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:
WP:BLP with some résumé-like overtones of a lawyer, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for lawyers. As always, lawyers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them and their work. But this is "referenced" almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, such as her "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations and her own writing being cited as metaverification of its own existence -- and the only properly reliable third-party source present at all is a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person, which thus does not magically get her over GNG all by itself as the only non-primary source in the article. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass GNG on better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Promo for non notable film. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. No sign of any reviews. Being screened at minor festivals and winning minor awards does not satisfy NFILM. One of multiple promo pieces for Francisco Villarroel and his creations made by the same spammer. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Production and screenings received a lot of coverage in Spanish...@Kingsif:, if you have time, could you have a look at this and, maybe, if it's not asking too much, the associated pages (another film, a festival and the actor mentioned above)? Thanks a lot!-Mushy Yank. 07:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator. The only sources I have found are articles on travel for older people that mention eldertreks as an option. No in-depth, significant coverage of the company
No refs on the page since 2009. I'm not seeing much which would meet the notability criteria for inclusion but am interested if others can find RS to offer JMWt (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – In addition to his notable musical career, he had coverage not only in Brazilian sources, but also in US newspapers like The New York Times, Chicago Tribune, and magazines The Gramophone, The Double Reed, as well as books, and of course at Slipped Disc. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Notability does not disappear because of a controversy. The subject's termination in May 2024, while significant, does not negate a career with substantial international coverage and recognition. Deletion for this reason sets a problematic precedent and risks violating WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NOTCENSORED. If reliable, independent sources exist both before and after the event, the article meets WP:GNG and should be improved, not removed. Bhw664488 (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per Xxanthippe's recommendation. His papers and books seem to be relevant enough within the child psychology citation tree, and especially in the pro-life branch of abortion research [7]. Considering he died two months ago [8], this may just need an update as well. We could probably include something about his sailing program [9], or his election candidacy [10], or his religion [11][12] and pro-life activism [13]. Regardless of what I think of the guy (and it's probably close to Altenmann's view, to be frank), that doesn't mean he's not notable. Highresheadphones (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- the fishy content farms as sources and the previous speedy deletion is a red flag for [WP:PROMO]] in my opinion. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Though I agree the page is thin, not referenced well, and that it may not seem like a strong page, Chou is a well-known member of his business community who surpasses the notability requirement in my opinion. I will seek other articles to repair the page. KChao1964 (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2025
Comment This article appears to have been created as part of an educational assignment - see here. (I looked at the article history, noticed that the creating editor hadn't edited other articles, wondered about COI, then found this explanation). PamD10:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No she isn't the subject, but a (badly taught? Or wasn't listening?) student editor who used her User page as a draft space. PamD06:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Her subject of research, which delves into victimology, is sadly not a hot topic anymore as it was in the 2000s to early 2010s, although it may yet become so and get more citations. It appears to be written by a student of the subject. Non-tenured faculty almost never pass the PROF test, but the nomination could have been worded with a different tone. Bearian (talk) 02:31, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Arts council that fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. A BEFORE search, I could not find any other sources that weren't liked to the organization or a brief, trivial mention, it has got some local news coverage, but I'm not sure if that can cement notability. Not to mention a good amount of the article's tone is promotional. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Arts Council- Haliburton Highlands has received independent + detailed in local news at the very least 12. The events they put on in the region have also received non-trivial coverage 3. They received direct support from the Canadian government to start an ongoing symposium on performing arts in rural communities 4. News about the organization has been presented in the Toronto Star as well 5 .This coverage spans at least a decade, so it's not a small burst. Between the primary source of its website and local coverage that is sometimes included in major Canadian newspapers, it seems like the council is notable + provides a significant amount of arts programming in the Haliburton region. I vote to keep though I agree the article should be updated.
Fails WP:GNG. Many sources mention the collective only once, and the rest do not provide WP:SIGCOV. I have not found other sources on Google News that contribute to notability. More articles could likely be written about the members, but the collective itself does not seem notable. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find anything in a BEFORE, and the current revision's sources do not establish notability. 1 is an entry in a list of 13, 2 is in entry in a list of 15, 3 is only about one EP (not the group as a whole) and is from a student-run paper, 4-10 mention the group in passing, 11 does not mention the group, 12 is a YouTube video of a song, 13-14 do not mention the group, 15 is an album, 16 is a song, and 17-25 do not mention the group.
