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:
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. After two relists, both the balance of arguments and the !vote count favor deletion, with keep !voters declining to address arguments analyzing the timing and depth of the published sources covering the subject. signed, Rosguilltalk17:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NPOL as a former candidate who got exactly 0 votes. Since her 2021 run, she did absolutely nothing that is notable, so I'm renominating this article for deletion. All the sources fit squarely in WP:BLP1E territory. Mottezen (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the previous nomination, the 2021 United Nations Secretary-General selection was not yet completed. While, most !keep voters in the previous AfD did not even acknowledge the BLP1E issue, those that did exaggerated her importance in the election.
Example for exaggerated importance: even if the coverage relates to one event (where both the event & the role of the subject is significant); such articles are usually kept. and Invoking WP:BLP1E here isn't right because she pretty clearly has a significant role in the selection. Remember, she got no votes and no country endorsements, so her role in the event was insignificant. Even the UN ambassador for her own country didn't reply to her request for a meeting to discuss her candidacy.
Keep - as in the first AfD, I think the question of notability centers on WP:BLP1E, since WP:GNG is clearly met. BLP1E states that we should not have an article if all 3 conditions are met. Here, Criteria #1 and #2 are clearly met (only covered in context of one event, otherwise low-profile). So is Criteria #3 met? Well, the UN Secretary-General selection is clearly significant, so that's ok. Was Arora's role "not substantial" or "not well-documented"? As GNG is met, we can cross off "not well-documented." On "not substantial", we come to a matter of opinion. Since she received no backing or actual votes, I can see why those in favor of deletion would argue her role was insubstantial. On the other hand, this candidacy was outside the norms of the UN system and attracted reliable media coverage for that reason. I would argue it was substantial enough to merit her inclusion as a standalone page. However, a merge to 2021 United Nations Secretary-General selection would also be a reasonable outcome. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2021 United Nations Secretary-General selection. Not convinced there's enough here for WP:GNG.-KH-1 (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a BLP1E similar to an article about a losing candidate - if there's anything to cover, it can be done on the election page. SportingFlyerT·C04:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Ganesha811 points out, with the amount of coverage received this is not a case of Arora being "not well-documented". I see WP:GNG met in this case, and losses can be notable if covered in reliable secondary sources. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To those who argue her run for Secretary-general is "well-documented"... it's just not, especially in the crucial stages of her campaign. Let me illustrate: these are the dates the 9 secondary sources in the article were published:
AFP (February 19, 2021)
Arab News (April 4, 2021)
NYT (February 26, 2021)
Hindustan Times (February 27, 2021)
Business Today (March 2, 2021)
The Print (February 13, 2021)
CBC (April 4, 2021)
Forbes (May 7, 2021)
New Yorker (June 14, 2021)
Note that there is only one source published in June 2021, the month the vote took place, and thus the month that attention to the UNSG selection was most warranted. Sadly, the most crucial period of her campaign is barely documented. The June New Yorker source is also one of the lesser quality sources because it merely recounts a day the author spent with her; it's storytelling rather than journalistic work. Mottezen (talk) 05:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Again, our standard is to delete or merge articles on unsuccessful candidates for political office. This was kept at the first AfD likely erroneously because those arguing for keep either met GNG was met (which is irrelevant for candidates, who always meet GNG - political candidates are exceptions to GNG under NOT) and that her run was significant for purposes of BLP1E (she ended up not even being eligible to run.) She's also not otherwise notable. SportingFlyerT·C06:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. There are widely diverging opinions/arguments in this discussion on whether or not this subject meets Wikipedia's standards of notability. Editors who are proposing a Merge/Redirect outcome must provide a link to the target article they are proposing. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!05:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as BLP1E. Apart from some glowing PR pieces, her self-declared candidacy for UN Secretary-General was irrelevant to that event. (She says her campaign was "non-traditional" to try to explain away that she got no nominations and no votes.) And there is no substantial coverage about her outside of that. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E, largely per SportingFlyer's additional comment at 06:56 8 May in response to Mottezen (immediately above). SF's comment addresses the prior AfD result in context of when it was resolved, and is correct in their assessment of our current standards regarding unsuccessful candidates for political office as I have seen at DRV over the years. Agree not notable and this falls in the 1E category. Daniel (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2024 (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.
keep I have added a number of citations. There are many, many more available.A BEFORE search, if one was done, would have revealed numerous sources about the article subject. For example, this search[1] should have been a clue that notability would be shown. I used archive links so there wouldn't be a paywall issue. Per WP:NEXISTSeven without citations in the article this nomination would have been without foundation. Oblivy (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the quote from a reliable source "undoubtedly the single most important individual in the history of Canadian library education" is enough to show notability unless there are significant reasons to doubt the independence. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert(talk)08:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
McNally wrote that in 1996, and at the time he was chair of the Canadian Library Association. It looks like Quebec Library Association (of which Lomer was honorary president until 1970) did not become a member of the rebooted national group until 2016. So even though McNally certainly has some pro-librarian bias I don't see anything that would call his independence, or that of the publisher, into question. Oblivy (talk) 10:01, 6 May 2024 (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.
