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.
- There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- 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.
![](https://amansaja.com/index.php?q=Mfv0Kfa6bO91KgPRoqwSJ2BVMq1BngBFbA9OnO93MqTXKgrCMqiRnq4RJgF1LqeRaE8Oou9unplUoqzBLqrSJh9AMqPXLAJHo2hEMq5BJk5NJAKRaNdQIk1unplUoqzBLqrSJh9AMqPXLAJHo2hEMq5BJk5NJAKSKg5Z) Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
|
|
|
* Please also consider listing all AfDs at: Wikipedia:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Candidates for deletion
|
|
- Also see provincial deletion sorting
Canada articles for deletion
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Arthur (season 20) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completely unsourced. Supposed future season of TV show Arthur. Fails to provide any sources, however, despite WP:TVUP requiring them. I'm unable to find any sources for it and even the Wikia article about it says it's speculation. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Human3015 TALK 20:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Human3015 TALK 20:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. An article like this can be created once the season is actually airing, and thus actually sourceable and substanceable — but there's no value in creating a speculative placeholder page to keep the seat warm in advance of the season premiere, especially if the lack of sourceability has stripped the content back down to infobox-only. Bearcat (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per, um, any policies that seem to say an article has to have material to exist... Yeah, let's just call it WP:TOOSOON. - SummerPhDv2.0 05:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and I'd like to add this: There's no guarantee whatsoever that the show will even make it to Season 20. None whatsoever. Not for this show nor any other no matter how successful. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 00:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, season 20 in this instance has already been reached — season 19 aired last year, and the new season is already in production and scheduled but just hasn't started airing yet. The CRYSTAL in this instance isn't about whether S20 will ever happen at all — it will, and we just can't source any substantive details about it yet besides "this is a thing that will happen". Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Still, there are some shows that get even fully-produced seasons that never air and the show goes under without airing them (*cough* Here Comes Honey Boo Boo *cough*) ...excuse me. Hacking fit right there - must be that time of year...
- It's not likely to happen to Arthur at all, but you never know... Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 22:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The result was delete. The argument to keep is based on the view that it important enough that it ought to have an article. Unfortunately all the evidence for that is presence on lists, and presence on lists is not substantial coverage. The award which does not seem important enough to show notability, certainly not in the absence of other adequate sources DGG ( talk ) 17:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- International and Heritage Languages Association (IHLA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable organization. No indications of significant independent coverage to be found. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article should remain accessible through Wikipedia. It's a notable organization for minority language and culture groups in Canada. It's important to have minorities represented, even though they will not have as much coverage as other organizations. This article was helpful for me as I was searching for information on IHLA. I am a member of a similar yet fledgling organization and it's useful to see another Alberta Association's progress and changes through time, as well as their current status. Allegra002 (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Allegra002[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This volunteer organization has remained in the province for over 40 years. It is documented extensively at the Provincial Archives of Alberta and references can be found on that page. https://hermis.alberta.ca/paa/Search.aspx?st=Alberta+Ethnic+Language+Teachers+ It is a flagship organization for heritage language schools that began as a result of a Western Canadian push for Multiculturalism. Although the organization is small, it is historically important. It has worked with the provincial government to develop language curricula that have entered the K-12 systems. While one wikipedian has pointed out that there is only an article in the Edmonton Sun, I would like to point out that the references included in the article do not include the Edmonton Sun. Links with other wikipedia pages were made, but were deleted by others. Notablity of the organization must be checked against three historical names AELTA, NAHLA, and IHLA. Gingerrrr1972 (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The link you provided seems to be a list of publications by the organization itself, not coverage of it. I've searched the previous names and there seem to be very few results online about it (e.g., "Alberta Ethnic Language Teachers Association" returns a total of 9 Google results for me). Can you provide some links here? You might also want to read this: WP:N. Information on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable. If we don't have reliable coverage of the topic, than we can't create a separate page on it. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Furiouslyserne, not sure if I am allowed to address you personally. But I want to say hello and oddly thank you. YOu have forced me to find a list of publications that I had not previously seen. Since I am in the process of documentation, responding to you has been oddly useful. The organization is often listed in other government documents. Here are some of the sources that you requested.Sorry for the overkill.
