Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Canada#By province

Canada

Canada articles for deletion

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. [1] [2] 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]

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]

Literary Translators' Association of Canada

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

Declined prod. 1 added source is just its own website. The other source is rather routine coverage of awarding a prize. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Organizations, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The association is discussed in-depth in Writing Between the Lines: Portraits of Canadian Anglophone Translators (2006), and receives regular coverage in CBC News, Quill & Quire, and other national publications for the award it confers. The organization has been around for roughly 50 years and more coverage surely exists in the depths of Newspapers.com. If nothing else, this could simply be merged and redirected to Canadian literature as an alternative to deletion. MediaKyle (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter New

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominating per request here by IP editor show states - "The last AfD for this subject was closed as soft delete which was treated as an expired PROD. recently the soft delete was challenged by user User:124.104.175.128 and was accepted and moved back into mainspace by an administrator despite there being zero usable sources. The IP user then removed the notability tag without a reason and made no improvements to the article. This leads me to believe WP:COI as the request for undeletion was the first edit the user ever made. Requesting an AfD. 2600:1011:B037:C57F:2834:79AD:326B:D5B6 (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)" CNMall41 (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Television, Comics and animation, and Canada. CNMall41 (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources in the article don't cut it and I was unable to find anything demonstrating WP:GNG or meeting WP:NACTOR in searches. TarnishedPath^talk 04:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Toadspike and @Madeleine961 as participants in the previous AFD. TarnishedPath^talk 04:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only real source cited, the Celluloid Social Club, doesn't say more about him than his name and some past roles. A sentence fragment. This is not sigcov. Toadspike [Talk] 06:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per TarnishedPath and Toadspike. Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 06:40, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Emily.Owl 124.104.175.128 (talk) 06:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All minor roles, no WP:SIGCOV in refs, fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per last AfD. I believe this can be closed per WP:SNOW. Madeleine (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above. If you find evidence that he's a cult figure amongst the Brony crowd, ping me. Bearian (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did a few hours of independent research and was unable to find any WP:SIGCOV to satisfy WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Claim to notability would be stronger if there was evidence of RS SIGCOV to meet notability requirements. ZachH007 (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2033 in rail transport

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

A single event which may well happen in a different year eventually. WP:CRYSTAL Fram (talk) 10:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, Lists, and Canada. Fram (talk) 10:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:Crystal and WP:TOOSOON Servite et contribuere (talk) 13:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Also, lists with one entry are completely pointless. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One event, likely TOOSOON for it to be listed anyway. The list wouldn't be helpful as it stands. Oaktree b (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Notaoffensivename (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete case of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Azuredivay (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Callins

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

WP:BLP of an actor, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NACTOR. As always, NACTOR is not automatically passed just because an article lists roles -- the notability test is in the reception of WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about them and their performances, not just the list of performances per se. But the footnotes here are almost all glancing namechecks of his existence in sources that aren't about him in any non-trivial sense, and the only one that says more than two words about Benjamin Callins is an unreliable site that doesn't count toward GNG at all (and even the glancing namechecks aren't all from reliable or notability-building sources either, as for example one of them is just a film festival's self-published program calendar).
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he has a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it, but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 21 June 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) 21:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: His name is mentioned in articles about the Dragon Prince, but nothing extensive. There just isn't independent sourcing about this person to show notability. Sourcing in the article is about the series, not this person. Oaktree b (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Dragon Prince: Appears to fail both GNG and NACTOR. Seems TOOSOON. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. Not notable. Dualpendel (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dualpendel (talk • contribs) 16:20, 24 June 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]