With stars jumping on these highly computerised beats with heavily auto-tuned voices, the once-stigmatised vocal correction tool has morphed from being “a tool to perfect to being used as its own medium”, in the words of Helixtears producer Babs. - ref 11
She released her first track a mere 18 months ago and quickly joined the collective Helix Tears — a growing group of rappers, singers, and producers who make music at the cutting edge of hyperpop and glitchcore. This year, Eighty has collaborated with producer and fellow Helix Tears member blackwinterwells to release two EPs: “tracing paths” in January and, on April 14, “plague town.” EternalBaile (talk) 08:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable roles, this is about the best source I could find, an interview [15]. The article reads like a promotional biography, and the sourcing used isn't helpful either. Oaktree b (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - depending on the (unreliable) source, he's billed 9th or 11th in the cast in his current show. I'm unfamiliar with the show, but in any other TV show, that's barely a supporting role. All of his other roles were one-name, one-dimensional guest spots with characters like Butch and Bryce. Bearian (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to dispute the claims by the nominator. There definitely exists SIGCOV, but I think it's less clear whether this should kept. I see coverage starting around 2016-2017, such as these video segments: [19][20]. CBC in 2019 reported that NFLK "represents dozens of families across Canada who have been affected by the list and pushing for change", even after the House passed Bill C-59; also in 2019 there were articles from The Globe and Mail[21] and Huffington Post[22], and a CityNews video segment [23]. In 2020 CTV Newsreported that members of the group were "invited to test federal remedy" to the issue; that was also covered by Global News[24]. This was a cursory search but I think there's a case to be made because of the continued advocacy by the group prior to the federal government's action in 2020. Bridget(talk)01:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Before I can close, I need to ask User:Bridget, are you arguing for a Keep? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: Yes, thank you for checking. I'll change to a keep. I'm concerned that all the other comments are simply asserting that it's "not notable" or "doesn't pass WP:NORG" without much elaboration. Bridget(talk)14:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or dratify per WP:BIO with WP:TOOSOON in mind. Several citations are repeated, but of the sources given, the only independent publishers are Coast Reporter and My Powell River Now, two small local news sites / blogs. The rest are primary sources from the NDP or Jäger Rosenberg himself. The coverage by the news sites is largely routine due to the current election cycle, with the only point of notability being Rosenberg's young age, which in my opinion is not enough for standalone notability.If Rosenberg is elected next month in the federal election, then he would have a stronger case for having an article due to his notability as an MP. Until then, however, this article should remain in the draftspace, especially in its current state with citations being limited to primary sources or local coverage. Yue🌙22:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Running for MP doesn't inherently indicate notability and agreed on being a young candidate as well. Also worth noting that his provincial campaign was only for a nomination race, and not the general election at large. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, As already stated, I am not him. It's really funny you think I am. I think most of the point for why we should keep this article are already on the talk page, but I'll say some again. Being the youngest candidate to ever run is very notable. For someone of that age to be approved to run either for a party nomination or be approved as a major party candidate is very notable. Yes, he hasn't won an election (yet), but lots of other candidates who didn’t win have pages because their candidacy is notable in some other way. There are reliable sources talking about the historical nature of his candidacy—yes, most of them are local to his riding, but that isn’t all that uncommon. I'll admit that maybe I was a little hasty to publish this article, I haven’t written very many, but that doesn’t mean it should be deleted. At the moment, he is notable and it is likely that notability will only grow, and if it fades away, then it can be removed at a later date. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The picture is used fairly regular on his social media's it was on Coast Reporter. I did not take the original photo. This was the first time I uploaded a picture to wikipedia so I am unfamiliar with the procedure around it. If I did it wrong, oops. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Politicsenthusiast06: Courtesy note that I have tagged the image for deletion at Wikimedia Commons. I invite you to familiarise yourself with the policy on licensing media (the graphic is a good reference to refer back to whenever you want to upload images). Hiàn15:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep
Most of the arguments seem to already be presented here. Running so young is notable and he seems to be already making his mark. The sources are fine. Arguments for removing seem a bit flimsy and based on a seemingly false assumption. RobertR47 (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis? 18 year olds run in pretty much every election. There have been at least a half dozen between the 2019 and 2021 elections, most of whom are probably more notable for other reasons. None of them are here for the common denominator of they all lost. 2001:569:F085:B000:F81D:FABC:B22A:78FE (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's notable is that he ran at 17. Which would make him the youngest candidate to ever run. Hence why his candidacy is historic. Carolebax (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You said before you ran at 18. Did you really run in the last election at 17 or are you just making it up for the sake of your argument? Carolebax (talk) 03:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify. If he really is "the youngest Canadian to seek elected office," he could be notable on that basis - however, that claim would need to be much more strongly supported in the article's sources - which are mostly WP:ROUTINE coverage of his campaigns. Just running for office, of course, is not sufficient to pass WP:NPOL. Madg2011 (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I note that two account expressing "Keep" viewpoints here, RobertR47 and Carolebax, are both brand new accounts with zero-to-almost-zero activity outside of this deletion discussion. Sockpuppetry in a deletion discussion is not OK; refer to WP:BADSOCKMadg2011 (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this individual would need more dedicated coverage beyond the sources here. Being young and running for office in itself does not make someone notable. JSwift4922:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. What sources provide SIGCOV establishing notability? Just being "the youngest" isn't enough, even if it is true. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has received significant media attention from secondary sources and is very notable as the youngest candidate to seek elected office in Canada. RedBlueGreen9308:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Draftify, if it would be that historic there would be more sources discussing it than local news. We don't decide what's historic, we look at reliable sources and reflect that. Yeshivish613 (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As previously stated User:Politicsenthusiast06 contributed most of the content to this page. While they have repeated the assertion they are not the candidate, they also have appeared to contribute information which does not appear to be publicly available (for instance, Rosenberg's exchange to Fulda, Germany). Using the Coast Reporter's digital archive tool Digital Archive, and reading all articles around the election, I could find no reference to this detail. Searching on My Powell River Now , I could also find no such reference. It is also not on Rosenberg's campaign page https://jagerrosenberg.ndp.ca/. Keyword searching google also showed no results. How would User:Politicsenthusiast06 know this then? It seems highly likely this was written by Rosenberg, and tracks with the account's history which includes repeated references to Rosenberg.
." This does not seem notable, and while I have not sourced this claim it likely is another piece of evidence towards the page being authored by Rosenberg.
"Rosenberg is known for his advocacy on mental health, environmental issues, and democratic reform." While these are certainly topics he is interested, I can find no tangible action Rosenberg has taken. The source for this claims seems to be an
, where he expresses interest in these topics; however, given his lack of action I do not see this as notable.
Claims such as "His campaign received notable support" are not sourced, and the NDP have not released the voting data from the nomination. Rosenberg did not receive any other media coverage, nor any other quantifiable forms of support.
" ... included a notable endorsement from Avi Lewis". When you actually look at the source, Lewis says "this is not a formal endorsement"
does not mention this, making it an inaccurate citation. Also, while this is just conjecture, the "procedural obstacles" could likely be a a lack of support, as the nomination procedure usually includes acquiring a certain amount of supporters. I mention this because it could potentially contradict the claim of receiving notable support.
"Rosenberg's campaign was the first time a Canadian under the age of 18 was permitted to run for office, as he would have turned 18 by the time of swearing-in." This is simply not true. Just for reference, I found
who was actually nominated, and ran for election. Again, Rosenberg lost the nomination race.
"... has volunteered with the Vote16 campaign". The source given does not mention this claim. A source for this claim cannot be found online, suggesting another instance where Rosenberg contributed to their own page.
"leading to unanimous support from the local NDP association". This is called acclamation. While a small critique, writing in this manner distorts the situation.
In conclusion
: This page should be deleted. It seems to have been written by the candidate and is rife with misleading and inaccurate claims.
Again I am not him. I wouldn't say I am close to him but I have met him before and follow his accounts including his personal pages. We are from the same general area.
German Exchange and Fulda: The article references Rosenberg’s semester abroad in Germany, which was covered in Coast Reporter. The specific town (Fulda) is listed in a publicly accessible Facebook post by Rosenberg, which is also cited. While the Coast Reporter didn’t mention the city by name, both sources support the broader point.
Candidate Page Information: It’s my understanding that the NDP candidate websites are managed centrally by the party itself rather than by individual candidates. I would generally assume a major party like the NDP would have internal fact checking to back up any claims they post on their websites.
Candidacy Status: Rosenberg was officially (presumably) registered with Elections BC as a nomination contestant. In British Columbia, nomination races are a formal part of the electoral process and require financial disclosure and regulatory compliance. Just like in U.S. presidential primaries candidates are recognized to have run for President, even if the candidate does not win the nomination, so too should Rosenberg’s candidacy be considered valid and notable under Wikipedia’s criteria. He was not merely a declared aspirant; he was approved and participated in a regulated nomination election.