City of Edmonton Declares International Mother Language Day at IHLA sponsored event
http://blogs.uj.ac.za/languagesmatter/2015/02/24/international-mother-language-day-declared-in-edmonton/
Sister Organizations in which this organization is listed on other organization’s websites:
Alberta Association of Multicultural Education:
http://aamed.org/sign-up/
Canadian association of second language teachers which also lists the Saskatchewan Organization of Heritage Languages which has a Wikipedia page
http://www.caslt.org/community/community-partners-provincial_en.php
http://sahla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/NEWSLETTER-2013-WINTER.pdf
The sister organization to the South, also on the CASLT page showing interaction with local politicians in their newsletter
Listed in government documents:
The government of Canada search page turns up 1,480 search results:
http://search-recherche.gc.ca/rGs/s_r?st=s&s5bm3ts21rch=x&num=10&st1rt=0&langs=eng&cdn=canada&hq=&q=International+heritage+language+teachers+associaion#wb-land
Some of these results are:
http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1363882822690
This one is listed under Josephine Pallard (also listed on the wikipedia page as a secretary of the prganization):
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/backgrounders/2009/2009-02-27.asp?_ga=1.190578411.1157824103.1454611364
Provincial documents:
https://archive.education.alberta.ca/teachers/resources/learnlang/educators/partner/
https://archive.education.alberta.ca/media/348417/enhancesllearn.pdf
(discussed on document page number 47)
https://archive.education.alberta.ca/media/486258/sectione.pdf
Mentioned on page 4
https://archive.education.alberta.ca/media/7049139/ldc-report.pdf
listed on page D2
I honestly cannot figure out what exactly qualifies one for secondary sources, but I would believe that being listed in government sources, qualifies? (I don't mean that sarcastically, but it might read that way). I seriously want to improve the wikipedia article. First I need to know that I get to keep it here. Gingerrrr1972 (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry but I have looked through all of the links you have provided and none of them have any significant coverage of this organization, from what I can tell. First, when you search the Government of Canada website, you need to use quotations to make sure that the organization is actually mentioned. When you do that, you'll get approximately 5 results (not 1500). If you look at those results, you'll see there's no actual coverage of the organization. For example, coverage of Josephine Pallard is not sufficient. We need coverage of the organization, not one of its members. Other links from the province of Alberta are not "independent", which you can see is an important criteria in establishing notability: WP:GNG. I appreciate your hard work on this, but I do not think notability has been established. I know the rules are a bit convoluted, but a key question is whether or not editors can create a page with content that is reliably sourced from the materials you've presented. Unfortunately none of these sources actually cover the IHLA in any depth. FuriouslySerene (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am a believer of stating biases so I will begin by stating that I am the creator of this page along with edmontonihla. I am also a believer in Wikipedia’s processes which are designed to keep the pages relevant. Without the work of the moderators Wikipedia would be a collection of articles about people’s pets or advertising.
From what I can gather from the moderators, this page has one main concern which is the notability of the organization. I have spent time reading the notability criteria and I believe that I can address the concerns. The notability page states:
No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools.[1] If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists (see "If it's not notable", below). "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it.
If I understand that correctly, the organization needs to be publically acknowledged. There are multiple criteria. These include depth, audience, and independent sources. While the majority of these sources are not mainstream media, these are provincial and federal documents.
I would like to point out that this organization has been discussed 1) in getting material brought into the provincial archives, 2) in one of its members receiving the “Citation for Citizenship” in 2008 for her work in founding the organization, 3) multiple partnerships with other Canadian international heritage language organizations such as The Canadian Languages Association (http://www.canadianlanguages.ca/cla-regional-affiliates/), The Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers (http://www.caslt.org/community/community-partners-provincial_en.php). In the latter organization’s it also lists scholarships that the organization offers (https://caslt.org/resources/modern-lang/italian-awards-programs_en.php). 4) Although the organization is not “discussed”, it is “thanked” in multiple federal and provincial documents. Some of these are listed above. 5) The organization has been in the media, but admittedly these are usually not about the organization itself, but rather are about events that it is hosting.
Specifically addressing non-profits, the Wikipedia notability page states: Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:
1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
2. The organization has received significant coverage in multiple[2] reliable sources that are independent of the organization.