Burnaby Central in the 2025 Canadian federal election

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not every riding needs a standalone article detailing the context of the election and it's not unprecedented that party leaders lose their seat. Both the Carleton and Terrebonne articles exist because of their more unique features due to the potential impact of the Longest Ballot Committee and the ongoing court case to have a by-election. Article also seems to be based upon one CBC News article detailing the internal functionings of the NDP campaign, while other sources are rather generic in the information they provide. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Events, Politics, and Canada. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to pipe in, the Carleton article is notable not just because of the LBC, but because of Poilievre losing it, and the associated news coverage behind that (and before the election, when it looked like the race was getting closer). -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article was never finished (in my opinion), I was working on it as a draft, and another user moved it to the main space before I thought it was ready to be completed. If this article doesn’t meet the criteria to exist on the main space, I would appreciate it if it was moved back to the draft space rather than being deleted until I can add more content and sources demonstrating its notability. RedBlueGreen93 15:51, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per RedBlueGreen Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:05, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Burnaby Central. This is one of the few times that I'll disagree with my friend and colleague Earl Andrew. While the article as it stands seems to be well-sourced, I would argue that it would be better suited as a section within the existing article for the riding. Most riding level articles (with the exception of the ones that Earl Andrew has personally curated) are lacking in prose detail election-to-election, instead being databases for election results (and sometimes information on geographic boundaries). If editors feel that information about Singh and Poilievre's losses (and the tight races in Terrebonne) warrant more coverage than in the article about the election and on S and P's personal articles, then it should be added to the article about the riding where voters actually made the choice. Just my .02 Bkissin (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, just to be clear, I haven't commented on whether or not this article should be deleted or not; my only comment here was on the Carleton in the 2025 Canadian federal election article, as I wanted to clarify that it's notability extends beyond the LBC. Do you feel that it should be deleted as well? -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...After re-reading your comment, I suppose you do think so. Well, agree to disagree. I know we shouldn't use WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST, but I figured if there were constituency election articles for the UK (e.g. Islington North in the 2024 United Kingdom general election) and the US, why not Canada as well? I think at the very least, it makes sense for Carleton, due to the amount of coverage it received. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per RedBlueGreen - the article is not finished. Moondragon21 (Talk) :) 14:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Ssewali

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

No indication of notability, and virtually no coverage in reliable sources. All the sources appear to be paid placements originating from a PR/SEO campaign in mid-2022. Yuvaank (talk) 04:24, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Uganda, and Canada. Yuvaank (talk) 04:24, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreeing with the nominator, the sources lack reliability. A thorough evaluation of the sources is necessary. Zuck28 (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Agree per nom.--FreaksIn 15:33, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG Robertjamal12 ~🔔 17:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David E. Constable

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

Prior AfD in 2009 was closed as unanimous delete. Page was re-created in 2016. However, none of the citations on the page, nor any I could find, are the types of in-depth profiles in mainstream publications Wikipedia requires. COI Disclosure: I work for Mr. Constable's employer Fluor. My initial intention was to update and improve the page, before I learned that this may violate Wikipedia's rules, since he likely doesn't qualify for a page in the first place. MrKevinGoddard (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:ANYBIO. This appears to be a bio of someone whose employment history was being appointed to given positions, eventually becoming the CEO, and yet another later was appointed chairman and chief executive officer. His background is unknown, and no indication of any accomplishments. — Maile (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Gsearch is primary links to his employer then various salary websites. Gnews is only six links about his promotion. None of which are helpful to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found it strange that an employee of the company wants this deleted and wonder if there are ulterior motives here. Per my analysis subject is notable and has enough news coverage. Besides citations already listed on the article, there are more that come up in Google news such as 1, 2 and 3.Mysecretgarden (talk) 08:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I share your possible concerns about the nomination, but these don't appear to be independent of the press release/announcement of appointment. I think Oaktree b described these above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More likely updating who the executives are. Per fluor-management-team it looks like Constable is no longer with this company. Take Fluor out of this article, and there is nothing notable about David E. Constable. — Maile (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm only finding articles about him becoming and then leaving CEO positions. Looks like routine reporting parroting press releases. Not enough for WP:GNG. TarnishedPath^talk 10:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ulterior motive or no, the GNG isn't met. Of Mysecretgarden's sources, the first one contains two or three sentences about Constable, announcing the appointment. The rest is quotes or the company's financials. The second is better, but I'm not certain that it's sigcov. The third again has two sentences of coverage about him (in the bullet points at the top); the rest is just quotes and information about the company unrelated to Constable. I don't think the citations in the article, also mostly routine CEO announcements with no info about him and one of which is a company website, are independent sigcov either. Toadspike [Talk] 13:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above comments. Fails WP:GNG, among other issues. Go4thProsper (talk) 10:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article subject doesn’t satisfy notability requirements per GNG, also per WP:ANYBIO. ZachH007 (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously fails WP:ANYBIO. And also needs rewriting following proper formats.--FreaksIn 13:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. If more sources can be supplied to support notability, let me know. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Western Canada Wilderness Committee

