends to Davenport, Iowa; Minneapolis, Minnesota; St. Louis, Missouri; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Quebec City, Quebec; Kansas City, Kansas; Dayton, Ohio; and the Great Lakes region article doesn't extend anywhere near those areas, leading to WP:SYNTH issues. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you identify specific sources that should be used rather than generic search results for the term? Still, I fail to see why this article should exist when there's already an article on the region. Even if that includes whole states and not just urban areas, it's highly duplicative to have this page and relevant discussion about the megalopolis concept can be covered in the region article. — Reywas92^Talk 03:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crimmins Island

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

Page has only had a single ref for many years; this is broken and doesn't appear to be a RS anyway. I see single line references in a couple of gazetteers and not much else. I'm not seeing significant coverage. JMWt (talk) 09:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 09:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Islands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sukhmani Kaur Saggu

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

Very recent grad (bachelor’s in 2024) who has co-authored 3 papers and appears to have a run-of-the-mill research job. I don't see how she could pass any criteria of WP:NPROF even with the broadest possible interpretation, and as for WP:GNG - a WP:BEFORE in google/bing news, google books, newspapers.com, and PressReader did not turn up any mentions. Zzz plant (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Canada. Zzz plant (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very far from WP:PROF notability and none of the sources support WP:GNG notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Vegantics (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If you look at the version that was accepted at AfC it is noticeably worse. Some poor quality control there, it should never have been passed to main. I do not see any reasonable chance of repair, so a full delete is more appropriate than draftification. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dratify. Needs to be shortened significantly. Three peer-reviewed journal publications show potential. Wisdom2025 (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- three peer-reviewed publications are nowhere close to passing WP:PROF notability in this very highly cited and published field. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from WP: PROF (does not pass notability).

Dratify. aligns with WP:ACADEMIC. Per Ldm1954, needs repair. Salvageable with dratification. Wisdom2025 (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lip Service (2000 film)

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

Non-notable film. From WP:NFILM (my emphasis): Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides.... Alibris Filmaffinity and Plex sources are one paragraph synopses. Wisconsin State Journal is three sentences about making the film, not WP:SIGCOV. Fort Worth Star-Telegram is one paragraph in a newspaper listing, a capsule review at best. Videohound's Golden Movie Retriever 2006 is a comprehensive film guide. I couldn't access the BFI source via Proquest, but it is from the BFI's Film Index International, which is a comprehensive database of films. None of these constitute critical full-length reviews of the film, or go towards establishing notability through any of the other provisions of WP:NFILM, and my WP:BEFORE didn't turn up any better sources. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Canada, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hard keep: This page may not seem as notable at this moment, although there many avenues through which the page could be made more notable. Deleting or erasing this article would mean a serious disaster from which my career would never really recover, not mentioning severe embarrassment and hard insults toward me which are undeserved. Angela Kate Maureen Pears 14:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did find a Variety review by one of their known staff writers, as well as an article announcing that the film was to be made. I did see this short mention in a volume of TV Guide, but it looks to be a mention of a TV interview so that would probably be seen as a primary source?

Now, as far as the nomination goes, don't take it too hard. Just about everyone on Wikipedia has had something reverted, deleted, or nominated for deletion at one point or another - sometimes even after they've been around for a while. It's not meant to be an insult or attack.

To go over the sourcing a bit more, what is needed here are sources that are reliable, independent, and in-depth. So for example, VideoHound could probably be used to back up basic details but can't be used to establish notability because they're too short and in some cases, are just plot summary with no actual commentary to justify the bones rating. Capsule reviews have much of the same issue, as they are often very short and are more summary than review.