As pointed out previously and within the links, the volunteer organization has been listed in multiple federal and provincial government documents. I would also like to point out that the organization has historical relevance as it was formed as a direct result of the establishment of the first Ministry of Culture who created the Canadian Counsultative Council on Multiculturalism to support and promote the changing view of Canada as a “multicultural country within a bilingual framework” as opposed to the previous “bilingual/bicultural country” with only two founding nations: English and French. This article is important, not only for its work, but for its place within the history of multiculturalism in Canada. Since multiculturalism is an evolving concept within Canada and really is only 40 years old, it is essential to document its earliest organizations
Gingerrrr1972 (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ministry of Multiculturalism- sorry Gingerrrr1972 (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Other Sources:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=LXXQAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA172&lpg=PA172&dq=International+and+Heritage+Languages+association+edmonton+alberta&source=bl&ots=W7dcDKodG3&sig=cjx5T1Pztc2zriNC0SYpmEKBzJw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjd6ebvt-HKAhVI4WMKHeA6Dhg4ChDoAQgaMAA#v=onepage&q=International%20and%20Heritage%20Languages%20association%20edmonton%20alberta&f=false
http://mobinajaffer.ca/language/national-language-strategy/
https://umanitoba.ca/faculties/education/media/Babaee12.pdf Gingerrrr1972 (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's got a big name but it's just an Alberta linguist association, isn't it? The former names it carried were Alberta Ethnic Language Teachers Association and Northern Alberta Heritage Language Association, as mentioned in the article. The latter also has a hyperlink but the link leads to an article which doesn't mention anything about the association. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Magoo, it's not a linguist association, it's a heritage language school association. So, I am sure you are aware of children who had to go to Greek school or Chinese school on Saturday. Those kinds of language schools are often called Saturday schools. In 1969, the then Prime Minister of Canada called the country a "bilingual and bicultural nation". This was done to appease French Canadians who were starting to realize that their language has less power than English. There was a huge backlash from Western Canada who argued that other groups were equally as important. Particularly vocal were Albertan Ukrainians. They fought the bicultural ad bilingual label and said that there was no way Canada was founded by two groups. As a result, Canada was declared a multicultral framework within a bilingual country. ONe of the first things that happened after that was the development of the ministry of Multiculturalism. One of that Ministry's first jobs was to form the Canadian Counsultative Council of Multiculturalism. It was a group that founded The Alberta Ethnic Language Teachers Association. The organization changed names three times and became the International and Heritage Languages Association that it is today.
The purpose of the article is document the organization's place in history. As of today the organization works on developing inter-provincally accepted language curriculum (The Western Canadian protocol for International and Heritage Languages), supporting heritage language teachers get credentialed so that they can enter the public school system and they celebrate UNESCO's mother language day. The fact that Saturday schools used to be held in church basements and are now part of a school system is the result of their work. They are often "thanked" in government documents. I never included these things within the article because they are promotional and I don't want to go against wikipedia policy.
As I understand the wikipedians' objections, it is because the organization is not adequately documented newspapers and the soul subject of articles. However, since the volunteer organization works closely with government agencies, it is mentioned there. I want to point out that wikipedia has already approved a sister organization called the Saskatchewan Organization of Heritage Languages (SOHL).
Here are two more published references which list the organizaton:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=FO2raeIR2oEC&pg=PA35&dq=International+and+Heritage+Languages+Association+history&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiM64SY8evKAhVjmIMKHbfFAgMQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=International%20and%20Heritage%20Languages%20Association%20history&f=false
https://books.google.ca/books?id=3DVPCAAAQBAJ&pg=PT695&dq=International+and+Heritage+Languages+Association+history&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiM64SY8evK
2001:56A:F3AC:E300:5917:C75D:2CAC:4697 (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what sourcing means, Spartaz. Here is the award's website: http://www.linguapax.org/english/what-we-do/linguapax-award and http://www.linguapax.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/IHLA-Letter-of-Nomination.pdf Thank you Gingerrrr1972 (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Essentially a copyvio of http://www.rccssc.ca/index.php/history-of-rccss-c. Why did nobody check previously? DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Royal College of Chiropractic Sports Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable chiropractic organization. Sources are from the org itself, and a Google search turned up very little to pass GNG. Delta13C (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti Talk 19:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The organization does have a royal charter with is notable recognition in itself. However I found a lot of close paraphrasing from the RCCSS web site here: Duplication Detector