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organizations, Education, Environment, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but it's in need of a total rewrite, which I'm happy to help with once this AfD is over, because it is currently written as though it were the organization's website and has a large WP:COI problem. There are a very large number of sources in Proquest going back over 30 years; this group has done a lot. You can get proquest access through The Wikipedia Library; highly recommended. FalconK (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great recommendation. I had never heard of The Wikipedia Library before this, and I was recently trying quite hard to get access to JSTOR. -- Fyrael (talk) 03:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Participants are encouraged to remove any COI or unsourced material while the AfD is still open, reducing it to a stub if necessary, which would make it easier to adjudicate this case based on the notability of its subject rather than the quality of the content.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lip Service (2000 film)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Canada, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hard keep: This page may not seem as notable at this moment, although there many avenues through which the page could be made more notable. Deleting or erasing this article would mean a serious disaster from which my career would never really recover, not mentioning severe embarrassment and hard insults toward me which are undeserved. Angela Kate Maureen Pears 14:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with your career, we need sourcing about the film in order to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did find a Variety review by one of their known staff writers, as well as an article announcing that the film was to be made. I did see this short mention in a volume of TV Guide, but it looks to be a mention of a TV interview so that would probably be seen as a primary source?

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

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

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

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

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

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Gallo, Phil (2000-07-12). "Out of Sync". Variety. Archived from the original on 2025-06-16. Retrieved 2025-06-16.
  The review provides 483 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "VH1 tackles a Wash-like saga in its first top-to-bottom fictional telepic, “Out of Sync,” a joke-free “music-filled comedy” that mindlessly romps through the cliches of soap operas, the record industry and network movies of the week. ... Wuhrer, the former MTV veejay who has become actress most likely to be nude in a straight-to-video pic, is an annoying bimbo with a constant jiggle. Camera takes careful aim to maximize body shots over any dramatic connection the character may make with the story. Rest of the acting is perfunctory. Music is catchy at times."
2. Justin, Neal (2000-07-12). "FYI - Internet moving tips". Minnesota Star Tribune. Archived from the original on 2025-06-16. Retrieved 2025-06-16.
  The review provides 119 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "Clothes are also not a priority for Sunni (Kari Wuhrer), the would-be rock starlet in "Out of Sync," (Two and a half out of four stars, 8 p.m. today, VH1). She'll do anything to make it big - flashing the record producer, licking peanut butter off his trophy, sucking lime juice off a male model's belly. What makes this more than a Carmen Electra impression is Wuhrer, a former MTV personality who smartly satirizes the pop bimbette. She doesn't hesitate to pretend to have a great voice, even though she's "borrowing" from a "plain" housewife (Gail O'Grady, who's too attractive to be portraying an unmarketable artist). VH1 gently skewers itself with considerable success in this female version of Milli Vanilli."
3. "Out of Sync. Alternate title: Lip Service". British Film Institute. 2002. ProQuest 1745738700.
  The source provides 300 words of coverage about the subject. The source notes: "Dissipated, down-and-out record producer Roger Deacon needs a hit, badly. A decade ago, he was a bona fide hitmaker until he imploded, publicly burning all his bridges in the music biz. To get back to the top of the charts, he'd sell his soul to the devil - or worse, to a record executive with a girlfriend who wants to be a star. Industry honcho Sidney Golden's newest 'friend,' statuesque Sunni, sure looks like a star, but as a smitten Deacon soon discovers, she sings more like Benny Hill than Faith Hill."
4. Deming, Mark. "Lip Service (2000)". Rovi. Archived from the original on 2025-05-31. Retrieved 2025-05-31 – via Alibris.
  The source provides 260 words of coverage about the subject. The source notes: "However, when Sunni discovers she's been reduced to a lip sync act for her upcoming video and concert tour, she's none too happy, and shares her displeasure with her boyfriend; Roger, meanwhile, is wrestling with the fact that he's fallen in love with Maggie, who is married and not prepared to leave her husband. Also shown under the title Out of Sync, Lip Service was produced for (and originally aired on) the VH1 cable music network."