They are separate business entities with separate governance structures from what I can tell and have reference on the Government of Canada website when I was digging around for references. While they share a name, I don't think the connection is that strong beyond that, seems like a worthwhile distinction for people who want to recognize the two entities especially when they have separate reputations (Securian Canada for example has poor reviews vs US which seems to be neutral). Brendanphilp (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: And I used to work for them, so I'll avoid this discussion. But yes, most of this is correct, they did insurance for Sears Canada, Hudson's Bay and Capital One (credit insurance and direct marketing items). Used to be the direct marketing division of JC Penney, then it was sold to Aegon, then sold again. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Coverage here [7] and here [8]. Then here [ https://www.dmnews.com/penney-sells-dm-services-to-aegon/]. The article now seems to gloss over most of their history, which was "colourful" to be generous. A proper article on the company here should at least include the JC Penney and Aegon history. I've poked around the Canadian company's website, they're the subsidiary of the US Securian; they also tend to gloss over that for the same reasons I've outlined. They sell insurance using non-traditional methods (again, I'm trying to be diplomatic, but it seems to be about the same quality as when I was there in the JC Penney days), and even then, it was direct marketing/telemarketing, with all the "fun" that comes with that. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I think the JC Penney references are worth including if that's the case. I think maybe the tactics they use should be omitted unless we can reference that somehow like a newspaper article etc. I'll have a poke around again if there's anything I can reference around that but I didn't see anything on the first pass for including as a "controversy" section so to speak. Brendanphilp (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't personally been able to find external sources to validate the JC Penney part of the discussion or their "business practices" Oaktree b referenced but if someone finds something, happy to include as well.
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.
So back in 2019, this BLP was a nom. for deletion and the consensus was to move this BLP to the draft NS, but it wasn't executed. Five years have passed since then. Upon conducting a quick Google search, it seems that the subject still doesn't meet the basic WP:GNG. Most of her work doesn't meet the standards for WP:N so she fails WP:NCREATIVE as well. Despite receiving Asian/Pacific American Awards for Literature, it's not adequate to establish WP:N. Therefore, it seems appropriate to proceed with deletion for now. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided to withdraw this nom because I think @SouthernNights has a valid point. I must admit I'm not great with sources that aren't related to Pakistan. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:46, 10 May 2024 (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.
Thank you, I had searched but didn't see that. I would support a merge, but I do like how this is sorted by type and with the length this is a rare instance that keeping separate (or even merging the alphabetical list to this one) would be appropriate. Reywas92Talk15:35, 4 May 2024 (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.
Clearly lacking any significant coverage and being non-notable, failing to meet any notability criteria. No reliable sources exist and band is not mentioned except for trivial mentions.
Note that Originalcola previously attempted to PROD this with the same rationale; this was declined by an IP. Also note that this is not the much-more-well-known singer the Weeknd, who is also from Canada. The third and final note is that my involvement is entirely procedural and I offer no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch☎✎22:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There is sufficient non-trivial coverage in multiple sources; see a sampling I added on May 1st and 2nd, articles about the band in Exclaim!, The Hamilton Spectator, the Toronto Star, the Regina Leader-Post, and the Ottawa Citizen. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)01:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above such as Exclaim, Toronto Star, Ottawa Citizens and others that have been added as references in the article and show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2024 (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 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 book provides three pages of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "The Delawana Inn Resort is situated just ninety minutes north of Toronto in Honey Harbour ... Resort guests have access to seven beaches. Tourists have been coming to this area since 1897, when Victoria House Hotel was built; the only access was by boat, and the fare was a whole 15 cents. In the 1920s it became the Delawana Inn, named after the legend of a local chief and expanded gradually over the years. Destroyed by fires in 1952 and 1973, it has been rebuilt to be even better. In 1996 it was sold to a Toronto development company, whose principals had vacationed there as children. Going into its third century with enthusiasm and dedication to families, it's easy to see why "The Del" has been voted Canada's "Top Summer Family Resort" in 2005 and 2006 and is a Gold Member of the City Parent Hall of Fame, having been chosen by readers for five of eleven years."
The book notes: "Accommodations: The style throughout is classic Ontario lake resort, and the rooms are generally spacious and family-friendly, with a variety of bed types. Five types of accommodations span rooms to houses; Parkview, Lakeview, Edgewater, Suites, and Chalet have varied accommodations and styles within each group, and six houses are on-site."
The book notes: "Around 1920 the Victoria Hotel and the Georgian merged to become one facility, and the name was changed to Delawana Inn. Until 1960 the different properties were operated separately by the brothers and their families, then Didace Grise, son of Fred and grandson of Didace senior, was successful in consolidating all family holdings into one enterprise. The Delawana Inn, under Didace and his wife, Mary, soon became a household name and during the ensuing years enjoyed a loyal following of patrons. The Grises rebuilt the hotel after a fire destroyed it in 1952, but the Delawana soon became one of Muskoka's top hotels once more. However the family was put to the test again when another fire struck twenty-one years later, levelling the structure. In 1973-74 they again rebuilt, only this time a new "fireproof" hotel was erected on the site of the old one. ... Today the Delawana Inn is operated by brothers Peter and John Grise."
