Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Canada

Canada

Canada articles for deletion

Dan Gibson (author)

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

There is almost nothing (in secondary RS) about this author (presumably a historian), with most of the article dedicated to their fringe theory (their so-called "Petra thesis") M.Bitton (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. M.Bitton (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I found one published book review [1] and one published critique of his work [2]. It's not enough for WP:AUTHOR for me but with a few more like those he might be notable as a fringe theorist. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, and Islam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:19, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "The person's work has: (c) won significant critical attention" I think this can be said. The historians David A. King, Michael Lecker, Daniel C. Waugh have all commented on his work, King repeatedly. [3][4][5][6][7] The Computer Scientist Peter Harremoës has referenced him [8] Also there quite a few Islamic websites with comments on this: [9][10][11][12][13]. Azrl26 (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2025 (UTC) — Azrl26 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The first three may suffice. A colleague of his mentioning him is pointless and you should know that, as are the Muslim websites. Doug Weller talk 07:48, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harremoës' paper was only published in Entropy, an MDPI journal, so it shouldn't be counted as a reliable source. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if all other scholars uniformly disagree, then maybe you're wrong. Bearian (talk) 07:33, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Masasa Moyo

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

Actress who appears to have appeared in several roles, but they were all minor. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:18, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notify anyone because the creator and regular editors were either sock-blocked or haven't been on Wikipedia in almost twenty years. 02:21, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:42, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Video games, and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:42, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Go D. Usopp (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage, no major roles. Edit: Actually 1 starring role: Celebrity Deathmatch season 5 & 6 but not enough for WP:NACTOR. --Mika1h (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky Huang

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

Unreferenced WP:BLP of an actress with no clear evidence of passing WP:NACTOR. As always, an actress is not automatically entitled to have an article just because there's a list of performances in it, and instead we have to see evidence of WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about her and her performances to deem her notable.
This is completely unreferenced, however, and the roles it lists were almost entirely supporting or bit parts rather than major starring roles — in either film or television, the only clear leading role named here is a short film rather than a feature or a television series, and the stage roles can't exactly be notability-making ones if they're so poorly sourceable that you're stuck denoting them solely as "lead vs. ensemble" and can't even name the specific characters she played.
Even on a ProQuest search, I'm finding virtually no useful sourcing that could be added: almost every hit I get is for either a real estate broker or a customer in a bridal shop, neither of whom can be verified as the same person as this at all, and the only hits I get that are clearly for an actress are glancing namechecks of her existence in theatrical calendar listings and an article about a photographer she once posed for rather than substantive coverage about her or any of her performances in anything.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass GNG on much better sourcing than I've been able to locate. Bearcat (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anne-Marie Losique

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

nn Canadian TV producer --Altenmann >talk 21:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, Women, Television, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:12, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete have yet to find any SIGCOV for the subject.Lorraine Crane (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only thing I can find SIGCOV for her is a WP:BLP1E event related to a Ben Affleck interview in 2004, and again in 2017 when the incident went viral again. Apparently the video is quite controversial and goes viral when it resurfaces. She is the interviewer and has defended him after it was taken out of context. Curiously there is nothing in the article that makes note of this event. Nayyn (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rackspace Technology

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

Julian in LA (talk · contribs) attempted to nominate this article for deletion, but wound up sending the talk page to AfD instead. Their rationale follows:

fails WP:COMPANY#Primary criteria
— User:Julian in LA 18:37, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