5. Less significant coverage:
  1. Marill, Alvin H. (2005). Movies Made for Television 1964–2004. Vol. 1. Lanham, Maryland: The Scarecrow Press. pp. 135–136. ISBN 0-8108-5174-1.
    The book notes: "Out of Sync (VH1, 7/12/2000, 120 mins). Gail O’Grady plays a housewife whose singing abilities catch the ear of a down-and-out record producer who desperately needs her to lip sync songs for a record executive’s musically talentless girlfriend. Take the dubious career of faux rock luminaries Milli Vanilli and the basic plot line of the memorable Gene Kelly movie “Singing in the Rain” and this is what more or less emerges. Production Companies TVA International, Hearst Entertainment. Director Graeme Campbell. Executive Producers Dan Lyon, Anne Carlucci, Marian Brayton, Rona Edwards. Producer Terry Gould. Teleplay Eric Williams. Photography Nikos Evdemon. Music Jonathan Goldsmith. Editor Ralph Brunjes. Production Designer Bob Sher."
  2. Abbott, Jim (2000-07-10). "Lineup Ranges from All-Stars to Survivors". Orlando Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2025-06-16. Retrieved 2025-06-16.
    The article notes: "The difference between a pretty face and a pretty voice is the story line on Out of Sync (9 p.m., VH1). This original TV movie stars Gail O’Grady (NYPD Blue) as a homemaker whose powerful voice turns a record company executive’s no-talent girlfriend (Kari Wuhrer) into a star. Just think of it as a female version of the Milli Vanilli story."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Out of Sync, also known as Lip Service, to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:13, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources 2, 3 and 4 (Minnesota Star Tribune, British Film Institute and Rovi via Alibris) while reliable would not count towards notability under WP:FILM: Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides, the first is a TV listing, the second a comprehensive film guide and the third seems to be advertising copy for a DVD. Orange sticker (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Plot summaries have nothing to do with significant coverage, there has to be critical commentary. Geschichte (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The articles in Variety and Minnesota Star Tribune provide both critical commentary and significant coverage of the film. The articles in British Film Institute and Rovi provide significant coverage of the film. The sources are enough for the film to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like additional sources have been uncovered that deserve additional discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Sources 2 and 4 shown above are the best with critical review sections. We probably have just enough to meet notability. I've tried in .ca sources, there just isn't much online. Probably in newspaper archives... Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in reply to Cunard - the Variety source is great, but the Minnesota Star Tribune source is far too scanty: one paragraph of 119 words in a "variety" column that also covers Internet moving services, a TV show and an article exhibition about hair is nowhere close to the requirements of WP:NFILM full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.. It is a perfect example of a capsule review, which is not sufficient. Something else along the lines of the Variety source is needed. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For a clearer consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 09:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beenox

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

Appears to fail WP:NCORP. The most prominent coverage I found is after the acquisition from gamesindustry.biz. A list of games alone is as good as a games developed by Beenox category. I suggest a redirect to Activision and perhaps a merge of the paragraph of the founder departure and new office. IgelRM (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Canada. IgelRM (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Activision as nominated based on WP:NCORP. Studio articles that function as little else as lists of games don't demonstrate the notability of the developer without deeper coverage - see thoughts at WP:NOTWORK. That coverage is not really there once you take out all the On X date, Beenox released Y title content. That said, it's not very weak, just not enough to justify an article on presented sourcing. Could be if more of the ilk like the GamesIndustry.biz coverage is found. This outlet seems to have had a porting role in a large number of high-profile games. Is there more out there? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The below sources have established the existence of coverage to warrant a keep. Thanks to @Tanonero: and @Hannes Röst: for taking a look and finding more sources. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