The article notes: "The Delawana Inn on Honey Harbour, an inlet of Georgian Bay, is an anachronism in today's modern world. A plainly decorated, turn-of-the-century, resort run by third generation innkeepers, it is not part of a large hotel chain, nor has it fallen prey to the "upgrading" that has changed the face of so many of Ontario's old resorts. Self-respecting yuppies probably wouldn't set foot in the place it isn't nearly glitzy enough—but it's a favourite vacation venue for seniors, older "singles" and grandparents. ... The resort is popular with older travellers precisely because it's old-fashioned but also because there are lots of organized activities for children. Couples are able to go off and pursue their own interests, while the small-fry are being entertained. The adults fish, swim, hike on nearby Beausoleil Island or visit tourist attractions such as the Wye Marsh. ... The bedrooms are straight out of the 1960s. Decorated with chocolate-colored, wood panelled walls, orange shag carpeting and metal chairs covered with naugahide, they could hardly be classed as luxurious. They're large and comfy, but they would benefit from a coat of paint."
The article notes: "The Delawana Inn, a summer resort hotel in Honey Harbour, Ontario at the southern end of Georgian Bay, some one hundred-and-ten miles north of Toronto has been operating now for many years and is presently owned by the founder's son, Didace Grisé. In 1951, architect E. C. S. Cox of Islington, Ontario, was retained to design a large chalet to supplement the sleeping accommodation of Delawana Inn. This chalet was started in the fall of 1951 and completed in the spring of 1952. However, during the summer of 1952, the main hotel building, comprising the kitchens, dining room, public rooms and most of the sleeping accommodation was destroyed by fire. ... The site of the new main hotel building was to be that of the burned structure, a difficult area with outcroppings of solid rock at various levels and of which no surveys were available. In short, a typical Georgian Bay site, the ruggedness of which has long appealed to visitors from the more effete landscapes of Ohio, New York and Michigan."
The article notes: "The Delawana Inn, at Honey Harbour on Georgian Bay, has been the setting for family vacations for over 100 years. But where the trip north from Toronto to the inn once entailed a train to Penetang and then a steamboat, it's now an easy drive of about an hour and a half. But over the years and through all the additions and changes, including a recent major refurbishing of all guest accommodations, Delawana has remained a classic full-service resort where families feel welcomed ..."
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'd like to see at least one other editor review these newly located sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!21:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for its significant value to the history and economy of the region. Very rare and important place to countless people. Article needs some work, but is in progress, and this does not justify deletion. Spencerk (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's close, but based on the independent sources identified by @Cunard and clear historical significance of the building I think this should pass notability. Here's my assessment:
100 Best Family Resorts - it's significant coverage, but is it independent? Hard to tell but it has a lot of prices and terms & conditions which leads me to conclude it's largely based on PR materials, not independent
Mustoka's Grand Hotels - significant, ostensibly independent, lengthy, I think this counts as SIGCOV
Loverseed - I can't see the original. The quoted text is not super-long, but it looks like independent content, and I think it should count towards notability
Canadian Architect - I can't see the original article, but again is not long but clearly independent content, and I think it counts towards notability
Toronto star - no byline, seems to be reproducing PR materials, not independent
I'd add one more:
Mr. Grise went to Honey Harbor, where he acquired the old. Victoria House from Nickerson Bros., operating this resort for one year. The Royal was then built by Mr. Grise which has been operated since by the Grise Brothers, sons of the pioneer. The Royal has developed into a very popular summer resort at Honey Harbor. The Victoria is now the Delawana Inn, operated by George and Fred Grise. Osborne, George, A story of early Midland and her pioneers : a tribute to the days of old-to the pioneers who gave of their spirit and thought to the making of the beautiful and substantial Midland of to-day[30]
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.
Keep I think these sources show the subject meets WP:GNG, and certainly that they meet WP:SPORTCRIT. There is enough coverage, especially in the first three examples, that goes beyond routine sports coverage and covers the subject directly.
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.
Keep The sources already in the article have enough coverage to pass WP:GNG and certainly WP:SPORTCRIT. They go beyond routine sports coverage and cover the subject directly.
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
The article notes: "In her first-ever skate at the Canadian Figure Skating Championships, it almost seemed as if Selena Zhao of Varennes, Que., appeared to come out of nowhere to finish atop the field after Wednesday’s junior women’s short program. Turns out Zhao has indeed been on the up-and-coming radar for budding stars but that was in the United States. Born in Seattle and training in Colorado Springs, Zhao became a dual citizen of Canada and the U.S. over the summer. She also eventually moved into the skating stable of Montreal coach Annie Barabe, who runs a top training centre in Contrecoeur, Que."
The article notes: "While Canadian Junior champion Selena Zhao is looking forward to debuting her senior year on the national level this upcoming season, she is also keeping her fingers crossed for some international opportunities. The 17-year-old started the 2014-15 season well, placing ninth and tenth at her two first Junior Grand Prix (JGP) events. She then captured the junior national title with more than 13 points to spare. ... Moving forward, Zhao, who lives and trains in Colorado Springs, Colo., under Christy Krall and Damon Allen, is working on increasing her physical fitness and staying healthy. ... Zhao, who can speak, read, and write in both English and Chinese, will be a senior this fall at Cheyenne Mountain High School where she is a top student. In her junior year, she won the math gold plaque for having the highest grade in the senior math class for BC Calculus."