I'll go over the sourcing in a bit more depth on the AfD talk page. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Reader, thank you for understanding. Angela Kate Maureen Pears 18:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! It can get overwhelming on here, I know. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Gallo, Phil (2000-07-12). "Out of Sync". Variety. Archived from the original on 2025-06-16. Retrieved 2025-06-16.
  The review provides 483 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "VH1 tackles a Wash-like saga in its first top-to-bottom fictional telepic, “Out of Sync,” a joke-free “music-filled comedy” that mindlessly romps through the cliches of soap operas, the record industry and network movies of the week. ... Wuhrer, the former MTV veejay who has become actress most likely to be nude in a straight-to-video pic, is an annoying bimbo with a constant jiggle. Camera takes careful aim to maximize body shots over any dramatic connection the character may make with the story. Rest of the acting is perfunctory. Music is catchy at times."
2. Justin, Neal (2000-07-12). "FYI - Internet moving tips". Minnesota Star Tribune. Archived from the original on 2025-06-16. Retrieved 2025-06-16.
  The review provides 119 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "Clothes are also not a priority for Sunni (Kari Wuhrer), the would-be rock starlet in "Out of Sync," (Two and a half out of four stars, 8 p.m. today, VH1). She'll do anything to make it big - flashing the record producer, licking peanut butter off his trophy, sucking lime juice off a male model's belly. What makes this more than a Carmen Electra impression is Wuhrer, a former MTV personality who smartly satirizes the pop bimbette. She doesn't hesitate to pretend to have a great voice, even though she's "borrowing" from a "plain" housewife (Gail O'Grady, who's too attractive to be portraying an unmarketable artist). VH1 gently skewers itself with considerable success in this female version of Milli Vanilli."
3. "Out of Sync. Alternate title: Lip Service". British Film Institute. 2002. ProQuest 1745738700.
  The source provides 300 words of coverage about the subject. The source notes: "Dissipated, down-and-out record producer Roger Deacon needs a hit, badly. A decade ago, he was a bona fide hitmaker until he imploded, publicly burning all his bridges in the music biz. To get back to the top of the charts, he'd sell his soul to the devil - or worse, to a record executive with a girlfriend who wants to be a star. Industry honcho Sidney Golden's newest 'friend,' statuesque Sunni, sure looks like a star, but as a smitten Deacon soon discovers, she sings more like Benny Hill than Faith Hill."
4. Deming, Mark. "Lip Service (2000)". Rovi. Archived from the original on 2025-05-31. Retrieved 2025-05-31 – via Alibris.
  The source provides 260 words of coverage about the subject. The source notes: "However, when Sunni discovers she's been reduced to a lip sync act for her upcoming video and concert tour, she's none too happy, and shares her displeasure with her boyfriend; Roger, meanwhile, is wrestling with the fact that he's fallen in love with Maggie, who is married and not prepared to leave her husband. Also shown under the title Out of Sync, Lip Service was produced for (and originally aired on) the VH1 cable music network."
5. Less significant coverage:
  1. Marill, Alvin H. (2005). Movies Made for Television 1964–2004. Vol. 1. Lanham, Maryland: The Scarecrow Press. pp. 135–136. ISBN 0-8108-5174-1.
    The book notes: "Out of Sync (VH1, 7/12/2000, 120 mins). Gail O’Grady plays a housewife whose singing abilities catch the ear of a down-and-out record producer who desperately needs her to lip sync songs for a record executive’s musically talentless girlfriend. Take the dubious career of faux rock luminaries Milli Vanilli and the basic plot line of the memorable Gene Kelly movie “Singing in the Rain” and this is what more or less emerges. Production Companies TVA International, Hearst Entertainment. Director Graeme Campbell. Executive Producers Dan Lyon, Anne Carlucci, Marian Brayton, Rona Edwards. Producer Terry Gould. Teleplay Eric Williams. Photography Nikos Evdemon. Music Jonathan Goldsmith. Editor Ralph Brunjes. Production Designer Bob Sher."
  2. Abbott, Jim (2000-07-10). "Lineup Ranges from All-Stars to Survivors". Orlando Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2025-06-16. Retrieved 2025-06-16.
    The article notes: "The difference between a pretty face and a pretty voice is the story line on Out of Sync (9 p.m., VH1). This original TV movie stars Gail O’Grady (NYPD Blue) as a homemaker whose powerful voice turns a record company executive’s no-talent girlfriend (Kari Wuhrer) into a star. Just think of it as a female version of the Milli Vanilli story."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Out of Sync, also known as Lip Service, to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:13, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sources 2, 3 and 4 (Minnesota Star Tribune, British Film Institute and Rovi via Alibris) while reliable would not count towards notability under WP:FILM: Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides, the first is a TV listing, the second a comprehensive film guide and the third seems to be advertising copy for a DVD. Orange sticker (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I agree. Plot summaries have nothing to do with significant coverage, there has to be critical commentary. Geschichte (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