From a WP:BEFORE, the founder Dominique Brown has more coverage than this company. What this AFD tries to achieve is more equal appliance of policy that isn't a video game database. IgelRM (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I think there is enough there to justify an article, some more articles from different sources [3] [4] [5] and the article contains more than just a list of titles. --hroest 18:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first 2 sources are press releases and after Activision's acquisition. Edit Correction: the 3 source is about Activision and the developer staffing up for Call of Duty, not particular significant? IgelRM (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Activision#Studios, that one Gamesindustry.biz article cited by nominator seems to be the only piece of significant coverage. Interviews and press releases are considered primary sources. GameRant article is by WP:VALNET so it shouldn't be used for notability but it's also fairly standard coverage of personnel hiring, trivial coverage per WP:ORGTRIV. --Mika1h (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like a consensus to Keep but the nominator suggested having a source analysis table.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:IgelRM
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/meet-the-best-places-to-work-in-canadas-games-industry?page=2		Interview with the studio head for being nominated for "Best Places To Work" by the publication	✘ No
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/beenox-to-open-new-studio-in-montreal			✘ No
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/activisions-beenox-to-create-more-original-titles			✔ Yes
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/activisions-reputation-probably-unfair-says-spider-man-developer		Interview with the studio head about Activision	✘ No
https://gamerant.com/activision-beenox-call-of-duty-support/	~	"According to a report by Benzinga", which means a press release per linked "Source: Benzinga" at the end of the article.	✘ No
https://www.polygon.com/2012/12/14/3767352/beenox-founder-leaves		According to press release, 3 sentences article.	✘ No
https://www.macworld.com/article/166245/beenox-2.html			✔ Yes
https://www.macworld.com/article/174622/beenox-4.html		Few sentences on announcements with Mac focus.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

. IgelRM (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any comments on the table?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found another SIGCOV here in a print magazine. While I would have !voted delete with the current sources and have no clue what people are seeing there, this new source proves to me that CORPDEPTH is passed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

St. Ilija Macedonian Orthodox Church, Mississauga

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

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

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

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

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

I've done very little list editing, so NLIST is a bit of a mystery to me. Certainly, non-independent sources discuss the members of the diocese as a group: The Diocese of America and Canada today consists of 19 parishes and two monastic communities in the United States as well as nine parishes and one monastic community in Canada. Total of 28 parishes and 2 monasteries. The Bishop’s seat is in Sterling Heights, Michigan.^[1] There's ambiguity to me around the parishes (which I might call "organizations" or "communities") and the actual church buildings. It seems plausible to me that a semi-independent source exists describing the creation of the American-Canadian diocese and its parishes,^[2] although I don't have one to hand. Editorially, I do think a list would be the best way to include this content on Wikipedia. I will note that at least the bishop's church/cathedral is likely to exist as its own article, as its AfD is trending toward an IAR keep: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nativity of the Virgin Mary Macedonian Orthodox Cathedral, Sterling Heights, Michigan To the closer: a redirect to Macedonian Orthodox Diocese of America and Canada is a plausible ATD here, if a list article is not created. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into a list. That sounds like an excellent solution. BD2412 T 03:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like we maybe want to make a list of the churches. Does anyone want to make the list then? I don’t have any prior experience with lists like that, but could give it a shot once I’m back from vacation, particularly if someone gave me a similar list to use for reference. I suppose the list would be “List of Macedonian Orthodox Church buildings” or something similar? Spookyaki (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the suggestion of a fairly complex ATD, I think some further discussion is worthwhile here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:46, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: into a list of the various parish churches as suggested seems fine. This building isn't a notable structure and has no notability otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canada proposed deletions

Senior General Counsel (via WP:PROD on 21 May 2025)

Canada speedy deletions

Canada redirect deletions

Canada file deletions

Canada template deletions

Canada category deletions

Canada miscellany deletions

Canada deletion review

Canada undeletion

Canada deletions on Commons

%

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

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

[1]

[2]