Dual Citizenship: Rosenberg has publicly mentioned his dual citizenship—Canadian and German—on several occasions, especially on his personal (private) account and intermittently on his campaign one. Which is why I am aware of it and included it. That said, I agree that since there’s not currently a permanent public source stating this clearly (at least that I have found), it should be removed or marked with a citation needed tag until a more verifiable reference is available.
Policy Focus: The article’s mentions of his focus on mental health, the environment, and youth enfranchisement come directly from a Coast Reporter interview and are consistent with his campaign materials.
Avi Lewis: Lewis did offer strong praise of Rosenberg’s capabilities and platform early on, stating his endorsement was waiting on the nomination formally beginning. While that may not count as an official endorsement at the time, Lewis did later endorse Rosenberg—though I couldn’t find a strong enough source to cite that directly. But the NDP's press release and Coast Reporter article's wording around Lewis does also strongly indicate his support and likely endorsement of Rosenberg. Calling it "gross and misleading misinterpretation of his words" is a massive exaggeration.
Procedural obstacles: This was written based on a Reddit thread I read about his supporters being prevented from voting. Based on conversations I've had, it seems to be a relatively widespread belief that there were issues in that particular race. But because I couldn't find any actual reliable sources on it I kept it very vague. On his Facebook he has a post about being formally approved as a nomination candidate, and it's dated very shortly before the nomination meeting date (June 8), I thought I had included that as a source but I guess I forgot.
Vote16 Involvement: While I couldn't find third-party coverage of Rosenberg’s involvement in the Vote16 BC campaign, he’s posted about it multiple times in stories on Instagram. Since stories aren’t permanent, it might be justified to remove.
Acclamation: The wording was based off the Coast Reporter article.
I think I covered more or less everything. Many of your points are valid, but I hope I cleared up some of the misconceptions. I still believe I was justified in making this article and that Rosenberg is noteworthy enough for this article to remain. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 03:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. However, I am still firmly in favour of Delete.
I notice you've changed your story. On March 25, on Rosenberg's talk page you said "We're from the same area though and have probably met before". Now you say you "I have met him before". What has changed? Moreover, as you now claim to have a personal connection to the candidate, I would refer you to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. It's impossible to prove who you are, but it is possible to point out your account's alarming edit history.
I appreciate the clarity. However, as the only source for the claim is a personal facebook post, this hardly seems notable for inclusion. Moreover, it points to a broader lack of substance regarding Rosenberg's candidacy.
It's not possible to ascertain the NDP's internal processes in this scenario, and an assumption is not a valid base for a significant claim. You still have not provided any evidence for this claim, which, I note, you have repeated on numerous occasions in other articles. In addition, Rosenberg was never a candidate for office at 17. While he ran for nomination, he lost, which is significantly different than running for office.
I never disputed that Rosenberg ran for nomination. However, you draw a false equivalency here: A presidential primary and a local provincial riding nomination differ significantly in notability. I reiterate my claim that his candidacy is not notable enough for a page.
Thank you for acknowledging that. Adding information from "his personal (private) account" is not a valid source for claims, and a violation of his privacy.
You did not respond to my claim: I contested his notability in the areas of mental health, the environment, and youth enfranchisement, not whether these are his interests. I cannot find any notable action he has taken on any of these topics; if he is to be labeled as notable in these fields I would appreciate it if you could provide evidence.
Calling something which is clearly labelled as "not a formal endorsement" and endorsement is a gross and misleading interpretation of his words. Yes, he indicates support, which I did not dispute, but he does not provide an endorsement. A "likely endorsement" is not an endorsement. An uncited endorsement is also not an endorsement. Moreover, I also dispute the relevance of an endorsement to the overall page; while certainly Avi Lewis is of note, not everything which he supports is notable.
A reddit thread you read, or conversations you claim to have had are not a reliable base for even a vague claim. An accusation of this nature against the NDP's voting system is significant and potentially libellous. I can find no mention of this in local reporting, nor by the NDP. If you have any evidence, I would strongly encourage it, but as of now I strongly believe this claim is invalid. A late formal approval could indicate a variety of things, including, as I previously conjectured, a lack of support.