William Bennest

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

WP:BLP of a criminal, not reliably sourced as passing the intentionally high WP:PERP bar. The criminal assertions here are from the 1990s, with absolutely no evidence shown that they're still of any enduring importance in 2025, and the article is referenced entirely to unreliable sources rather than WP:GNG-worthy ones. As always, we are not the town stocks or the sex offender registry, and permanent naming and shaming of otherwise low-profile criminals is not really what we're here for — so as one of the most widely-read websites in the world, we shouldn't be tattooing scarlet letters on a guy who's done his time without much stronger evidence of permanent notability, and much stronger sourcing for it, than this. Bearcat (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:BLP, WP:BLP1E and per nom, while I could find a dozen news article discussing this case from September 1996 to Feb 1997 and nothing after that, so clearly there is no long term impact of this case. Also these were local newspapers (Medicine Hat News and Lethbridge Herald) so no international coverage. --hroest 18:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while outrageous, this is not encyclopedic. Bearian (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beenox

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

Appears to fail WP:NCORP. The most prominent coverage I found is after the acquisition from gamesindustry.biz. A list of games alone is as good as a games developed by Beenox category. I suggest a redirect to Activision and perhaps a merge of the paragraph of the founder departure and new office. IgelRM (talk) 20:44, 10 June 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) 20:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Activision as nominated based on WP:NCORP. Studio articles that function as little else as lists of games don't demonstrate the notability of the developer without deeper coverage - see thoughts at WP:NOTWORK. That coverage is not really there once you take out all the On X date, Beenox released Y title content. That said, it's not very weak, just not enough to justify an article on presented sourcing. Could be if more of the ilk like the GamesIndustry.biz coverage is found. This outlet seems to have had a porting role in a large number of high-profile games. Is there more out there? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The below sources have established the existence of coverage to warrant a keep. Thanks to @Tanonero: and @Hannes Röst: for taking a look and finding more sources. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vrxces: I am just curious, and I don't mean to be confrontational, but wouldn't it have been easier if you had looked for the sources yourself and ascertained the potential notability of the article, instead of opening a deletion process? I missread the thread. --Tanonero (msg) 13:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is enough history to show the company's progression and its relevance within the game industry. There is also plenty of coverage on GamesIndustry.biz to demonstrate the company's notability and that can easily be integrated into the article, for instance, 1, 2, 3, and 4 and many more. Wikipedia would gain nothing by deleting this article. --Tanonero (msg) 15:28, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I note that I linked the 3 source in my nomination already. Further the 1 source is an interview about places to work, which generally don't add notability. The 4 source is an interview about Activision and licensed games.