The article notes: "Selena Zhao, the Seattle-born skater who has become a dual citizen, easily won the junior title Thursday night. Zhao, who turns 17 in May, nailed her free program just like her short program on Wednesday. She left many believing she will be a contender at the senior level next year."
The article notes: "... skater Selena Zhao of Bellevue finished ninth in the final Juvenile Ladies level competition ... Selena Zhao, 10, also has plans to improve her skating through working on her double Axel jump, increasing her foot work and the variety of spins she’s able to perform. She wasn’t expecting her ninth place finish and says when she skates she likes to have fun. ... Lee and Zhao practice their skating elements six days a week and take ballet lessons together on their day off. ... When asked who their favorite figure skater is both Lee and Zhao quickly say Yu-Na Kim."
The article notes: "A solid triple flip and triple Lutz helped Selena Zhao edge Polina Edmunds in the free skate and win the junior ladies gold at the 2012 U.S. Challenge Skate in Salt Lake City. Zhao, who trains in the Chicago area under Kori Ade, landed four clean triples, including Lutz and Salchow combinations in her free skate to violinist Itzhak Perlman's rendition of selections from the Il Postino: The Postman soundtrack. Two other triples were judged under-rotated by the technical panel, but the 14-year-old still earned 83.93 points to win the free skate and take the title with 128.80."
The article notes: "Selena Zhao was selected last year for a Mitchell Scholarship, but a sports-related injury resulted in her deferral to the Class of 2022. Selena graduated in May 2020 from Harvard with a degree in Government. As a student, she researched consociationalism and the impact of this form of power-sharing. She has explored the topic in Nigeria, Lebanon, and wrote her senior thesis on the Good Friday Agreement and how it incentivizes the ethnonational divide for political gain. Selena has worked as a research assistant for several Harvard professors and contributed to Professor Steve Levitsky’s bestseller How Democracies Die. In London, she interned with the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, researching a UK centrist platform. She led several model UN organizations for Harvard, including the largest high-school Model UN conference in the South Asian circuit. Before university, Selena was a competitive figure skater for the Canadian International Team and was the 2015 Junior National Champion. She managed and performed at An Evening with Champions, a yearly fundraiser for pediatric cancer research. She will study Conflict Transformation at Queen’s University Belfast."
The article notes: "Harvard University's Selena Zhao explains how the coronavirus pandemic has impacted her senior year and coursework. Harvard University senior and government student Selena Zhao says that seniors have to find ways to get the closure they would have gotten from events like commencement and senior week on their own terms."
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 merge to Loblaw Companies without prejudice against a (near) future spinoff into a separate article, if WP:LASTING SIGCOV were to support independent notability. Even ignoring the obvious canvassing, arguments on the Merge side were generally more reliant on P&G than the Keep views, with the latter mostly relying on the preponderance of news coverage rather than on its depth or endurance, although the Keep views successfully rebutted the WP:CRYSTAL accusation. Owen×☎20:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Comment I'd like to argue that I had taken the adequate steps in creating the article in a way that does not treat the situation as if it is acting as a WP:CRYSTALBALL. One could argue that it's nothing more than a boycott that originated from Reddit, but it's absolutely reached far beyond that, otherwise it wouldn't have been making national news, nor would I have created the article in the first place. There's a good amount of sources covering about this topic not only during/near the beginning of the boycott, but in the months leading up to it as well. Additionally pasting this here from what I've previously stated, but this is easily one of the most established consumer boycott movements directly related to the 2021–2023 inflation surge and in the 2020s overall outside of the American conservative-led Bud Light and Target Pride Month boycotts/backlash movements.
Adding on to this, but the only editors who have seen this as potentially being delete-worthy were a number of WP:ITN voters. It's received a passing review as well as a "go" sign by an Administrator on the DYK nomination (with the exception that a QPQ had to be completed). B3251 (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Loblaw. Until we actually know the size of this boycott, a separate article is simply not necessary. If it draws 100,000s and has continued coverage over the month, now that's likely something, but it is CRYSTAL to predict how much of a planned boycott (particularly one organized on Reddit) will have. --Masem (t) 02:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Loblaw Companies, in a reduced form. Too recent. Almost all of the coverage is from last week. I can't find support for the boycott being reported on prior to 18/4/2024 (although I haven't done WP:BEFORE level searching). I also couldn't find support for the vague suggestion planning started in January 2024.The Steal from Loblaw thing may or may not be worth merging, but it seems like it's a parallel thing with which the organizers are denying any relationship. Oblivy (talk) 02:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This topic is subject to massive news coverage in Canada; it's on all of the major networks and newspapers, night and day, running for days now. We do not judge notability based on outcome, we base it on coverage, and this passes any bar one might wish to consider for article creation. The arguments above are to the effect of "we don't know the outcome of the protest", but I'm not sure what that is supposed to even mean - we don't know the outcome of the campus protests in the US over Israel's involvement in Palestine, yet there are several articles on that topic and not one has been AfDed. The Loblaws coverage started the same time, so I'm likewise not sure how one can argue it's "too recent" and the other isn't. I'm inclined to SNOW this AfD unless someone can come up with a cogent argument based on actual policy. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my view the relevant policy is WP:CRYSTAL. All of the cites relating to the boycott are extremely recent. I put a link above to a mid-April day on which a local newspaper reported on the boycott. Maybe there's something earlier, I don't know. Although not a policy, the article has, in my view, some WP:COATRACK attributes as it puts together (1) allegations against the company (the background section), (2) the history of the reddit group, (3) the boycott and some corporate reaction, and (4) steal from Loblaw. These all fit a theme, which is anti-Loblaw activism (speaking directly, not trying to be provocative), and perhaps that's an article that could be written now. But an article on the boycott itself is too soon for the reason given above. Oblivy (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article should not be deleted. The boycott started two days ago and is ongoing for the entire month. The Loblaws boycott is happening nationally and receiving press coverage from various sources. Deleting this article in the midst of the event when it is gaining more traction daily seems like someone is colluding with Loblaws to get more favourable press for their company. Wikipedia is suppose to be independent. The article should stay as it provides valuable information on the Loblaws Boycott. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleeplessjade (talk • contribs) 13:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC) — Sleeplessjade (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Sleeplessjade (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
