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:
Marked for notability concerns in 2013, and a complete lack of inline citation. The external links provided are primary (government) sources. A search for sources yielded namesakes. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 04:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating on behalf of IP editors stating that they are the subject. The nomination rationales given are "this article is about me and was published and edited without my consent and I would like it removed", "article about me without my consent, non controversial to delete", & "this page is about me and I am uncomfortable with it being posted. Deletion should be non controversial." [No personal opinion offered at this time.]Espresso Addict (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete. There are thousands of named professorships across the country, at every University. A named professorship does not mean they are notable- just that a donor liked their research or teaching. A named professorship is not a reason to determine someone as notable. 2603:6080:A201:34CE:B04D:2FF2:54C4:1C39 (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This person has 3900 citations per Gscholar and seems to have done development work in models/theories in accounting... I'm not sure if that is a large or small number of citations for their field of work. Oaktree b (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the source I mentioned above, he's not even in the top thousand economists in terms of his h-index, which is 24. Qflib (talk) 16:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be a number of highly cited research papers dating to the 1990s, before the post-internet citation inflation: 734, 425, 408, with three further >=200 (all but one of these dates to the 1990s), and a total of thirteen papers with >=100 citations in GS.[2]Espresso Addict (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Based on the comment above and the comment below my query above, this individual does not appear to meet notability guidelines for academics. Oaktree b (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep. I'm saying tentative because I recognize the h-index concerns, and might change my mind on that basis. But I'm saying keep for now, first, because WP:PROF does indeed presume notability for full professors with named chairs, and second, because I don't really understand why the IP editor/page subject is saying that they want to have the page deleted. Normally, we do not allow page subjects to dictate our content unless unless there is something that violates the WP:BLP policy. In this case, the page appears to be entirely a positive reflection on the page subject. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Switch to Delete. I am basing this on the confirmation that the actual page subject really does want deletion, as well as on the fact that notability under the SNG is not a slam-dunk. Although the subject has a named chair, I think that the impact of his scholarly work is sufficiently borderline, given for example the h-index, that he is at best borderline-notable, and in such an instance, I don't want to insist on keeping the page against his wishes. (And even if notability means that we can keep the page, it doesn't mean that we must keep the page.) I think that the BLP-related concerns of a requested delete should outweigh the encyclopedic value of covering someone of only borderline interest to readers. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm going to need better evidence than IP editors geolocating to a completely different part of the US to treat this as a valid WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. In any case, that sort of request should only tilt the balance when we cannot come to a consensus on whether the subject meets our notability criteria. In this case, with a named chair at a major university, he unambiguously passes WP:PROF#C5, and I think his citation record [3] is also good enough for #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject is a collegiate professor, a type of professorship focussed on teaching, not research. C5 does not apply. Nor does the subject qualify as notable under any other part of WP:PROF. There is simply not the impact or notability within the field that is required to establish an academic as notable. Nothing said above, including the count of his online and offline citations, has proven notability. As has now been verified, the subject is also requesting deletion. arcticocean ■17:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two sources easily pass GNG, and this is more a candidate for expansion rather than deletion; also the vague rationale is a disqualifier; why does it fail GNG? Nate•(chatter)21:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
article does not meet the notability guidelines for companies, it lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. Most references come from local and affiliated sources with limited in-depth coverage and content mainly highlights local achievements without significant impact. NxcryptoMessage07:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP of an actress, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NACTOR. As always, actors are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they've had acting roles to list -- even if you're shooting for NACTOR #1, "has had significant roles in multiple notable films", that still has to be supported by WP:GNG-worthy third-party coverage about them and their careers in reliable sources, and is not passed just by listing roles per se. But this article is referenced entirely to IMDb and Q&A interviews in which she and her husband are talking about themselves in the first person, which are not notability-building sources. Simply existing as a working actor is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt a performer from having to pass GNG on better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This biography is almost entirely self-sourced (or using a congregational bulletin as a source), citing blog entries or pages from his or his organization's websites or summarising the subject's opinions as published in op-ed pieces written by him. Wellington Bay (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having surfed through the sources here, I find the nom is bang on the money. Sourcing is indeed scanty and all roads lead back to Avrum Rosensweig. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI don't believe this page should be deleted, but I do agree that some things should be better sourced.
Avrum Rosensweig has literally changed the landscape of Canadian Jewish philanthropy by founding Ve’ahavta, Canada’s only Jewish rooted, humanitarian organization, in the country.
Over the years, the organization has helped tens of thousands of people on the streets of Toronto, as well as in countries like Guyana and Zimbabwe.
While Rosensweig retired years ago, and is no longer involved in the organization, Ve’ahavta continues to thrive as Canada’ s only Jewish humanitarian organization, living up to the universal ideals and values that he began the organization with.
Delete: There is no coverage to be found of this person in .ca websites, other than social media and primary sources. This appears to be PROMO, a rather long-winded, wordy article that doesn't have much sourcing that isn't connected to the subject. Oaktree b (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am familiar with this person's name in Canada, specifically through knowledge of the NGO he founded. That and some other elements on the page fall under encyclopedic content. I have not contributed to that many pages, but I would like to spend a week or two cleaning this page up/re-sourcing to save this page from deletion if possible. Colinwhite613 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a issues with listing involvement in the synagogue where he served in a leadership capacity as long as the information in balanced evenly and objective. As I understand it, this particular one was build by Holocaust survivors.
This is also a point I wanted to bring up. These sources, while very real, would benefit form outside sources, there may not be a lot but there will be some, based on his written contributions published and the work with Ve'havta. this NGO is encyclopedia content. I hope this will be weighed, and the recent changes taken into acct. Uiaeli (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are many notable pages on Wikipedia that are contributors on various media sites that do not have a lot of sources in which others write about them, but their writing and exposure to their communities and audiences have made impacts. I am researching more sources now for this subject's namespace. The page looks like it has been cleaned up, and promotional material was removed (a lot of it). Some more summarizing and copy edits on expanded articles could be streamlined. I will post on the user's talk page with suggestions for the original contributor and will add some/remove other areas deemed not worthy. Ve'ahavta should not be ignored. His roles in my research is substantial, as well as his exposure to his community and messages against anti-hate campaigns/antisemitism. Reehabmail (talk • contribs) 22:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this above, the suggestion would be to remove television content since its not a encyclopedic in nature at this time. There is a source for radio, but perhaps it is seem as PROMO. I hope sone contributors tske some time to edit. Uiaeli (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. For the subject's work in radio, The second citation "CFRB History in broadcasting" is cited as well. I will look for something else to cite and contribute if I can Colinwhite613 (talk) 20:20, 14 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:[8] (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]
