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:
All 9 sources cited in the creation of this page lack credibility and fail to establish notability, as they barely address the topic in any meaningful way. Upon closer inspection, there is little to no reliable information available online. Additionally, the publication in question appears to be self-proclaimed and lacks established recognition. The article was created without prior discussion, and if such a discussion had occurred, it is unlikely the article would have been approved or passed moderation standards. This seems to reflect a pattern of using Wikipedia as a platform to lend credibility to fake or paid news. Moondust534 (talk) 07:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without looking further into this, so no comment on the notability, something lacking popularity does not make it "fake news" and almost all articles on Wikipedia are created without discussion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. While I agree an initial search is showing that it's probably not notable, I don't see the malice of things being "fake" or overtly promotional mentioned by the nominator. This looks like a run-of-the-mill article creation by an inexperienced editor who didn't understand our notability standards. Sergecross73msg me11:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw multiple fake news, so I reported it, with article prices on upwork. A blog cannot be labeled a reliable magazine tho. The platform has mixed reviews, with some raising concerns about its reliability and payout practices. Moondust534 (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the entries here are non-notable and since hedge funds are private entities that are often secretive, I expect most of them will have difficulty passing WP:NCORP. We already have List of hedge funds which contains all the expected notable hedge funds. There are no list for hedge funds in other countries so having a list only for Canada give undue weight to it that other countries do not have (not even the US which has most of the notable ones).- ImcdcContact10:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's sad but there are several isolated industrial incidents such as this. She was not notable before her death and her death has not received sustained coverage or forced significant reform to be eligible for an entry. Mekomo (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the sources, and they seem to be mostly a mixture of press releases, interviews, or insignificant mentions, with only a few sources that aren't. A before search turned up similar. At the very least, the article needs to be stubbified; at most, it needs to be deleted/redirected/etc. I dream of horses(Hoofprints)(Neigh at me)23:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:NOTCV of the 27 sources presented here, only three directly reference the subject. One is a broken link, one a YouTube video and one an award nomination. That's yer lot. There's nothing else out there to add to this. A perfectly sound chap doing a perfectly sound job, but doesn't pass WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find the mention of the subject in all sources referenced in the article and before search did not bring anything useful for the sustenance of this article. This producer fails WP:GNG. Mekomo (talk) 08:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This isn't a hoax, for the record — unlikely as it may seem, it's the real name of a real person in the Canadian film industry, who does have a legitimate notability claim as the producer of a Genie Award-winning documentary film. (Remember that such awards go to the producer of the film, which means he was personally a recipient of that award.) Also, he was born in the 1970s, so he had the name first and The Other One came later, so it wasn't his parents trying to be funny. While the article was obviously in poor shape at the time of nomination, it actually is salvageable with better sourcing; the key (aside from the obvious need to use much more specific search terms than just his name alone) is that because his strongest notability claim happened 20 years ago, it wouldn't Google well and will have to be recovered from archives like ProQuest and newspapers.com. But I've searched those, and there are viable sources with which to fix the problem, so I've cleaned it up significantly. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E. This person is only notable for his 9-month imprisonment by the Turkish government, the news coverage of him mostly starts and ends within that period. Being one of about one hundred political prisoners caught in a government crackdown in a country that has been experiencing a democratic backsliding for over ten years now is not a very solid claim of notability. Badbluebus (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not sure getting arrested for your beliefs is notable. Certainly doesn't meet academic notability. Coverage is about the arrest, but I don't think that's enough for an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I notice there is some book coverage in google books by some major academic presses. For example: [1], [2], [3] The diversity of the sources and prolonged coverage over a couple years suggests that the arrest, imprisonment, and release of Cihan Erdal would pass WP:NEVENT. Perhaps repurpose this an event page instead of a WP:BLP?4meter4 (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inactive racing driver with no notable success outside entry-level categories, failing WP:GNG and WP:NMOTORSPORT. Sources are routine (Formula Scout), primary (GB3 Championship, Formula One Management on behalf of F1 Academy), or dubious hobbyists (Cars Yeah, Norris McDonald's Racing Review, Motorsport Prospects). MSportWiki (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 Gilkes has not achieved notable results in her field, in this case motorsport. Simply looking at the career summary, Formula Ford 1600 and 1200 drivers are not notable enough for a biographical article, and her results in somewhat notable series (F1 Academy and W Series) are also not good enough to warrant an article. Regarding sources;
Source
Significant?
Independent?
Reliable?
Secondary?
Pass/Fail
Notes
W Series profile
Y
N
Y
N
N
Primary source.
Cars Yeah
N
Y
N
Y
N
Blog post.
DriveTribe
Y
?
?
Y
N
Social media platform.
Motorsport Prospects
N
Y
N
Y
N
Blog post.
Momentum Motorsport profile
Y
N
Y
N
N
Company-sponsored profile.
