Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Canada

Canada

Canada articles for deletion

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]

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 the name of 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]

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]

List of Alpha Sigma Phi chapters

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Naraht (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't meet WP:NLIST, because it hasn't been discussed as a group. It's a collection of links to external sites, hence WP:NOTREPOSITORY applies. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 19:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I fail to see how the chapters of a National Fraternity don't constitute a group, there are *no* external Links outside the References (which is where they should be) and Alpha Sigma Phi doesn't have chartering dates at a single web page (like most fraternities and sororities do) and as such, a larger number of references are needed, which doesn't affect whether the page should exist anyway.Naraht (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NLIST says: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources I don't think the various chapters have been discussed as a group. The references are just links to individual universities that have a chapter. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 20:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: This nomination is in error. This article has at least two secondary sources that cover the chapters of Alpha Sigma Phi as a group. One is a Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities, the main authority on all Greek letter organizations for more than 100 years. Alpha Sigma Phi was included in every edition of Baird's, including the edition(s) cited in this article. The second source is the Almanac of Fraternities and Sororities, a scholarly project of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. As is the typical positioning with sources that cover all entries in a table, these sources are provided in the lede above the table. In addition, the links within the table/list go to other Wikipedia articles, such as the main article about Alpha Sigma Phi and the various colleges and cities that host chapters, not external websites. Also, there is a precedent of moving long lists of fraternity, sorority, and honor society chapters to a secondary list article, rather than maintaining the list in the main organizational article. List of Alpha Sigma Phi chapters is a good example of a list that is simply too long to functionally work in the main article about the fraternity. Both WP:FRAT and WP:UNI have a preference for this type of list over including content in the main university article or the main Greek letter organization article. In short, this article not only meets the requirements for notability and a list article, but is also the preference of the main WikiProjects that oversee this content. Rublamb (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I also concur that this is a ridiculous nomination. The AfD nomination came out of nowhere, on specious claims of a lack of discussion and references. The references are simple to fix, and one need not delete!, delete!, delete! in such cases to resolve the problem. Our Project group fixes, polices and improves the articles in our area of interest and expertise (some 3,500) methodically and via consensus. As a significant, nationally known fraternity, with chapters on many campuses that are recognized by their student life administration, many of which have existed for more than 50 years with multiple available references, this group and its individual chapters are notable. This designation is consistent with other articles, prior editing practice, consensus, and Wikipedia editing policies. The nominator is not a Project participant, but merely is taking an arbitrary shot at the article without understanding.

Other Project editors are currently working on reference improvements, and have clarified why this article was correctly spun off as a subordinate article to the main Alpha Sigma Phi article. A very clear rationale. Jax MN (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, Canada, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing nomination. It is going to be kept per WP:SNOW anyway, no need to keep it open and clutter AfD. It was a mistake to nominate it and I am going to be more careful with my AfD nominations in the future. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 13:48, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Rublamb (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Quebec Maritimes Junior Hockey League arenas

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

This list fails to meet WP:LISTN for a standalone list. The only sources cited here are QMJHL Arena Guide (personal web site by a hockey fan and not reliable), and Stadiumjourney.com which is essentially a database for stadiums. Although components of this list could be cited, without independent reliable sources, this list is not notable or encyclopedic. An option would be to merge the information into the league's article. Flibirigit (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey, Lists, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seriously? Aside from the nom's cogent arguments, and that there's nothing out there discussing these as a group as LISTN requires, compiling this for a junior league fails the cruft test. Ravenswing 11:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unparty: The Consensus-Building Party

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

Delete per WP:ORG: minor political party that ran in one election (in 2013) and garnered less than 0.01% of the vote. No significant coverage in reliable sources; coverage in general is limited to routine electoral coverage by local news outlets where their two candidates ran in 2013. Yue🌙 19:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. Yue🌙 19:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2013 British Columbia general election as an ATD. Fails WP:ORG. मल्ल (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Western Canada Concept

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

Delete or merge / redirect to Western alienation, per WP:ORG. Minor, fringe political party that ran in a few elections and by-elections, garnering less than 1% each time. No significant coverage in secondary, reliable sources available online, or in BC provincial archives that I could find. Perhaps it warrants a mention at Western alienation if reliable source(s) are found, but the topic has not had sources to demonstrate standalone notability in over two decades. Yue🌙 19:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. Yue🌙 19:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Western Canada Concept no longer has a presence of any significance in Canadian politics (thankfully), but it attracted a significant amount of media coverage in the 1980s and early 1990s, and it's been given non-trivial mention in several published works on Canadian politics. (A search for the phrase "Western Canada Concept" on the Internet Archive's "Search Text Contents" function yields 632 text sources. Even accounting for some duplication, that's a credible amount.)
Many organizations that were notable in the pre-internet age don't have much of an online presence now; this is one of them. CJCurrie (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I should mention that the Western Canada Concept actually won a seat in the Alberta provincial legislature in a 1982 by-election. (For context, see Olds-Didsbury and Gordon Kesler.) It's not correct to say they "garnered less than 1% each time." CJCurrie (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with CJCurrie, there is significant coverage. Actually a decent amount of coverage online too, from what I can see. I've added a few sources, one of which would count for notability. Alongside the sources on archive.com identified above, there are also 2069 hits for "Western Canada Concept" on NewspaperARCHIVE.com and 13 on JSTOR.//Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 16:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The party did elect an Alberta MLA in a byelection, so it was definitely mainstream for a year or so before becoming a fringe movement again. Indefatigable (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Griffiths