From a WP:BEFORE, the founder Dominique Brown has more coverage than this company. What this AFD tries to achieve is more equal appliance of policy that isn't a video game database. IgelRM (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I think there is enough there to justify an article, some more articles from different sources [5] [6] [7] and the article contains more than just a list of titles. --hroest 18:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first 2 sources are press releases and after Activision's acquisition. Edit Correction: the 3 source is about Activision and the developer staffing up for Call of Duty, not particular significant? IgelRM (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Activision#Studios, that one Gamesindustry.biz article cited by nominator seems to be the only piece of significant coverage. Interviews and press releases are considered primary sources. GameRant article is by WP:VALNET so it shouldn't be used for notability but it's also fairly standard coverage of personnel hiring, trivial coverage per WP:ORGTRIV. --Mika1h (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient sources to document the studio's notability, though it needs some updating. Go D. Usopp (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please give an example or is a source review table necessary? IgelRM (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edmonton Rugby Union

AfDs for this article:

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

This is an amateur sporting organization which fails to meet WP:GNG due to the lack of WP:SIGCOV. I found sources online that it exists, but nothing that was third party, independent, nor reliable, and no source has ever been added to the article. Flibirigit (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:09, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:09, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While this may appear to be the second nomination, that is only true on a standalone basis; it was first nominated in 2014 in a bundled nomination that failed as "no consensus". This is why the first standalone nomination, which attracted absolutely no comments at all, itself ended as "no consensus" (as soft deletion is considered a form of PROD, it only applies to never-previously-nominated articles; a more-direct PROD had previously been procedurally declined due to the 2014 bundled AfD). I have no opinion at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Rugby Alberta per nom --Louis (talk) (contribs) 22:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

St. Ilija Macedonian Orthodox Church, Mississauga

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

Already had a notability template on it. Can't really find any information about it online except the church's "About" page, which has been directly copy-pasted into the article. Currently have a copyvio template up, but it might be best for the article to just go. Spookyaki (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spookyaki (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Christianity. Shellwood (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obviously self-promotional article of the church. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will note that I tagged this article for notability alongside the other North American Macedonian Orthodox churches listed in this template: St. Nedela (Ajax), Sts. Cyril & Methody (Blasdell), St. Mary (Cambridge), St. Naum of Ohrid (Hamilton), St. Dimitrija Solunski (Markham), St. Ilija (Mississauga), Nativity of the Virgin Mary (Sterling Heights), Dormition of the Virgin Mary (Reynoldsburg), St. Clement of Ohrid (Toronto), St. Nicholas (Windsor). Not explicitly voting here because I haven't conducted a detailed WP:BEFORE, but I'll note that I'm not optimistic based on the lack of coverage for several other churches on this list I looked at. The best chance for coverage may be in Macedonian-language sources. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Suriname0 (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question - would it be possible to consolidate all these articles into one list that meets WP:NLIST? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Suriname0, since it seems like they might have the most precise knowledge of the articles as a group. Spookyaki (talk) 04:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've done very little list editing, so NLIST is a bit of a mystery to me. Certainly, non-independent sources discuss the members of the diocese as a group: The Diocese of America and Canada today consists of 19 parishes and two monastic communities in the United States as well as nine parishes and one monastic community in Canada. Total of 28 parishes and 2 monasteries. The Bishop’s seat is in Sterling Heights, Michigan.^[1] There's ambiguity to me around the parishes (which I might call "organizations" or "communities") and the actual church buildings. It seems plausible to me that a semi-independent source exists describing the creation of the American-Canadian diocese and its parishes,^[2] although I don't have one to hand. Editorially, I do think a list would be the best way to include this content on Wikipedia. I will note that at least the bishop's church/cathedral is likely to exist as its own article, as its AfD is trending toward an IAR keep: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nativity of the Virgin Mary Macedonian Orthodox Cathedral, Sterling Heights, Michigan To the closer: a redirect to Macedonian Orthodox Diocese of America and Canada is a plausible ATD here, if a list article is not created. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "American-Canadian Macedonian Orthodox Diocese". stspeterandpaulmoc.org. Retrieved 2025-06-16.
^ "Macedonian Orthodox Church: American-Canadian Diocese (1967 - Present) - Religious Group". Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA). Retrieved 2025-06-16.