Formula Scout
?
Y
Y
Y
?
Formula Scout is a common source for entry-level motorsports championships, however none of the championships she has competed in meet the WP:NMOTORSPORT table of notability.
Canadian Automobile Sport Clubs – Ontario
N
?
?
N
N
Automobile club of which the subject is a member.
Formula One Management (F1 Academy)
Y
N
Y
N
N
Primary source.
Racers - Behind the Helmet
?
Y
Y
Y
N
Somewhere between Formula Scout and a blog post.
GB3 Championship
N
N
Y
N
N
Primary source from a championship which does not meet the WP:NMOTORSPORT table of notability.
Norris McDonald's Racing Review
N
Y
N
Y
N
Blog post.
Total qualifying sources
0
There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements
Keep. For what it's worth, Gilkes is a race winner in W Series besides FFord and GB4. She's received decent attention (even post-retirement) in Canada ([4], [5], [6], [7]), been interviewed by Feeder Series ([8], [9]) and CBC Television ([10]), and DIVE-BOMB have covered her career in detail ([11]). Her W Series win was naturally reported by several big publications ([12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]) and while his could fall under WP:ONEEVENT, the combination of the above takes it a long way – in fact I'd say she's received much more WP:SIGCOV than her brother Nick Gilkes. While we're at it, her photo needs updating as I am pretty sure that's Max Marzorati. MSport1005 (talk) 13:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cordially suggest you re-familiarise yourself with the notability guidelines for drivers at WP:NMOTORSPORT. Gilkes receiving SIGCOV for a non-championship race win in a fourth-tier feeder series category does not make her notable. Comparisons to her brother are WP:WHATABOUTISM. MSportWiki (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MSports1005. Article could be improved, but there seems to be significant coverage of her, and she completed a full season of F1A and (almost) a full season of W Series. Draftifying could work until article is improved, but a full deletion seems excessive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GalacticVelocity08 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC. He gets some passing mentions in a darts book by Nigel Boeg, and has the standard pages on DartsWDF and mastercaller (none of which can be used towards notability) but that is about it.4meter4 (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another hyperlocal politician in the walled garden created to boost Carmel-by-theSea who fails WP:NPOLITICIAN as mayor of a tiny town, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The article is filled with fluff and neither demonstrates nor verifies notability. Even the NYT reference is a passing mention. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not seeing notability, this is more of a play-by-play of the person's life, career and death. Sources are pretty much is discussed in the nomination. I don't find anything esle. Oaktree b (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oaktree b, I don't know if you saw that someone removed a lot of the content and sources before the article was nominated for AfD. I don't know if they were right or wrong to do so, but it is impossible to evaluate the article without this material, and so I think it should be kept in until someone explains why they though the deleted sources were not acceptable even for non-controversial material. I have restored some of it pending the result of this AfD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's quite a bit more in the article now, but I'm not sure if it makes this person notable. Being in the War, acting, politician. Seems like an interesting life, but this still feels like an extended CV, nothing really for a wiki article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ssilvers, this is part of a "walled garden" of Carmel promo, this ANI will provide more context:[21] (final ANI discussion), which led to the creator's site ban.The editor had a long history of COI and undisclosed paid-editing, poor sourcing, self-published sources, COI sources, and deliberately misrepresenting sources to make subjects appear notable. Additionally, there was LOUTsocking. The editor who deleted some of the material, u|Left guide|Left guide, was working on clean up efforts removing hyperlocal sourcing, paid-COI sourcing, self-published sources, and questionable sources. These were not some random drive-by deletions. The problems went on for many years before the editor was community blocked/banned. Netherzone (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The deletions made to the article left it ungrammatical and were done very poorly, leaving a highly misleading picture of the article for reviewers at AfD. Let people review the article with the sources, and we'll see what the result of the AfD really is. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Re dir can always be created later, but deleting it first gives a level of protection against surreptitious resurrection by COI editors, a real concern with articles around Carmel-by-the-Sea topic demonstrated by multiple block evasion attempts by a certain editor. Graywalls (talk) 06:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, leaning delete If notability is not met, it is clearly a problem- However. Even if GNG is met, if WP:BIO fails, it violates the BLP policy. Passing mention references aren't that acceptable either. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)Cooldudeseven7join in on the tea talk13:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I’m confused: does the article even claim that he was notable? He was the mayor of a small town. In general, that does not establish notability on Wikipedia. Llajwa (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to pass WP:ANYBIO, WP:BASIC, and WP:SIGCOV. There are multiple independent book sources from reliable academic publishers, and newspaper articles with in-depth significant coverage. I'm not seeing a valid policy based rationale for deletion.4meter4 (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: We have "meets GNG" and "fails GNG" as arguments. Can we get a source table? And what's this about violating BLP policy? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