As the article creator, I apologize for the actions of whoever may have posted this. I didn't make the Reddit post nor do I use Reddit, but this being posted in the community that is an active subject in the article itself causes major WP:BIAS issues with potential votes coming from r/loblawsisoutofcontrol community members rather than editors. B3251 (talk) 03:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't really buy the argument that because we don't know how a boycott will work out, we can't have it on Wikipedia. It's clearly very well supported by sources so is notable enough of an event. GraziePrego (talk) 08:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The criteria we should use is the notability of the topic, not the possible outcome of the boycott itself. The Wikipedia article already has a quote from François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry), and Galen Weston Jr. (chairman of Loblaws), showing that it is creating a response from people in politics and the corporation. This article has 41 news articles cited as of May 5 from a wide range of news sources. The only reason that has been given is the prediction on the success of the boycott, which isn't a normal criteria that Wikipedia considers for deletion. If there is some criteria that is missing, it is recommended that that be better clarified in the discussion, so that the article can be improved, such as through additional citations or editing of the page.DivaNtrainin (talk) 01:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't saying the boycott wont have any effect trying to predict the future itself. It also assume that only members of the sub will participate in the boycott.
We don't know what the effect on the corporation financials will have.
But there's already very big PR damage done. It's on all the news network (both in French and English) and even the president of Loblaw met with one of the organiser. So the event itself is already something tangible and acknowledged by the Loblaw.
Comment the above two comments do not stand up to longstanding policies that say we should not predict future events, like WP:CRYSTAL. There is no merit to claiming that those voting for merge or delete are predicting the boycott is going to fail. The onus is on those voting keep to offer policy-based arguments that this extremely recent and ongoing event is shown, based on things that have already happened and been reported on in reliable sources, to merit a separate article. Oblivy (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your arguement is a reason to keep the article, not delete it. The fact that this boycott has created a lot of PR and the President of Loblaws (Galen Weston) has met with the organizer gives credence that the boycott is news worthy. There is still uncertainty of the effect of the boycott, but uncertainty by itself is not a reason for deletion. We can tag this as an ongoing event. We can add corporate financials as a separate subsection once they become available, but we shouldn't wait until financials become available to have this article. I have also seen some articles that this has lead to an increase in sales for local and alternative grocers, which is also something we can add to the article. If there is reliable articles regarding a shift in consumers spending, that is just as important as Loblaws bottom line.DivaNtrainin (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I advocate keeping some of the content but not having a separate page. Noted that several days into the boycott people already extrapolate that it's having an effect, but there are longstanding policies cited above that counsel against including recent events such as this. Oblivy (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the time being. It currently stands alone to have more info than a paragraph in the Loblaws article. If the article does not fill out sufficiently over time through coverage, which it already does have ample coverage, merge into the Loblaws article later on. Otherwise known as - too soon to tell, but currently big enough to warrant it's own article. CaffeinAddict (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems like a reasonably referenced page and providing it sticks to referenced facts rather than conjecture, I'm not seeing how WP:CRYSTAL really applies. Ordinarily we might expect a section of a page to expand and become its own page but it seems like this is already too long to merge back. That said, it does feel that if the boycott turned out to be of limited impact it would be right to severely trim and perhaps merge at that stage. JMWt (talk) 08:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with CRYSTAL arises because the article was created basically at the same time the boycott was launched. As this AfD has ground along it has looked less temporary/speculative. Even today the evidence of impact seems like weak sauce (although I'm sure someone will disagree with me on that). It's due to be relisted or closed. At this point I'd rather see it closed even if that means keep - as you say, if it turns out to be speculative it can be trimmed or merged. Oblivy (talk) 09:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be a very strong consensus not to delete, a somewhat smaller argument for merge, and a fairly strong consensus for keep, at least in the immediate term. As such, I think this is safe to SNOW? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2024 (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.
I need editors' help to determine this video series' notability. Some of the references are dead, and I don't know whether the few ones that live are enough. I didn't find anything in WP:BEFORE search. Neocorelight (Talk) 23:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - When searching for sources for the current AFD for the character list, I was finding absolutely nothing on this series in reliable sources. What sources are present in the article are also pretty bad - most are not even really about the series or are not reliable sources. The extremely small amount of coverage it received seventeen years ago is not enough to pass the WP:GNG and it has received absolutely no coverage or reviews in reliable sources since then. Rorshacma (talk) 03:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sounds like a strong case for deletion. The lack of reliable sources WP:SIGCOV and issues with notability WP:GNG raise concerns about the article's factual basis and value. Waqar💬18:24, 4 May 2024 (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 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.