Again, adding information from "his personal (private) account" is not a valid source for claims, and a violation of his privacy. Moreover, as the organization has seemed to make no reference to his involvement at any time, this seems highly irrelevant. Also, I question how you retain so many details about Rosenberg's prior stories, unless they are saved that seems quite odd.
While this is of less note than the other issues, I will note that Wikipedia entries should not be simply based off of other wordings. Rather, they should prioritize accuracy and conciseness.
I believe my points remain valid. While it is impossible to know if you are Rosenberg, the specifics and inconsistencies seem quite evident. However, that is secondary to the main point of my disagreement: Rosenberg is not notable enough for a page.
He has not won any elections for public office.
Simply running for MP is not notable.
Young candidates run for election all the time, it is not of significant importance.
The media attention surrounding his campaign is insignificant, and is likely afforded to anyone who puts their name forward for election.
The individual has done little of note beside attempting to run for office, leaving there insufficient information for a page.
Many of the claims made about his notability are either demonstrably false, or severely unsubstantiated.
Fails WP:ORG. I found no in-depth coverage in reliable sources after searching through Google and provincial archives (Vancouver City archives + UBC Library). The now defunct party achieved insignificant results in the one election it contested (less than one-tenth of a percent in 2013), so there is no obvious claim of notability.Of the 6 sources cited, 2 are primary sources, 2 are blogs, 1 is routine local coverage for the election cycle, and 1 is a routine registration list from Elections BC. I found one more article from a minor news publisher that accepts articles from the general public. A lack of reliable and in-depth coverage indicates a lack of lasting significance as well. Yue🌙05:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the article is supported by multiple reliable sources including mainstream media (e.g. Canadian Jewish News, Forbes Kazakhstan, CMDA, Schulich/York University). Subject is notable as the founder of YEDI, a globally ranked accelerator by UBI Global. Sources confirm awards, academic work, and public recognition.
Comment - Radio Canada piece from 2020, on his role as school sports director during COVID. This is possibly the same itw. here an article on him from 2004 (non-Olympic). Mentions from the 2004 Sydney Olympics here, here, here. Some non-independent news on his role in Badminton Canada here, here. Mentioned here from a 2002 competition. Apparently the General Director of Sports Montreal, Inc. ([25]). Quoted here in news piece from 2024. --Soman (talk) 10:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lets examine these references here and in the article. I'll look at these first:
Ref 1 [30] That is a passing mention and fails WP:SIRS
Ref 2 [31] "The company describes itself on its website as being a provider of live and on-demand video of amateur and youth sporting events from more than 1,000 facilities" That is not independent. Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 3 [32] That is routine annoucement of partnership. It fails WP:CORPTRIV
Ref 4 [33] That is annoucement routine annoucement of partnership. It fails WP:CORPTRIV
Ref 5 [34] That is annoucement routine annoucement of partnership. It fails WP:CORPTRIV
Ref 5 [35] That is routine annoucement of partnership. It fails WP:CORPTRIV
Looking at the references:
Ref 1 Its above.
Ref 2 Its above.
Ref 5 [36] "LiveBarn and OMHA Announce New Video Streaming Partnership". Routine annoucement of partnership. It fails WP:CORPTRIV.
Ref 6 [37] This has taken from a ceo interview. It fails WP:SIRS as its not independent. Fails WP:ORGIND.
Ref 7 Another annoucement of partnership. It fails WP:CORPTRIV.
Ref 8 "LiveBarn Receives Significant Growth Investment From Susquehanna Growth Equity" Annoucement of investment. Fails WP:CORPTRIV. Its a press-release.
Ref 9 [38] Passing mention. Investment in livebarn. Fails WP:SIRS as not independent.
In actual fact, not a single one of your pronouncements is an honest or accurate representation of the sources. Additionally, even if all of those were simply announcements of partnerships (they aren't) WP:CORPTRIV says absolutely nothing about partnerships being trivial mentions. Delectopierre (talk) 07:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Describing a CBC article titled Eye in the sky: How streaming of local hockey has changed the game that is quite literally about Livebarn and HomeTeam Live (a competitor of Livebarn's) as a passing mention and fails WP:SIRS is honest and accurate?
How about cherry picking a single sentence in that article that correctly the company's description to their website, and therefore discounting the CBC as not independent?
How about a NYT/Athletic article titled Drew Bannister’s path to the Blues: Family sacrifice, LiveBarn bonding and the coach behind the coach as a routine annoucement of partnership?