- Can you link to the information about royal charters conveying notability? I am having a difficult time finding reliable sources, independent of the chiro org itself, for this charter. Delta13C (talk) 07:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Thank you, Riband►. This information is helpful for understanding how and why any organization is granted a "royal" charter. I am still looking for information to verify that this is indeed true for the RCCSS and any WP policy whether such a designation conveys notability, per WP:GNG or any other. Delta13C (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you please clarify your comment for me SwisterTwister? Do you mean that being given a royal charter is not enough to constitute notability? or do you mean that the available sources are not sufficient to show notability? or am I missing your point altogether? Thanks. 2001:56A:75B7:9B00:6811:11F8:700D:ECAC (talk) 03:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I am still waiting to be shown how a royal charter conveys notability per WP policy. Delta13C (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Muskoka Bible Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completely unsourced article about an organization, whose strongest claim of notability ("Canada's largest") cannot be verified anywhere but its own self-published content about itself. I searched both Google and ProQuest for improved referencing, and came up bone-dry. In ProQuest, for example, it gets just two hits on its current name and five on its former one — but all seven of them are just glancing namechecks rather than substantive coverage of the type it would take to pass WP:GNG or WP:ORG, and exactly zero of them support the "Canada's largest" claim. And a Google search doesn't bring up any valid sources that aren't simply duplicates of the ProQuest hits. An organization is not entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because its own primary source web presence verifies that it exists; it must be the subject of sufficient coverage in reliable sources to satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion and referencing requirements, but this simply isn't. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- keep the Proquest articles - here are 2 anyone can access [1], [2], from a major Toronto daily, so verify that it is a large tract of Chrisitan recreational-use land. Similar older stuff in the Canadian papers [3], [4]. Those articles point to the fact that it operated a "Camp Widjiitiwin", and that does produce sources [5]. Two of the pastors self-published a book in 2010 Muskoka Miracles: 80th Anniversary By John F. Holliday; Richard D. Holliday [6], not useful for notability, but could help with sourcing and certainly puts this place in the category of Chataqua-like church camps of that era. Overall I'd say that the place can be sourced, it just needs sourcing. expansion. an editor with an interest.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. GNG generally trumps an SNG if sources exist Spartaz Humbug! 06:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Richie Laryea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested based on "some stuff found through google", but without addressing the underlying concern. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I found these: [7], [8], and [9]. These are all feature length pieces of major media outlets, so reliable and significant coverage is met. They are all sources that are independent and some of the most major outlets in Canada. Does not matter if he played in a fully pro league or if he meets WP:NFOOTY, these sources establish he meets GNG and that is all that matters. These sources are the "some stuff found through google" and now that we have an AfD those can be shown and evaluated as opposed to just a header. RonSigPi (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The sources found by @RonSigPi: are all just variations on the same theme - 'young prospect signs to MLS'. Not significant coverage, not notable. GiantSnowman 21:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication of any collage award to satisfy NCOLLATH. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy either NHSPHSATH or widerGNG. I agree with GS, the sources above are essentially just transfer speculation, the simple fact of the matter is this is an individual who has never actually played football at any significant level. Fenix down (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the sources User:RonSigPi provided are unusually extensive and biographical compared to what is typically seen for MLS draftees. Also, 2 of the 3 are in national, rather than regional or local publications, and the 3rd is in the largest broadsheet in the country. Meets WP:GNG. There isn't a single Generation Adidas in the previous 15 years that hasn't been notable, other than poor Zac Herold whose article was (twice) prodded [10] and [11], after he left the sport at age 17, following the discovery of a potentially fatal heart condition. Nfitz (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The sources cited by RonSigPi are not in depth pieces focusing on the subject; they are reports on the MLS SuperDraft with an emphasis on Canadian players, though slightly more focused on Laryea than the others. Not nearly enough to meet GNG. As he has not also met WP:NFOOTY, this is another case of WP:TOOSOON. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 07:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Coverage is standard and no depth of coverage. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)y[reply]
- Keep. While from a WP:NFOOTY perspective this is clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON, the coverage in the reliable sources that RonSigPi provided in his comments, and some of the coverage that Cunard provided, are strong enough for me to believe that the article can stay. PKT(alk) 16:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment - Regarding the additional sources provided by Cunard:
- is a local newspaper reporter covering a local college team. While the newspaper is independent and reliable and the article does concentrate its focus on Laryea, it does not provide the widespread coverage required for WP:GNG.
- is the same as the second source provided by RonSigPi. It is primarily coverage of the MLS SuperDraft and does not provide the in-depth coverage of Laryea required for WP:GNG.