They previously attempted to PROD this with the same rationale, but after getting a seconding it was declined due to the article's sourcing. I offer no opinion or comment on that or anything else; I am merely procedurally nominating an article that had its talk page nominated instead. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should add that Julian in LA gives further elaboration on their opinion of the sources on the talk page. (Again, I am neutral and offer no opinion of my own.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, China, Hong Kong, India, Netherlands, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Texas, and Virginia. Netherzone (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick look at google scholar found an entire chapter on the company in Beginning PostgreSQL on the Cloud : Simplifying Database As a Service on Cloud Platforms (2018). And articles like this[14] about a service outage and this [15] about the company's future were already in the article. And articles like Rackspace Hires Morgan Stanley to Help Evaluate Options [16] round out the picture that this is a significant market player.
I've looked at the talk page analysis and am still puzzled as to the logic behind this nomination. I would encourage @Julian in LA to spend time participating in NCORP/NORG AfD's before attempting further nominations. Oblivy (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was about to complain about Netherzone adding this to the deletion sorting lists of every country where the company has an office, but hey, look, they get sigcov here too [17][18][19]. So, thanks Netherzone! Toadspike [Talk] 07:40, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article isn't perfect, but the large list of references appears to meet WP:SIGCOV. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Parabole (video game developer)

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

This game developer does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NGAME per the sources cited and WP:BEFORE to be a stand alone article, it should be redirected Kona (video game) one of its games Ednabrenze (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Canada. Ednabrenze (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kona (video game), WP:NCORP failure. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:27, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

William Graif

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

This came up at WP:COIN, where there has been argument also over whether the subject is notable or not. Bringing here to get a clear consensus. I am personally a weak delete: the source I see are all either glancing mentions or human interest reporting of the sort that I do not think adds much to notability. I am influenced by WP:TNT: this overweight article has little to do with what an eventual article on the subject would look like. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Games, Canada, and New York. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article appears to be well referenced on its surface, but upon further investigation they are very much lacking. The sources marked US Chess are actually from the US Chess Federation, whereas reading US Chess initially implied to me it was some sort of news publication - the rest appear to be largely passing mentions, or routine coverage and scoreboards. I also concur with the nominator that TNT bears some weight here. I'd be interested to hear the opinion of a chess editor but from my point of view there's not much to build an article on. MediaKyle (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can confirm the assessment of MediaKyle that the cited sources are largely passing mentions, coverage by local news outlets of "local boy does good", and crosstables. The edit history shows that the whole article was written by Chessy12, whose user page declares a conflict of interest over the article. In other words, the article is an WP:Autobiography. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For reasons I explained at WP:COIN. Not going to pour any more gasoline on the fire here. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No indication of notability. JohnMizuki (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Article meets WP:GNG and WP:NCHESS. — Chessy12 (talk) 05:13, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep William Graif has focused on a niche aspect in chess called gambits. he has dedicated countless hours researching, publishing see on linktree unfortunately Wikipedia won't let me link to it linktr.ee/wgraif. and even developing his own gambits he leads a small but growing community of gambit aficionados on several platforms including discord https://discord.com/channels/1032151596190158949/1032151597951750147 he has a very active YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/@GambitMan where he features his own games and also the games of his subscribers. All the info in the article as far as i can tell is factual and I see No reason to delete.

Jarcher12 (talk) 04:56, 5 July 2025 (UTC)— Jarcher12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The draft meets WP:GNG and the sport-specific WP:NCHESS tests. Multiple independent, reliable outlets have provided significant, in-depth coverage of William Graif for decades.

Significant coverage (chronological):

- Scarsdale Inquirer "Whiz Kid!" front-page feature on young chess prodigy and early life (Aug 29, 2008)

(this publication also featured Graif+Edgemont in 2018, and his individual Canadian Junior Championship in 2019)

- MLB.com national human-interest story on friendship with pitcher, discussing National Master titled attained at age 14 (Oct 18, 2015)

- Daily News discussing back-to-back NY State High School Championships, concluding "Edgemont owes much of its success to player/coach William Graif", article also quotes Graif extensively (Mar 22, 2018)

- The Chicago Maroon three long-form sports pieces (May 2021, Nov 2021, Mar 2022) discussing on-campus impact, FM title, European tour, and team victories

- Bloomberg News business feature on 2024 World Corporate Chess Championships, quoting Graif and his board-one role (Jun 18, 2024)

- Empire Chess Magazine Autumn-2024 cover story with interview and annotated games after NY State title (Oct 7, 2024)

- Uptown Radio 7.5-minute audio on Chessboxing -- covering Graif's victory and his preparation for 2025 World Championships -- as well as cultural impact (May 16, 2025)

These sources alone provide sustained, non-trivial coverage (whole articles, audio segments, magazine coverage) across at least ten years (2015-2025) in mainstream, regional, and specialist outlets -- far beyond "passing mentions" and easily clearing the "significant coverage" bar.

