This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Canada. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Canada|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Canada. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Americas.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Keep This was a major international competition, featuring two of the main cricketing nations, (and almost including a third with the West Indies almost competing) that happened over multiple years, and was well covered in the news when it was happening between 1996 and 1999 (when it ended due to a well-covered series of issues that stemmed from the start of the Kargil war in 1999). I'm using print sources, as the event occured over 25 years ago, but I'm not having any difficulty coming up with references. I'll keep adding sources, though, in the hope that it helps. - Bilby (talk) 09:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This competition, featuring 2–3 ICC Full Members, is more than notable. It has widespread press coverage, and had in its time, its own fair share of controversy, such as in 1997 when Inzamam tried to beat up a fan with his bat! AA (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to access the Shanghai Daily source in the article (source 2), and the other sources are all unreliable primary sources. By googling the subject's name in Chinese (凱洱), I found only one article mentioning him as part of the cast in a 2023 film called Variant[11]. Even searching for the subject on Douban shows that he has appeared in only eleven roles, most of them are just cast extras and none of which seem significant. Fails GNG and NACTOR. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul）05:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage of this individual in news media, simply being a subject matter expert in court cases isn't quite enough without coverage discussing the individual. Sourcing now is largely to court cases. Oaktree b (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TOOSOON article about an event not yet shown as having the kind of enduring significance needed to graduate from WP:NOTNEWS territory. As always, it isn't Wikipedia's role or goal to maintain an article about every single thing that happens in the world -- we're writing history here, not news, so we would need to see some evidence that the event would pass the ten year test as a matter of long-term significance, which people will still be looking for information about into the 2030s and 2040s and 2050s. But neither the amount of content here nor the amount of sourcing shown to support it establish that this would pass that test yet as of today. Obviously no prejudice against recreation at a later date if more long-term impact can be shown, but we need to see a lot more than just "this is a thing that happened a couple of days ago". Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Antisemitism in Canada where there is already some coverage. The school, itself, does not appear to be notable and the only coverage, in English, appears to be the news coverage about these shootings. As suspects in these shootings are now under arrest, Wikipedia probably should not have a separate article about these shootings until the trial is over. See WP:BLPCRIME. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: I added several additional sources, including coverage of Doug Ford's comment about the first shooting + the reactions to it that immigrants were responsible. The ongoing shootings are a very big news story in Canada as school shootings are not as common here. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply)04:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated this article for deletion because it does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies. The sources cited are insufficient to establish significant coverage by reliable, independent secondary sources. Most references are either primary sources or fail to provide substantial analysis or commentary on the company.
Specifically:
1. There is no in-depth coverage by independent, reliable sources to establish notability. 2. References primarily consist of the company’s website and brief financial data listings, which do not qualify as significant coverage. 3. The article appears promotional, with little encyclopedic content. I believe this article should be discussed under the Articles for Deletion (AfD) process to determine its status. Please see the AfD nomination page for further details. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports.
The article notes: "And the 70 companies which: pay $25,000 to $50,000 a year each to belong to the Computer Modelling Group report production increases of five per cent or more immediately after they begin using the group's technology. ... In 1980, the government cash ran out and the Computer Modelling Group was transformed to a private organization funded by members' contributions. At this time the group had about 25 corporate members ready to support it because the software it has developed was clearly paying off. ... The Computer Modelling Group is already the world's premier research group dedicated to reservoir simulation, a point that will be demonstrated next week when 160 experts from 15 countries gather here to discuss technical papers based on the group's work.""
The article notes: "The Calgary-based consultants specialize in reservoir modelling, a technology becoming more important in Western Canada where oil and gas companies have already tapped many of the easy pickings. Using CMG software, energy companies can run as many computer simulations as they chose and compare it with costs before they start drilling. They can also create computer models of different types of production or enhanced recovery techniques to extract more oil or gas from a reservoir."
The article notes: "On the seventh floor of the University of Calgary's Library Tower, 12 men and women are quietly attracting worldwide attention for their growing expertise in petroleum research. The two-year-old Computer Modelling Group, sponsored by the university and the Alberta and federal governments, has already outgrown local computer capacity in its development of computer programs to aid oil recovery. It has been relying upon long-distance connections to Toronto computers. But as even those become inadequate, the group has been preparing links to a giant Kansas City computer. Meanwhile, the world scientific community has already noted the young organization's work. Scientists from the group will present a paper in September to the World Petroleum Congress in Romania and four papers later that same month to the annual meeting of U.S. petroleum engineers in Las Vegas. Despite their small numbers, the group is one of the largest in the specialized field of using computers to simulate the effect of various methods of drawing oil from reservoirs."
Keep there is clear coverage in at least two existing sources (edge and gi.biz) about the founding of the company that meet the independence of NCORP. That might be tied to talking about Outlast but that's expected for a developer that has focused on one series since founding. Masem (t) 21:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I was wondering as the Edge article on the page is no where near meeting WP:ORGCRIT. The gi.biz is an industry publication so while it meets ORGCRIT, it is still not enough and not that strong of a reference to meet NCORP standards. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It appears their sole product, the Outlast series, would be more notable. Could this be retooled into a series article? IgelRM (talk) 11:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article that was previously soft-deleted at AFD due to limited participation, and was then WP:REFUNDed following a request by its creator, but has not actually seen any further improvement to actually address the reasons why it was deleted in the first place: it's still not properly referenced as passing Wikipedia inclusion criteria for this type of topic. Things like this might be valid article topics if they were well-referenced, but are not "inherently" notable just because they exist -- but except for one "article" (really just a reprint of a press release) in Canadian Architect magazine, this is otherwise still referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as content self-published by the city and content self-published by the Ontario Association of Architects, with not a single new source having been added since the refund to strengthen its notability at all. We already have articles about many of the individual buildings involved here, which can already cover off virtually any content we would actually need about this, but the "master plan" itself would need much better sourcing than this to become notable enough for its own standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, it never went anywhere... [12]. I can confirm the Superstack is being torn down (I have family in Sudbury, so hear about it from time to time), but this "master plan" was really only ever a big idea. Downtown still looks exactly the same as it did before the Plan happened, and nothing has happened since it was "dusted off" in the article above. If you want to add a few lines to the main Sudbury article, that's fine... Ten plus years on, this thing never happened, so I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already at AFD before, not eligible for Soft Deletion again. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!17:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