Ruth Tye McKenzie

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

Biography of an artist, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NARTIST. As always, artists are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they existed, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on significant coverage and analysis about their work in sources independent of themselves -- but the strongest notability claim attempted here is that she was exhibited at the local art gallery in her own hometown, which is not an instant notability pass in and of itself if there's no evidence of any wider more-than-local attention, and the article is referenced mainly to primary sources that aren't support for notability, such as her paid-inclusion obituary in the newspaper classifieds and the exhibition catalogues self-published by the directly affiliated gallery.
The only third-party source shown here at all is a single article in the local media about the local art supply store she owned, which is not enough coverage to singlehandedly vault her over GNG all by itself if it's the only non-primary source she's got. Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added references from an article in a peer-reviewed historical journal, as well as more information about permanent collections and an award. I hope that helps to support notability in this case. Diving into newspapers will need to wait for a couple of weeks.

I'm curious about your references to more-than-local attention: this may make the case for notability more difficult for people working in more rural & remote areas, as references to success in bigger cities are less likely to be seen as local only. Maybe this is an issue that's been discussed before, but I feel like it's worth thinking about. Skjanes tbay (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The subject fails WP:NARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. The article relies on the catalog from the posthumous retrospective exhibition at local Thunder Bay Art Gallery. Other sources are local to Thunder Bay. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:28, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep The discussion of her work in a peer reviewed historical journal (which I unfortunately cannot access) together with the award and some coverage in local newspapers is enough to keep this per GNG and WP:HEY - there is no requirement to be well known on a national or global level as long as there is independent coverage. --hroest 18:57, 11 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]
Delete: Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV here for this WP:BLP. Let'srun (talk) 10:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 15 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:NKICKN, WP:SPORTBASICN, WP:GNGN. 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, potential COI? The article screams vanity page to promote the subject's business interests and self-published non-notable books. This article is as promotional as it gets.

The subject's wins in WKA, WKU or WAKO are in amateur kickboxing (Point Fighting or light contact Kick Boxing) which doesn't pass WP:NKICK. The subject hasn't fought outside of these amateur competitions, and hasn't fought professional kickboxing (unlike Dragan Jovanović for example who went on to fight Pro kick). 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 some local minor publications such as the subject's home city of Ottawa: inside ottawa valley.com. Which is even filled with a total of 20+ 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]

If you have an issue with NKICK you are welcome to start a conversion about it, but in the meantime we have to base our decision to the agreed current guidelines. The subject is an amateur kickboxer and the 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. Lekkha Moun (talk) 08:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet GNG. Besides the debate about NKICK, this is almost certainly a vanity page. Nswix (talk) 05:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:38, 15 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Magnolia and MediaKyle. The Telegraph-Journal is not independent (and the Yahoo! source is a reprint of the Telegraph-Journal) and the CBC isn't enough to establish notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge/redirect to Telegraph-Journal per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. As there is only one independent source that provides significant coverage about Backyard History (the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation article), the subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline yet. The topic can be discussed in Telegraph-Journal, which publishes the column. I recommend a merge of between a sentence to a paragraph.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An argument against making it a merge to the Telegraph Journal is that it's not their own, they just syndicate it the same as the New York Times syndicates Garfield comics basically - so have upwards of thirty different media outlets syndicating Backyard History, and they're doing that AFTER it's printed three books, a podcast and a television show...so it's not really an issue for listing under a newspaper that happens to have signed onto the growing mini-empire. Fundy Isles Historian - J (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also against redirect, the column Backyard History "appears once a week in more than a dozen newspapers" according to the book description. It is not clear if one of those newspapers is more significant than the others. IgelRM (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

%

[1] "American-Canadian Macedonian Orthodox Diocese". stspeterandpaulmoc.org. Retrieved 2025-06-16.

[2] "Macedonian Orthodox Church: American-Canadian Diocese (1967 - Present) - Religious Group". Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA). Retrieved 2025-06-16.

[1]

[2]