Eye in the sky is about streaming services in general and just uses those two as examples, making passing mentions of both.
The extent of coverage about Livebarn itself in that second article was taken from Livebarn themselves. That lacks independence.
NYT/Athletic Just mentions he watched games on Livebarn. Passing mention, No depth of coverage. Yes it does look like Scope characterised that one incorrectly but it's still trivial.
How about "Ref 8 "LiveBarn Receives Significant Growth Investment From Susquehanna Growth Equity" Annoucement of investment. Fails WP:CORPTRIV. Its a press-release." Yes, honest and accurate. Found on business wire. Reads like a press release. Complete with contacts for both companies. Ends wi5th about sections on both. Obviously a press release.
How about "Ref 9 [13] Passing mention. Investment in livebarn. Fails WP:SIRS as not independent." Yes, honest and accurate. Entire mention is "These investments included a recent $14 million investment in LiveBarn, ..." Clearly just a passing mention of an Investment in livebarn from the investor. Just a passing mention means it fails on point one of SIRS. Being from the investor means it fails point 2 of SIRS.
Those two show your pronouncement that "In actual fact, not a single one of your pronouncements is an honest or accurate representation of the sources." is not honest or accurate.
And how about The Albertan: "the Sundre Minor Hockey Association was pleased to announce the local launch of a LiveBarn service." Sounds like an announcement to me. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ORG. Defunct provincial party that achieved insignificant results in the elections it contested, never garnering more than a hundredth of a percent of the popular vote or half a percent in any riding. A search through Google and provincial archives returned no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. The news sources given are routine coverage that neither focus on the party nor describe it in detail. All the other sources are standard governmental reports that do not establish the party's notability. Yue🌙01:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject (National Post, Vancouver Sun, Vernon Morning Star, Penticton Western News). The article is not "abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion" as the party is long defunct. I started the article, but have no connection to the party or its organizers, and have never lived in British Columbia. Ground Zero | t01:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the automated notice template described the article as "abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion", but certainly that is not the argument I am making. I contend that the coverage in those papers is minor and not in-depth, a comparison being the creation of articles for every failed candidate mentioned in those same articles. Yue🌙18:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no template anywhere saying anything like that. Templates of that sort are not automated, anyway. They are placed by actual human beings. Uncle G (talk) 04:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ORG; the article topic is a defunct provincial political party with insignificant results in the one election it contested. Accordingly, a search through Google and provincial archives returned no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Yue🌙21:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!22:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ORG; the article topic was an unregistered party formed from a merger between several minor parties with insignificant results in contested elections. This party specifically never participated in an election. Accordingly, a search through Google and provincial archives returned no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Yue🌙21:47, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!22:49, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article topic fails WP:ORG. The party is defunct and achieved insignificant results in the one election it fielded candidates in (0.21% of the popular vote, less than 7% in ridings it contested).The article was previously PRODed in 2020 but deproded by Spinningspark with the explanation: "This is more than the usual joke/personal soapbox minor party. It needs a more thorough discussion before deleting, and some evidence of WP:BEFORE". I looked through Google (general web search), Google Books, Google Scholar, and my university databases (local to BC) for reliable sources and found no in-depth coverage. The only content about the party that has survived on the web is non-in-depth public records from the provincial government (i.e. date registered, deregistered, etc.).I found this article by a local Indigenous publisher, but the coverage does not include a claim of notability. The coverage is quite routine and is a basic breakdown of the party's ambitions. Yue🌙02:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit03:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. My own (much less thorough) search for sources didn't turn up anything either. The one article linked in the nomination statement isn't enough coverage for an article on an otherwise entirely non-notable party. Toadspike[Talk]22:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Absence of reliable, in-depth coverage of both the 2001–2009 party, which this article's scope was originally limited to, and the 2023–present party, details of which were added after Freedom Party of British Columbia (2023) was deleted following a discussion (thus an attempt to circumvent the deletion process). Both parties were insignificant in the provincial elections they contested in, garnering less than a thousandth of a percent of the popular vote and barely exceeding 1 percent of a riding's vote in their best results.The sources cited for the 2023 iteration of the party focus on the anti-SOGI advocacy of the party leader as one part of the much wider anti-SOGI movement in Surrey, British Columbia. The party is not covered in-depth nor the focus. Yue🌙23:51, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteor Draftify (ATD) only if COI issues are resolved. The article really needs a "Do OVER". Everything in the "Election results" section was deleted as a BLP violation. Concerns: The article was previously deleted. Although created by Kevintoronto, 28.3% of the content was edited by Amrit.Birring. There seems to be an obvious conflict of interest. Draft:Freedom Party of British Columbia 2023 has been submitted to WP:AFC, which will likely suffer the same issues as it has been declined publication several times. NOTE: The subject does have some notability. A minority party can create a conundrum in those political circles. The party and apparent COI editor did show up with candidates and results in Surrey North, Surrey-Newton, and likely more. The party has a platform and, as of March 2025, was listed among "Registered Political Parties". For inquiring minds. -- Otr500 (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I removed "draftify". The sources: I could not find significant and independentreliable sources, that at least is "mainly" about the "party that was". My comments above accidentally crossed up the defunct party with the 2023 party. While a defunct corporation can be temporarily "revived" (under certain conditions), no sources show that a defunct political party can be revived. The party, which will inevitably involve names of living persons, requires better sources for compliance.