Comparable or lower-titled players with kept pages (demonstrates consistent application of the same policies, not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS):

- FM James H. Canty III -- streamer (Graif also streamer+YouTuber with 10k subscribers

- FM Tanitoluwa Emmanuel "Tani" Adewumi -- prodigy coverage

- FM Joshua Colas -- mainly scholastic titles, also is IM-elect

- WFM Alexandra Valeria Botez -- lower title, but extensive media presence

Each kept due to sustained RS coverage, illustrating consistent application of GNG for FIDE Masters. Notability turns on the depth of independent reliable coverage, and rating alone is irrelevant per WP:NCHESS, which clearly states that GNG is paramount. As for other concerns, COI or overweight prose is addressed by normal editing, not deletion (see WP:TNT §KEEP). Expanded below.

(WP:NCHESS #3 mentions "has won a national or continental championship or women's championship", of which Graif has four age-based)

Common SPORTSBIO triggers:

- "Significant national titles": 146th New York State Champion (2024), Canadian Junior U20 Champion (2019), US 6th Grade National Champion (2011), US 3rd Grade National Champion (2008), Canadian Youth U10 National Champion (2008) [source: tournament cross-tables linked in article, plus media coverage]

- "International representation": officially selected for Team USA at the 2025 World Chessboxing Championships [source: Uptown Radio]

COI / weight: I understand and appreciate the concerns about the language used in the article, but per WP:TNT section ~~KEEP~~, the fix for an over-long COI draft about a notable subject is trimming, not deletion, and am happy to help, for instance:

– prune puffery

– condense routine scholastic crosstables

– add page/episode numbers to the RS above

Conclusion: With multiple, independent RS giving in-depth coverage and national titles plus international selection, Graif is clearly a very notable figure stemming from the chess community. We are talking about the current New York State Chess Champion (noting that this is an extremely prestigious title: the longest-running annual chess tournament in the world according to NYSCA, since the 1870s, Graif is the 146th Champion, a list which includes some of the greatest chess players of all time).

Result: William Graif plainly clears GNG and NCHESS. ~~Keep~~ and tag for cleanup. Chessy12 (talk) 05:13, 4 July 2025 (UTC)— Chessy12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

— Duplicate !vote: Chessy12 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]

Erixon Kabera

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

Death alone does not make someone notable. It is a case of WP:BIO1E - The9Man ^Talk 10:07, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^Talk 10:07, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rwanda-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The shooting might be notable, the individual mentioned here is very routine. Outside of the death, there is no coverage about him...Even the shooting was rather recent, I'm not sure it meets notability at this time. Rather routine event, no criminal charges laid. The investigation found no wrong-doing, so there isn't really much else to show notability. Tragic even, but not quite notable for our standards. Oaktree b (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin McGarry (actor)