- is a piece by the local paper on the process Orlando City SC undertook to take Laryea in the #7 spot in the SuperDraft. It is not a piece about Laryea himself. While it can be used as a source to validate the statement that he was taken with the 7th pick, it does not provide enough to meet WP:GNG. This source is also already cited in the article.
- Even when all three sources provided by Cunard are merged with the sources provided by RonSigPi and the three sources extant in the article (to provide 7 total sources since 2 are duplicated), I still don't see WP:GNG being met because 6 of those sources do not focus on Laryea, and the other is a local paper performing local coverage. My delete !vote stands unless a more in-depth biographical piece from either a nation-wide source (e.g. ESPN or TSN) or a source located outside the Toronto, Akron, and Orlando areas can be located. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 21:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I am pinging GiantSnowman, Fenix down, and Joseph2302 to review these additional sources as they also cast delete !votes. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 21:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Still think it should be deleted. Per @Jkudlick: above, the 3 new sources presented don't show a depth of coverage enough to pass WP:GNG. Only the first local source covers Laryea in any detail. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also accept a userfy/move to draftspace, as he's just signed for a fully professional team, and seems likely he will play for them in the next few months. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also still go for delete, the sources presented are just routine transfer talk / speculation on how great this player will be. The fundamental point at issue is that this is a person whom editors are claiming is notable as a footballer when he has not actually played football at any notable level yet.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. WP:GNG alone is sufficient, regardless of what WP:ARTIST says. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Jason Baerg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I think this is borderline, but after being unresolved for notability for 8 years, I want to get it resolved, and I couldn't establish that he meets WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There are more references than currently listed in the article, but any claim to notability is weak, and I think he fails almost all notability criteria for Creative professionals. Per WP:ARTIST: 1) He is not regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. 2) He is not known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. 3) His work has not been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. 4a) His work has not become a significant monument. 4b) His work has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition. 4c) His work has not won significant critical attention. 4d) His work is not represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. This claim: "He has won several art awards from the Canada Council for the Arts and the Ontario Arts Council" is an exaggeration. As far as I can tell, he has won the Emerging Artist Award for the Premier’s Awards for Excellence in the Arts and was awarded one grant from the Canada Council. I can't find any sources that call the Emerging Artist Award 'prestigious'. Unlike receiving a notable award, receiving a grant does not make an artist notable. Mduvekot (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have been advised ( see Richard Alexander discussion on WP:NACTOR) that the above quoted rules are actually guidelines to help indicate whether an artist is likely to be covered in reliable sources and passWP:GNG. That he passes WP:GNG through significant reliable sources coverage makes him notable even though he may fail WP:ARTIST. Similarly, if an artist passes some of the criteria of WP:ARTIST but has no coverage in RS ( which happens) he cannot pass WP:GNG.Atlantic306 (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 08:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sofija Skoric (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:BLP — galloping headlong toward the edge of an outright public relations advertisement — of a writer, without a shred of reliable source coverage to support it: the "references" here are two primary sources and a library directory, and a Google News search brings up just six hits all of which are just glancing namechecks rather than substantive coverage. All of which puts her at exactly zero on the WP:GNG scale. No writer ever gets an inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because she exists; RS coverage must be present to support one. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nom is overstated. This is an emeritus or retired librarian, editor, writer, founder and president of an a significant-sounding organization, and an award-winner, not a self-promoting writer wannabe. Perhaps tag for some more references? But seems notable on her own. And the organization also seems notable. It is a combo article; if either is notable then the article is to be kept, though a rename could be suggested. (Take note, user:Orthodox2014, what do you think?) doncram 04:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has a decidedly advertorial tone (not quite enough to be speediable on sight as a G11, but definitely enough that it's not neutral and most certainly does need a significant rewrite), and is parked on exactly zero reliable sources — and I did more than enough WP:BEFORE to determine that there aren't solidly better sources out there. No writer ever gets an exemption from having to be properly sourced just because the article makes impressive-sounding claims, especially if it's a WP:BLP. Bearcat (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not promotional! There is no product or service or religion or anything available to be sold. "Advertorial" does not apply.
- I am sure you'd like to find some negativity to express...perhaps some library users who hate her because she found them stealing library materials? Or a former colleague who has a grudge because she was promoted over them 30 or 40 years ago? Do you know that she has some evil side that must be exposed? There really do exist near-retirement persons who are beloved by all that know them. In such a case, an article should not gush with adjectives, but insubstantial/made-up controversy should not be included either.