FRSA definitely does not pass #C3. It is (currently at least) the sort of fellowship given to paid subscribers as a way of letting them express that they are interested in the arts. It is not the sort of fellowship given only to people with significant academic accomplishments. See the description of what it means at Royal Society of Arts § Fellowship. This has come up repeatedly before but unfortunately I do not know of a good link where that past wisdom has been collected. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He's a senior research fellow at a Canadian University [33], I'm not sure if that passes PROF notability. Carleton is a mid-level Canadian university in Ottawa. Oaktree b (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was hoping the Citizenship medal would get some coverage, but I can only find his name in a list of winners. I don't see notability due to a lack of sourcing. If the chair position in my question above makes him notable, I'll revisit my !vote. Oaktree b (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. That just says that some research group hired him to be a researcher ("senior research fellow"). The word "fellow" is overloaded in academia, and again, this is not the sort of highest-level honorary membership in an academic society that would pass #C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I see no evidence that he passes any of the criteria in WP:NPROF, including the material in the writeup given by Usimite. The criteria are very specific, and people have to be demonstratively notable in one or more of them. His award from the Canadian Evaluation Society is not big enough, as the relevant chapter has only ~450 members which is too small -- and it is a local not a national award. While he has contributed importantly to the University, it looks routine (WP:MILL) to me. The only possible pass is the Ontario Medal for Good Citizenship which is notable enough to have a page. However, it is pretty low in the order for Canada, see Canadian honours order of wearing so I don't view it as passing the wider WP:N. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you are not fully quoting C6 which states "Lesser administrative posts (provost, dean, department chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone". Also C5 is for academic (endowed) chairs, not (administrative) chair of a center. Lastly in C7 the text is specific, "the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area", and your three links (which don't appear to be in the page) are his articles, which is different from others quoting him as an academic expert. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. He has a few well-cited publications but then his citation counts drop off steeply [34]. Among the top citations, Knowledge shared is an edited volume rather than an authored work and Accelerating impact is not really authored by him; it is a think tank report listing his company as a corporate author. I don't think that leaves enough for WP:PROF#C1 and I'm not convinced anything else discussed here or in the article counts for notability at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:20, 14 May 2024 (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.
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. No context to assert notability either. Of the sources, they are nothing but news announcements or guides, three of those are primaries and none of them assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:03, 1 May 2024 (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.
Article PRODded with reason " Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by article creator who added several sources to the article, as well as links to the GScholar profiles of the editors. Unfortunately, none of the references are in-depth discussions of this journal and most are not independent either. The GScholar profiles strongly suggest that none of the editors are notable themselves, with the possible exception of one, but in any case, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing to contest the proposed deletion of the Wikipedia page for "The Journal of Medicine, Law & Public Health." My argument rests on several pillars of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, specifically those related to academic journals (WP:NJournals) and the general notability guideline (WP:GNG). Here are the key points supporting the retention of this page:
1. Significant Contribution and Scope:
The journal was established during the critical period of the COVID-19 pandemic with the aim to inform policymakers and appraise best research practices in the fields of medicine, law, and public health. Its interdisciplinary focus spans crucial areas such as epidemiology, mental health, emergency medicine, and medical ethics, underscoring its broad academic and practical relevance.
2. Indexing and Accessibility:
"The Journal of Medicine, Law & Public Health" is indexed in WorldCat (OCLC No. 1427524091), affirming its accessibility and presence in significant academic repositories. This indexing supports the journal's credibility and accessibility to researchers globally, an important criterion under WP:NJournals.
3. Editorial Credibility:
The editorial board comprises scholars who are actively contributing to their respective fields, as evidenced by their profiles on Google Scholar. This not only demonstrates the journal's commitment to high academic standards but also enriches its contributions to the academic community.
4. Publication of Notable Research:
The journal has published significant research studies, such as those assessing patient satisfaction during COVID-19 and evaluating temperature measurement methods during the pandemic. These publications are indicative of the journal's active role in addressing timely and impactful health issues, aligning with WP:NJournals emphasis on the journal's influence in its field.
5. Adherence to Rigorous Academic Standards:
It adheres to a stringent double-blind peer-review process, ensuring the integrity and quality of published research. This process is a cornerstone of scholarly publishing and supports the journal's standing in the academic community.
6. Future Directions and Potential for Growth:
Plans to expand into cutting-edge areas such as artificial intelligence in healthcare and the legal implications of emerging medical technologies signal the journal's forward-thinking approach and potential for future impact on interdisciplinary research, fulfilling aspects of WP:GNG.