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of an actor, not properly referenced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, actors are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they've had acting roles -- the notability test doesn't reside in listing acting roles, it resides in the quality and depth and volume of WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage that can be shown about him and his performances to support the article with.
But this is referenced principally to directory entries, podcast interviews, one of those garbage "celebrity net worth" PR profiles and content on the self-published production website of the show that constitutes his most potentially notable role, none of which is support for notability at all.
What there is for proper media coverage is one People magazine article that's focusing on his wedding rather than on the significance of his acting, an article in Us Weekly (which per WP:RSP is considered less reliable than People, and thus doesn't count as a strong GNG builder) that's doing the exact same thing, and a piece of "local guy does stuff" in the community news hyperlocal of his own hometown -- which doesn't add up to enough coverage to get him over GNG by itself if the article's sourcing is 85 per cent unreliable junk otherwise.
Just having been in television shows and films is not an automatic notability freebie without significantly better sourcing than this. Also there may be a WP:COI here, as the article was created by an WP:SPA with no history of contributing on any other topic. Bearcat (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Probably have enough for a basic article. He seems to be in a few popular tv shows. [20], [21], [22]. Enough for at least a basic article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I believe this article should be kept. Kevin McGarry is a notable Canadian actor best known for major roles on series like When Calls the Heart and Heartland, as well as in Hallmark Channel films. The article includes multiple reliable secondary sources, including Entertainment Tonight, Good Housekeeping, TV Insider, and Hallmark Channel. He meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria for actors through multiple significant roles and national media coverage. SU5MSJ (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Hallmark Channel's own self-published website about itself is not reliable or WP:GNG-building sourcing for the purposes of establishing the notability of an actor in Hallmark Channel programming, because it isn't independent coverage from a third party. TV Insider is a directory entry, not reliable coverage in GNG-building media or books. The Good Housekeeping and Entertainment Tonight sources you added, in an incorrect format that couldn't stay in the article, were both dead links that didn't lead to the content that you claimed they were leading to, but to "page not found" errors — and according to the headlines, neither of them appeared to be about Kevin McGarry, since they both pertained to something or somebody else, so even if they could be replaced with correct links they still wouldn't ensure Kevin McGarry's notability just because his name was in them. We're not looking for just any source you can find with his name in it, we're looking for sources that represent substantive coverage, written by journalists, in which Kevin McGarry is the primary subject of the source. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Petrov (science communicator)

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

No indication of notability. Having an asteroid named after him isn't necessarily notable, and there's no indication that subject warrants a standalone article. Fails WP:NJOURNALIST. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy, Mathematics, and Canada. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Journalism, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WPGNG Andh Namazi (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I came here hoping desperately I could keep, because science communication matters. But the article is supported by only two sources, an imdb and an asteroid database. Google doesn't find anything that's not self-generated, but actually finds a lot of other Anton Petrovs in science, which makes things confusing. Even worse, the imdb site has two Anton Petrov's, one with the biography, but the other one[23] linked to the TV series on cosmology. This is probably just a mess-up of duplicate entries, but we can't really have articles based on (1) a single autobiography (self-published) - with no independent referencing - where (2) there's an element of doubt about who the article's about anyway. And the research paper doesn't help because it was a master's thesis, which is a routine part of an education, not peer-reviewed literature. Elemimele (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of many people with an online presence, but without sufficient references about them. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Compare Sabrina Cruz. Bearian (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and also comments above. A clear case. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:38, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above comments. Surayeproject3 (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TOOSOON. I've been watching his channel lately, he is informative (and charming in the way he mumbles). But an article will have to wait until he catches on. Abductive (reasoning) 10:11, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Power

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

No notable independent wrestler. Worked mainly on independent level. Sources are WP:ROUTINE results of events, no in-deep coverage about her. A search shows only more ROUTINE events. [24] HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Wrestling, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ : The Slam Sports article is fine (Canoe was a news source at the time), the Cape Breton article below it is rather local. I'd count those as maybe 1.5 sources. I tried to find more, no sourcing that I can find. With at least one more RS, I'd probably give this a weak keep. Just not enough at this time for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. In addition to the two sources noted above by Oaktree, here is another from the Windsor Star ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep The second source above from the Windsor Star shows notability. Covered in three different media from across Canada. Oaktree b (talk) 22:07, 29 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!} 21:06, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per above. Svartner (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Star Books

AfDs for this article:

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

Three years have passed since a refund following a soft delete. This article still does not meet NCORP guidelines. Dege31 (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Business, Companies, and Canada. Dege31 (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: GNG pass. Discussed in multiple published works, including:

The Perilous Trade: Book Publishing in Canada, 1946-2006 (2012)
Publishing Lives: Interviews with Independent Book Publishers in the Pacific Northwest and British Columbia (1996)
The Globe and Mail, "New Star Books to wind down, publisher cites BC Arts Council funding issues", 29 January 2025
Publishers Weekly, "Vancouver’s New Star Books Ceases Acquisitions", 29 January 2025
Quill and Quire, "New Star Books to close" 16 January 2025 (Quill & Quire)

More can likely be found in the depths of Newspapers.com. MediaKyle (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability concerns:

PW and Q&Q are trade news, for which NCORP clarifies that a higher standard is needed to establish independent coverage.

The GM article is primarily about the BC Arts Council.

Publishing Lives, as the title indicates, is a primary source with little commentary, whilst NCORP requires secondary sources.

There is something a little more substantial in the Perilous Trade, but out of the one to two pages, New Star is covered along with other publishers, and is not exclusively emphasised. Dege31 (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, PL, and TPT, are already included in the article. Dege31 (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Here's a few more just for good measure:

A New Star is rising in publishing, The Vancouver Sun
Smaller publishers land on BC Book Prizes shortlist, The Vancouver Sun
Publishers still suffer Chapters fallout, The Vancouver Sun
Benefit to help New Star Books repair after firebombing, The Georgia Straight (there is also 4 other news articles covering the arson event cited in the article)

The publisher has been around for a long time, and not only been the subject of specific coverage on numerous occasions over the years, but was also written about in-depth in at least two books, which is not trivial. All of these things put together makes this a GNG pass. Besides all that, articles about notable publishers are of encyclopedic value. MediaKyle (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the two books- one is a primary source, the other one is on the edge of significant coverage. The first one is not an NCORP valid source. The second one maybe passes (I'll leave it to the discretion of others who will participate in the discussion), although it isn't exactly in-depth.

Writing about the arson is primarily something that gives notability to the event, not the publisher. A local incident, which is not NCORP significant coverage.

Source 2. Smaller publishers- brief mention of non-notable prize - not NCORP significant coverage.

Source 3. Publishers still- two statistical sentences - not NCORP significant coverage.

Source 1. A New Star is rising- this article is mostly about books published by New Star. This is points to the book's notability, and the corporation does not inherit this notability. The few paragraphs that are about New Star are either primary, or largely routine. In fact, I think this source might be an advertisement (sure looks like it, especially given its placement next to the section at the bottom) which would make it a fail of NCORP on multiple levels, but I don't at the moment have newspapers.com access.

My suggestion would be the creation of an article about Canadian small press publishing, where this subject would also be incorporated. Dege31 (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Youssef El Deeb

AfDs for this article:

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

Was nominated for deletion by Bearcat, part of their rationale was, "WP:BLP of a media entrepreneur, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for media figures. As always, founders of television channels are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability -- but this is referenced entirely to a mixture of primary sources and glancing namechecks of the subject's existence in coverage about other things, with no evidence shown at all of any GNG-worthy coverage with him as its subject." Although re-written, this still applies. The second part of Bearcat's rationale dealt with COI editing, which has only been exacerbated by the most recent edits of a blatant COI/UPE editor. I also agree with Bearian's assessment in the prior AfD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Egypt, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per Wikipedia guidelines requiring comments to originate with a human. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep – This subject meets the criteria of WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Youssef El Deeb is not simply a "founder"; he is a significant media figure in the Arab world. His creation of Fatafeat TV — later acquired by Discovery — is a landmark event in Arab media, widely covered in independent and reliable sources such as Deadline, The Hollywood Reporter, and BroadcastPro ME (not primary or promotional outlets). He also held senior executive roles at MBC and Rotana, and his creative work in film and TV has been recognized with awards — further reinforcing his notability under WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENT. The current version of the article uses multiple independent and significant sources that focus on El Deeb himself, not just passing mentions. This satisfies the sourcing standard under GNG. The deletion rationale cites past versions, but the article has been substantially rewritten and resourced. The presence of COI/UPE concerns is not, in itself, grounds for deletion — per WP:NOTCLEAN, what matters is whether the article now meets policy. It does. Editors are welcome to continue improving neutrality or trimming promotional tone, but deletion would discard verifiable coverage of a genuinely notable figure in Arab media. ~~~~ Vlodiker Chimok (talk) 11:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the above editor is either a COI or UPE editor.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an accusation you should make without evidence, and goes against good-faith discussion. Ike Lek (talk) 06:38, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: the above reply is LLM-generated and the arguments within likely unsound. The formatting and tone are typical of LLM use, and there is even an obvious hallucination in the form of the non-existent WP:NOTCLEAN. I would normally collapse such comments per WP:AITALK, but do not wish to interfere with their vote. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and collapsed them. WP:TPG, including AITALK, applies everywhere we discuss things (including, as explicitly mentioned, deletion discussions). This particular user also has obvious LLM-generated comments on their talk page. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:45, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. While this is a reliable source, I had to scroll through all 7 paragraphs and multiple ads to find the producer mentioned as a literal afterthought. The rest of the sources are less than reliable or more passing mentions. There's a myth about producers that they are rare, creative performers of some kind. They're business people; some are notable, most are not. I feel I have to repeat myself that we are not LinkedIn. Bearian (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Only passing mentions from press releases. Highly promotional. WP is not LinkedIn. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 16:07, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per Wikipedia guidelines requiring comments to originate with a human. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep – The deletion arguments rely on outdated or incorrect information. Youssef El Deeb is a notable figure in Arab media, having founded Fatafeat TV, sold to Discovery, and produced award-winning films. Multiple independent, reliable sources focus specifically on him. Claims of promotional tone or COI editing do not justify deletion. If there are issues, they should be fixed by neutral editing, not removal. The this is not Linkedin argument ignores real-world impact and reliable coverage. Deletion would erase a notable media personality with clear public recognition. Please evaluate the article based on verifiable facts and reliable sources, not on assumptions or editor speculation. Vlodiker Chimok (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Preceding !vote struck as duplicate !vote. Leaving the rest as comments.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:35, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Cannot find significant coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources, fails WP:NBASIC. It is likely that only a detailed explanation of Wikipedia's WP:NOTCLEAN policy and how it applies to this article could change my vote from "Delete" to "Keep". Concerning arguments about which properties the subject has been involved in, to quote from WP:INHERITORG: "An organization may be notable, but individual members (or groups of members) do not "inherit" notability due to their membership." Notability is not inherited here, and is not established otherwise. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTFB is not a throwaway argument or rule. It's basic to what we are and what we are not. We are an encyclopedia, which requires all sorts of basic rules, created by disinterested individuals working together, to create a neutral point of view article, under the umbrella of a charity, rather than social media, which is created by the subject, employees, intern, or fans, for the purpose of promoting the subject, or alternatively as conspicuous consumption of entertainment. We are not throwing away people either: every human is important in their own way; however, not everyone had enduring notability. Bearian (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Sorry for the confusion, folks, but I intended to reply to Vlodiker Chimok. Bearian (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is not the kind of independent, significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability of this person per WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME nor WP:GNG. Business people - including media entrepreneurs - do not inherit notability from their affiliations. I do agree that the COI is problematic and given the history of the article; the most recent creator seems to be connected to the subject per the photo they shot of the person. While that is not in and of itself reason for deletion, it indicates that promotional editing is quite possibly occurring, which may involve UPE. Netherzone (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BattleGoat Studios

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Originally made by a WP:SPA, suggesting it is WP:PROMO that has survived very long for some reason. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:39, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:39, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the several articles on the games, Supreme Ruler might be fitting for a game series article. IgelRM (talk) 16:50, 30 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!} 05:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Freebird Games

AfDs for this article:

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

I am not convinced Freebird Games passes WP:NCORP. It has a dearth of coverage about the studio itself that isn't just about the To the Moon series, which doesn't have similar notability issues.