Current sources:
1)- Magher, Jennifer is a non-English source that is about Counter-protesters for LGBTQ+ rights and opposition protesters demanding the removal of policies that integrate sexual orientation and gender identity into B.C. schools.
2)- Thayarapan, Arrthy is more about "Opponents of sexual orientation and gender-identity policies bring Surrey school board meeting to halt"
3)- [a] more about clashes, [b] "Petition filed to recall Surrey MLA Rachna Singh", [c] "Protesters clash in Surrey over SOGI in B.C. schools"
4)- Bower, Angela, "Protesters clash in Surrey over SOGI in B.C. schools"
5)- Burns, Anna, "Saturday’s anti-SOGI protest in Surrey was a missed opportunity to educate, says Surrey teacher" more protests and a missed opportunity.
@Otr500: I didn't even catch the possible COI edits. Seems to me like the article for the 2023–present party was deleted after a discussion (as noted above) and the article's creator (possibly the leader himself), just moved some of the content to this nomination's article, which was originally just about the 2001–2009 party. As you pointed out though, most of the existing sources are about the political protests relevant to (but not focused on) the leader of the 2023–present party. Remove that and all the COI edits, and you're left with nothing of significance for either iteration of the party name. Yue🌙22:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aydoh8, Thank you. You are right about nothing being left if all the problematic sources and edits were deleted. I dig pretty deep, trying to prove that an article has merit to remain. My laptop was getting old and would bog down after sometimes opening three browsers and around 40 to 60 tabs, so I purchased a new PC. I removed the ATD not just because of the COI (an issue and the user has had previous notification), but I agree there appears to be some side-stepping. I didn't dig into any COI timelines. Some people don't know. If someone has been advised and made edits, it is usually caught. There is a Username policy and an organization leader, not even counting if they are an SPA, might end up with someone curious looking at the "User creation log" unnumbered (Bulleted) #4. Whew! Since I am not an Admin, I will bail out of this before I get a migraine. Again, thanks. -- Otr500 (talk) 05:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally do not see a benefit in redirecting to that list article because there's no content there. List items don't have to be notable, but redirects should be to some kind of meaningful content, otherwise there's nothing for a reader to read after they click the link / search up the topic. Yue🌙20:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a formerly registered political party which ran candidates, ergo notable. This is the sort of topic which our readers have a right to expect a serious encyclopedia project to cover. Carrite (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A political party is not inherently notable because it existed and ran candidates (WP:ORGSIG). Wikipedia is not a database for minor political parties and candidates. The first criteria of the general notability guideline is "Contain[s] significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth." I argue that this article should be deleted because neither party that used this article's name had or has that kind of coverage. Yue🌙05:45, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also worth noting again that all the sources mentioned in this current discussion are about the 2023 iteration of the party name, whose article was deleted after an earlier AfD for similar reasons, then possibly the party leader himself added his party's details to this article, which was about another non-notable party that existed from 2001 to 2009. Thus, the discussion to delete the 2023 party's article was already had despite the bulk of this discussion being focused on it, and the deletion of the 2001–2009 party's article (which this article was until recently) is the one that hasn't been had yet. At least the 2023 had trivial mentions in routine election cycle coverage; the 2001–2009 party has no existing sources at all. Yue🌙05:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I looked around some more. The article fails Notability --and-- THERE ARE BLP issues with a poorly sourced, actually unsourced article. The sources are not about the subject. -- Otr500 (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist, it's looking like No consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:22, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