In light of the above points, it is clear that "The Journal of Medicine, Law & Public Health" meets both the specific notability standards set forth for academic journals and the general criteria under WP:GNG. The journal's contributions to its fields, its accessibility, and its rigorous editorial standards all argue against its deletion and for its further development and recognition on Wikipedia.hence: Keep. Andrewjenner75 (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for acknowledging the efforts to improve the article. I understand your concerns regarding the notability standards as per WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. However, I would like to further substantiate the journal's significance by presenting detailed evidence, particularly focusing on the impact and recognition of its editorial board, which indirectly enhances the journal’s credibility:
Editorial Board’s Scholarly Impact: The editors of "The Journal of Medicine, Law & Public Health" are not only experts in their fields but also highly cited scholars. For example, Sharafaldeen Bin Nafisah, the editor-in-chief, is well-recognized for his contributions to medical law and public health, with a substantial citation count reflecting his extensive influence. Similarly, Abdulaziz Boker, known for his work in medical education and ethics, and Jameel Abualenain, focused on emergency medicine and public health policy, have publications that are widely cited, indicating their prominent roles in shaping academic discourse. Other editors like Bandr Mzahim, Abdulrahman Ahmad Alzahrani, and Khaled Al-Surimi bring significant insights from emergency medicine, health informatics, and public health advancements, respectively, each with a strong citation record that underscores their scholarly impact. Almost all of the editors of this journal have more than 200+ citations individually.
Independent Citations of Published Articles: Several articles published in the journal have been independently cited in other scholarly works, demonstrating the journal's role in contributing valuable knowledge to the field. For instance, studies on patient satisfaction during COVID-19 and the effectiveness of temperature measurements during the pandemic have been cited multiple times according to Google Scholar, indicating their impact on related research areas.
Indexing and Academic Usage: Beyond just being listed in WorldCat, the journal's articles are referenced and used by academics and professionals, affirming its utility and relevance in the fields of medicine, law, and public health.
Broad Academic Discourse and Future Directions: The journal’s commitment to expanding into interdisciplinary research involving emerging technologies like AI in healthcare represents its potential to influence future academic and practical applications, aligning with the WP:GNG which requires potential for significant coverage.
A book called "The Art of Emergency Medicine: A Practical Approach for Emergency Physicians" has been published in 2021.This resource is crucial for assisting emergency healthcare practitioners in navigating the complex treatment of both adult and pediatric emergency cases.
In light of this additional information, I urge the community to reconsider the notability of the journal. The citation metrics and scholarly influence of its editorial board, combined with the independent citations of its articles, substantiate the journal's impact and relevance in its academic field, thus meeting the criteria set out in WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. Their collective contributions ensure that the journal remains a critical resource in the fields of medicine, law, and public health, enhancing its notability and justifying its presence on Wikipedia. Andrewjenner75 (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication that this journal has gotten any significant coverage. Nothing other than the creating editor's opinion of its importance suggest it meets WP:NJournals. Getting an OCLC number is no criterion at all, that just means that at least one library somewhere has it in its holdings; it's no more a sign of notability than an individual in the US having a social security number. The potential notability of some of its contributors in no way suggests that the journal has inherited that notability; see WP:NOTINHERITED. TJRC (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2024 (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 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.
There are no sources covering these characters, let alone as a group. I think its parent article NX Files isn't notable either, so redirecting should not be considered. Neocorelight (Talk) 14:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Like the nom also mentioned, I'm not finding anything to indicate that the actual NX Files itself is notable, let alone this unsourced list of characters. Rorshacma (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2024 (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.
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The most fancrufty list to appeal to nobody but the small minority of ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are announcements and does not help to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:30, 28 April 2024 (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.
Non-notable mountain guiding company in Canada (per N:CORP). There are some scraps of articles in local old Canadian newspapers, but nothing nationally or internationally (and zero SIGCOV anywhere). Some famous Canadian climbers have worked there, but the company never appears in any of main climbing RS (per WP:NCLIMB). Article had a lot of unreferenced promotional material, which I removed, but ultimately it has no future on Wikipedia. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very little of the content in the article is referenced or supported by reliable sources. Of the 6 references provided, 3 of the links are broken or the original articles have now been taken off-line. It fails on the basis of verifiability Sadly what is little sourced material is left does not qualify as WP:SIGCOV. Dfadden (talk) 12:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for starters, the entire Sponsorship and Community Involvement section contains only 4 refs, 2 of which are dead links, another points only to a homepage for the John Lauchlan award and makes no mention of Yamnuska Mountain Adventures and the final one makes only passing reference to the organisation sponsoring a $500 prize in a local book contest - hardly in-depth, significant coverage!
The list of issues is a very long one - history section talks about changes of ownership and board appointments with no sources cited; guides section makes generic, unreferenced claims about pioneering new routes through the Rockies; a throwaway line after a referenced claim that they were the second largest employer of certified guides in 1993 that says "it is expected that this is true today" - really? How do we check this anyway as the original source is a 30 year old off-line newspaper article that you'd likely need a Canadian library or subscription to an archive service to verify.
There is a large amount unencyclopedic promotional content throughout the article that likey violates WP:PROMO (eg. "The very exacting standards to which Yamnuska Mountain Adventure's guides are held should not obscure the fact that the guides are the heart and soul of the company." or "Individuals, groups, corporations and military organizations from all over the world continue to choose Yamnuska Mountain Adventures as their provider. Yamnuska Mountain Adventures has become known as the leader in the industry with excellent program delivery, high levels of risk management and excellent customer service." Once again, neither of these statements are supported by any sources, let alone reliable ones. Dfadden (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to see this stay up as I think Yamnuska has a long (47 years) history and has had many touch points within the Canadian mountaineering community that are worth knowing about. You're right it needs some work with the references. Here is one for the John Lauchlan award with Yamnuska listed to start: https://www.alpineclubofcanada.ca/community/financial-grants/john-lauchlan-award/
How do you suggest I reference or find sources that we have military contracts?