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

Completely unsourced, so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada. UtherSRG (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Griffith meets WP:GNG as there are eight reliable sources. Please note, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The nominator clearly omiited WP:BEFORE. Flibirigit (talk) 11:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ballyntine Cove

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

Very short stub with no citations. There was very little to go on to look for more information. I looked at some old admiralty maps and the 1911 Census of Newfoundland^[1] and could find absolutely no trace of this place. Finally I looked at the List of ghost towns in Newfoundland and Labrador. I did find a source that mentions a "Ballantyne Cove"^[2] but this is still very little to go on. Unfortunately after clicking on a few of the placenames on that list I found that most of them (or at least the ones I clicked on) were equally short stubs with either no references or 1 reference similar to what I found for Ballyntine Cove so on top of comments on the page I would appreciate some advice on how to proceed for the rest of the places on that list. Giuliotf (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the stub nightmare may have, in my opinion, signaled there wasn't really a town here to begin with. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 23:04, 7 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]

JACKSNNZ

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

Unreferenced stub (well, just a general ref, no footnotes). Uncler how this meets WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV. My BEFORE shows some mentions in passing here or there, but noting in-depth. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 13:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 13:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Japan, South Korea, Norway, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it was such a common acronym, it gets zero google news hits. Fails GNG by a long mile. LibStar (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Biological Weapons Convention, which seems to be the only area where this grouping has any relevance. There is sigcov in reliable sources [1][2][3], but since this grouping is apparently only relevant at the conferences on this particular convention I don't see the need for a standalone article. @LibStar and @Piotrus at Hanyang, would you be okay with a merge? Toadspike [Talk] 11:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge to BWC. A JSTOR search turned up reliable sources including Becker (2007) [4], Meier (2006) [5], Becker (2008) [6], which confirm that JACKSNNZ is an informal coordination group focused narrowly on BWC-related issues. This is best merged with the main BWC article to prevent fragmentation (WP:CFORK). HerBauhaus (talk) 08:09, 11 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]

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]

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]

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, don't pass WP:NKICK guidelines as the subject 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]

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]

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]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:40, 10 June 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 — Harrietcyy (User talk:Harrietcyy) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes artist notability with works being in the Dunlop and Mackenzie gallery collections. Sourcing seems fine. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do we have independent and secondary sources to verify her work is in those permanent collections? I had a strangely hard time finding anything, but happy to reevaluate if I missed something. I don't think we can rely on obit or SKNAC bio given WP:NARTIST 4d is the best argument for !keep. Also just a note, subject worked for University of Regina (1), which is also affiliated with MacKenzie Gallery. Zzz plant (talk) 00:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the deletion discussion, I’d like to further address some of the comments and questions:

Regarding Notability:

Agnes Gallus was a regular participant in The Emma Lake artists workshop, created as a summer workshop for professional artists (ie. not Sunday painters). Her participation is verified in these links:

https://e-artexte.ca/id/eprint/3155/

https://e-artexte.ca/id/eprint/3158/

She is also listed as a professional artist/maker by the Government of Canada.

https://app.pch.gc.ca/application/aac-aic/artiste_detailler_bas-artist_detail_bas.app?rID=6004&fID=2&lang=en&qlang=en&pID=1&an=Agnes+Gallus&ps=50&sort=AM_ASC

Her work was exhibited and is in the permanent collections of prominent art galleries, as cited.

https://library.usask.ca/gp/sk/cy/Aarchives/2012may10/artsboard2012may18/www.artsboard.sk.ca/news/393/2050-agnes-gallus.html

Regarding “Affiliation”:

Artists of note are always collected and exhibited by galleries, universities, and other organizations. For example, members of the Regina Five, including Ted Godwin, Arthur McKay and Kenneth Lochead, were on faculty at the University of Saskatchewan and their work was also collected in the University Archives, as well as the Saskatchewan Arts Board and Mackenzie Art Galleries, etc. If you look at the entries of ANY visual artist they likely taught classes and gave lectures at prominent institutions, and were also collected and exhibited by these and other organizations. To question the citations of Agnes Gallus as “affiliations” would be to question the validity of citations of many professional working artists.

There is a larger point to address about the ongoing question of the integrity of her notability. She was clearly a professional working artist who was part of a larger prairie art movement in Saskatchewan and recognized as such. That she was an “outsider” as a woman artist in a male-dominated profession and also as a refugee, is additionally worthy of note. As archivists and writers, I feel an important of our work is to continue to correct the systemic bias within certain professions, such as the arts and sciences, and view them within the context of a wider lens. Harrietcyy (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+Delete I did not vote in the first nomination as it was a straight forward delete and I saw no reason to pile on. I do not see any significant changes in the substance of the article since then. MacKenzie Art Gallery and Dunlop Art Gallery are small regional venues that are not particularly notable. Fails WP:ARTIST. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:11, 9 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

%

^ "Census of Newfoundland and Labrador, 1911". Government of Canada. Retrieved June 7, 2025.
^ "Year book and almanac of Newfoundland". Newfoundland Almanac. St. John's (N.L.): David R. Thistle, King's Printer: 85. 1931.

[1] "Census of Newfoundland and Labrador, 1911". Government of Canada. Retrieved June 7, 2025.

[2] "Year book and almanac of Newfoundland". Newfoundland Almanac. St. John's (N.L.): David R. Thistle, King's Printer: 85. 1931.

[1]

[2]