- She is near retirement and is not in Google news. RS sources would be dead-tree and/or specialized and behind paywalls. Tag it and provide explanation at the Talk page about what kind of sourcing is desirable, and wait at least a year. Don't expect an immediate substantial reply to rant that could well seem offensive to non-regular editors. Avoid driving potential editors away just because they won't dive into angry mudslinging culture. :) -doncram 13:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "Promotional" does not require the subject to be a product or service; it is entirely possible to write a promotionally toned article about a person, and several parts of this article do cross over that line. POV-toned language is not given a pass just because the article topic is a person rather than a company. And a WP:BLP does not get a year of "allowed to exist on purely primary and directory sourcing just to see if better sourcing becomes possible", either — a BLP has to have reliable sources in it right off the bat, gets no period of even temporary exemption from that, and is a candidate for AFD or prod if it isn't fixed immediately. And I didn't say anything about the necessity of including controversy or negativity whatsoever — your entire point #2 is a strawman that you made up in your own head, not a thing I said or implied or thought or suggested in any way whatsoever. I talked about the necessity of including reliable sourcing, and the necessity of toning down the places where the article is already gushing with POV adjectives — nowhere in this entire discussion have I ever suggested that her includability was in any way dependent on finding evidence of criticism or unpopularity. Notability on Wikipedia is a factor of sourcing, not a factor of how beloved a person is or isn't in her personal life. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you're both kind of right. The article does read like a puff piece at places, but I've seen worse, and yes, sourcing is currently way below BLP standard. However, WP has this odd practice that AFD is not cleanup (that I'm not a fan of, I try to follow WP:HEY when I'm marginally interested in it), so we in 99% cases assess only the subject's worthiness of an article (and I think it's here), even if the article itself is unadulterated crap; WP:TNT is, unfortunately, applied much less often that it should. However, this one is not that bad, at least if we incorporate some of sources I dug up and tone down the puffery. I must notice we've wasted more time & bytes in this debate than it would take to improve it... No such user (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "Find sources" brings up a lot of namechecks of her existence in sources that can't support notability in a WP:BLP, like primary sources and simple directories — it does not bring up a lot, or even really any at all, of the reliable source coverage about her that it would take to carry the referencing in an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I investigated a little, including sources in Serbian. She is active in Serbian diaspora organizations, and she is the founder and president of Serbian Heritage Academy of Canada [12] (founded in 1981, so likely pretty promenent), and a member of board of Serbian Unity congress [13]. She has been interviewed several times in those roles, 2003. 2006 2001. In 2015 she authored an exhibition in Belgrade on Canadian medicinal missions in Serbia during WWI [14]. However, I can't find much sources about her. I'm undecided if she passes the GNG bar, but on retrospect probably yes. No such user (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete at best as this is currently questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you No such user for your sources including in Serbian language. From reading in them I see there will further be Canadian and Serbian news articles (deadtree) about her and her work. For just one newsworthy example: in 1984 for an exhibit and presentation she created, and awards received for doing so, including in person from the Premier of Ontario and, presumably also in person from the President of Serbia. Some points:
- President of SHA, one of 5 founding members, achievements described here.
- She was the one who created an academic exhibit and presentation about Canadian medical volunteers in Serbia during World War I. The project was "officially supported by both states, Yugoslavia and Canada". The exhibit opened at the University of Toronto on November 11, 1984, Remembrance Day..... "SHA was awarded a special Citation from Bill Davis, the Premier of Ontario, for this endeavour." Skoric presented the exhibit in Serbia along with outgoing and incoming Canadian ambassadors James Bissett, at the National Library in Belgrade, and then traveling to many cities. "After completing the tour, the exhibit was gifted to the Serbian Medical Society’s Museum of Serbian Medicine in Belgrade and at that time another “Thank you Canadians” plaque was unveiled at the Museum. Special recognition and medals were awarded to the organizers as symbols of gratitude by the Society of the Descendants of the Salonika Veterans."([15]) }}
- She won awards: "For her work in promoting Serbian culture she received awards: Charter of the government of Ontario government in 1984, the Order of the Association of Solunci, Order of the President of Serbia Vuk Karadžić and Order of the Foundation Braća Karić." "When she retired she was bestowed with the honorary title of Librarian Emeritus."