I do believe that Kan Gao, the games' mostly solo dev, is independently notable, per WP:NARTIST and various sources. [25] [26] However, he is likely notable under his real name for a biography article, not under the studio name for a company article. Thus, it would require a rewrite and has no bearing on this page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect How about RPG Maker? I moved all of the informations from Freebird Games wikipedia article into RPG Maker rather than deletion. GeniusTaker (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it were redirected to RPG Maker, it feels like it would run afoul of WP:SURPRISE. While To the Moon would be a better target, he also made numerous other games. So it would be better to delete to let the search function do its job, unless a page on Kan Gao were made. If you want to "rescue" the info, I'd suggest making said page using the aforementioned sources, and you could likely merge some of this into it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:12, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, technically, I already "rescue" the info. That'll be important is to delete or merge the article before I'll redirect the page into RPG Maker until Kan Gao appears as a Wikipedia page with reliable sources. GeniusTaker (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, if Freebied Games is virtually the brand of Kan Gao, would it not be appropriate to rename and repurpose the article instead? IgelRM (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be guaranteed that someone will actually do that after the discussion is concluded. It's better to start a new article at Kan Gao if you wish to transfer the information, then redirecting there would be a valid WP:ATD. Changing the scope of the article would also be a problem if one day Freebird Games did become independently notable of the creator. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure if this is relevant to WP:NCORP but Kan Gao is not the series "mostly solo dev" as seen here https://freebirdgames.com/about/ on the companies website. Falak89 (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not, but the listing also doesn't show the devs' relative workload. Regardless, even if he isn't the main developer, it doesn't change my point. Gao is notable, the company isn't. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:08, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not relevant for NCORP. I might have exaggerated but I think a conversion would still be possible. IgelRM (talk) 12:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Allfather (Benison) (talk) 04:32, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Visual Language Interpreters of Canada

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

Declined prod. The added source is just a 1 quote from the president of CASLI. Fails WP:ORG for lack of SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I greatly improved the article. This association is the national, non-profit certifying body for professional American Sign Language-English, Quebec Sign Language-French interpreters in Canada. It's been active since 1979 and provides a crucial service which is notable. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 17:06, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3 of the added sources are its own website and primary. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Significant coverage has now been demonstrated spanning roughly four and a half decades, from publications across the country. This organization is a clear GNG pass, and more sources are likely to be found from here. MediaKyle (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to assess source depth and independence
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Student Exchange

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

The overly promo tone of this doesn't help. I've tried Gbooks, Scholar and a News search, other than routine mentions (naming a president, xyz student participating), I can't find anything about this org. Sounds like a wonderful opportunity, but sourcing is sparse. The article only has primary sources at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- though I would agree with the Nom about the article needing some rewrite to be more neutral in tone, however the subject/concept of the article is potentially notable, though more as a feature implemented as a result of agreements /collaborations between universties and colleges. as can be seen with a few samples like 1 ,2 , 3 ,perhaps it can be made as a redirect as a feature/programme under existing notable US colleges and universities.Lorraine Crane (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No redirect target specified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is practically a brochure, and I'm unsure of a suitable redirect target. It doesn't appear that there's anything here one couldn't get on the organization's own website, anyways. I took a look to see if there was any coverage and couldn't find anything, although if there was anything out there it's probably buried amidst news about immigration law. MediaKyle (talk) 11:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What redirect target did you have in mind, Lorraine Crane?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:35, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Canada

Canada

Canada articles for deletion

Dan Gibson (author)

Masasa Moyo

Vicky Huang

Anne-Marie Losique

Rackspace Technology

Parabole (video game developer)

William Graif

Erixon Kabera

Kevin McGarry (actor)

Anton Petrov (science communicator)

Catherine Power

New Star Books

Youssef El Deeb

BattleGoat Studios

Freebird Games

Association of Visual Language Interpreters of Canada

National Student Exchange

Canada proposed deletions

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