- She established the Slavic Research Center at Robarts Library, University of Toronto.
- editor and founder of the publishing house Serbian Literary Company
- "past vice-president of Serbian Unity Congress." Serbian Unity Congress is second-listed of "Serbian diaspora organizations" in our Serbian diaspora article. From Google translation I can't tell if she is "in charge of culture" or not for the Serbian Unity Congress, but that is the largest organization of its type and she was vice president of it.
Sofija Skoric [obtained] a master's degree in Russian studies in Toronto and [is] a specialist in Slavic studies at the local university library..... [She is a] Member of the Management Board of the Serbian Unity Congress, ... [the] largest organization of Serbs in the Diaspora, which includes about 100,000 of our compatriots in the United States and Canada. ...The nineties were [a] black decade for tens of thousands of young and educated people who were trying to find their second life in Canada . In Toronto there are about 30,000 Serbs.... Sofija Skoric [is] concerned about keeping their links with the homeland: "For me it is a painful problem. They reached here disgust at everything that happening in Serbia, ucaurili[sic] are in their new homes, are not included in the work of the church, Serbian clubs, our cultural and humanitarian organizations".... (edited from Google translation of srpskadijaspora.info page)
- Google scholar "Find sources AFD" search link above yields her masters thesis and a number (6-10?) of academic articles by her covered in Google scholar, besides library collection/curatorial works (which might or might not be important too). Other hits include academic citations of her works. She turns out to have been President (1988-1990) of the North American Society for Serbian Studies, also, publisher of Serbian Studies academic journal (an issue is here ).
- I !voted Keep above already; I believe her notability is significant and that there is more coverage (including Canadian and Serbian newspapers) not turned up by searching so far. It seems to me that she is a significant person in connection with the Serbian diaspora, and the only such person covered in Wikipedia at all, AFAIK. --doncram 05:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, found these reviews which add to Skoric's notableness - review of Return to Hilandar (Povratak u Hilandar) by Aleksander B. Lakovic, translated by Sofija Skoric from Slavic and East European Journal, listed by ebsco, [16], part of the review found here, [17] - "As for Sofija Skoric's translation, she is to be highly commended for bringing this English version before the public. Her translation is accurate - although I would disagree with a few of her intrpretations." review of Russian Reference Aids in the University of Toronto Library by Skoric, from Papers of the Bibliographical Society of Canada, [18] - "a welcome addition to Canadian initiatives in this field. .. All in all, this bibliography is an excellent contributions to Slavic teaching aids in Canada.". Coolabahapple (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The WP:COATRACK argument for deletion in the discussion does not carry much weight, because WP:COATRACK is an opinion essay. As such, ultimately, consensus relative to Wikipedia guidelines and the strengths of the arguments herein is for article retention. North America1000 04:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Aime Simard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Biography of a person with no really strong claim of notability under Wikipedia's inclusion standards — the only substantive or properly sourced indication of notability here at all is dying in prison, which just makes him a WP:BIO1E. And notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so having been the "secret gay lover" of another person with a Wikipedia article doesn't boost his notability at all. And of the three distinct sources here (one of which is reduplicated for no apparent reason) one of them is a Blogspot blog and one of them fails to actually name the media outlet from whence the citation came, just going "article title, retrieval date, the end" — so the whole thing is resting on one valid source, which isn't enough to claim WP:GNG (and even if that incomplete citation were repaired, two valid sources still wouldn't constitute a GNG pass.) Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Article started as a (group?) assignment in a criminology class. Thing is, these students appear to have done a valid job of finding a notable murder. Here is the CBC on the impact of this murder, 2004 Headline: "Inmate's death raises alarm over prison violence" [19]. The murder received substantial coverage nationwide: [20].E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Canada proposed deletions
Also check the list at WP:PRODSUM
Canada speedy deletions
Canada redirect deletions
Also check the list at WP:RFD
Canada file deletions
Also check the lists at WP:FFD , WP:PUF , WP:NFCR
Canada template deletions
Also check the list at WP:TFD
Canada category deletions
Also check the list at WP:CFDALL
Canada miscellany deletions
Also check the list at WP:MFD
Canada deletion review
Also check the list at WP:DRV
Canada undeletion
Also check the list at WP:REFUND
Canada deletions on Commons
%
|