You seem pretty motivated to delete this content but I would suggest that working to bring this to the right level would be in Wikipedia's best interest. Jdemontigny (talk) 02:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you feel strongly about the importance of this company. I don't have any personal investment either way. Im not motivated to delete content arbitrarily, but afyer objectively assessing it against wikipedia's content policies, the case to delete it far outweighs the case to keep it in my view. The link you provided to the John Lauchlan award doesnt actually mention the company, but has its logo as a sponsor. Under Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines that are the basis for what should and should not be included in the encyclopedia, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." I'm failing to see how the inclusion of the company's logo on a list of award sponsors is anything but trivial.
As to your question about finding sources related to military contracts, if you cannot locate any, this fails the general notability guidelines of WP:Verifiability - if you cannot find a reliable source that supports a claim, then that claim shouldn't be published in an encyclopedia. There are many companies with Defense contracts and partnerships all over the world that are well documented in industry publications (for example this article, which provides independent, significant coverage [35]).
If you think you can fix the article to an standard that satisfies the notability guidelines, you can request it is moved to the draft space where you can edit it, however I'm slight concerned that you said "How do you suggest I reference or find sources that we have military contracts?" This implies you have some connection to this company that may represent a Conflict of Interest. If this is the case you should declare it upfront and click on the blue link to familiarise yourself with the policy around COI edits. Dfadden (talk) 03:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to know why Yamnuska Mountain Adventures would be considered a non-notable mountain guiding company in Canada? It is still Canada's largest, non-mechanized Guiding company. I think this company should remain on Wikipedia and not be deleted. Jdemontigny (talk) 02:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For a company to be notable on Wikipedia, it must meet the criteria of WP:NCORP, which requires quality independent sources to give significant covergage on the subject (ad not people who worked for the subject etc.).
The issue is that I could find no such sources - not even in main line climbing media (per WP:NCLIMB). If such sources exist, you can paste them here (just put the web link inside hard brackets like this), and they can be considered. Aszx5000 (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having read and considered the links provided above, I am starting to form a view that this company is at least somewhat notable. However, it needs a lot of work by an experienced editor (with no COI or connection to the company) to address the many issues it has and ensure it folows the WP:NPOV guideline.
Most of the articles linked provide only trivial coverage, or are focussed on employees and directors, rather than the company itself, but I think this speaks to @Jdemontigny's lack of familiarity with Wikipedia content policies (and potential COI). Things like Instagram and blog posts by anonymous users are hardly WP:RS. That said, I feel the 2x CTV articles and the Outpost Magazine article do provide considerable depth and verify some of the Yamnuska article's claims. It will take a lot of work to bring the article up to standard and this probably should be done in the draftspace. I would support Draftify although I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to volunteer and it's not a particular area of interest for me.Dfadden (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In an effort to give this one the benefit of the doubt, I went searching for further RS... I found an academic publication on google scholar here: [36]
Co-author of this document is Jesse De Montigny, of Yamnuska Mountain Adventures. Noting that a significant contributor to this article who has also contributed to this AfD has the username user:jdemontigny and their total contribution to Wikipedia has been edits to this article or the AfD, I feel there is a clear conflict of interest and I am now firmly in favour of delete! While I do think there may be enough out there to prove the company is at least somewhat notable and salvage a very basic version of the article, I feel the only fair way to achieve that now would be with WP:TNT and a robust, consensus driven AfC. Dfadden (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every company will easily meet WP:NEXIST, by the nature of their activities. Therefore, because of the promotional aspect of companies on Wikipedia (and this article has a lot of promotional material on it when I came to it), the notability of WP:NCORP is stringently applied imho. Having gone through the sources above, it is clear that in this case, a Wikipedia article for 'Yamnuska Mountain Adventures' would be the biggest plank in its notability (hence the conflicted editor working on it), which is the wrong way around. ( Aszx5000 (talk) 09:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing a bit of digging into it. I didn't write the original content but did do a bunch of edits to add some more modern content given my knowledge of the business. This was the first time I had contributed to a Wikipedia page so clearly some learning needed. Could the article not just be reverted to the original, removing my edits if having me write them is a conflict of interest? 2604:3D09:2384:900:3D76:98E:C35A:6AC2 (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2024 (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.
Delete. "Lead plaintiff" in a class-action suit is practically random. Of course, lawyers will name as a lead plaintiff someone with a legally sympathetic case, but that is not a source of notability, and neither is anything else indicated in the article. BD2412T03:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, an independent article may not be needed. That person should be covered in an article regarding the event, and the person's name should be redirected to it.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, I don't think that we need a separate article for the class action lawsuit. Canada convoy protest#Lawsuits covers this same lawsuit with about as much detail. A merge of the child article into the parent wouldn't make the parent much more larger than it already is, would prevent/fix any WP:CFORK issues, and is something I had been considering doing WP:BOLDly prior to it being brought up here.
Delete. There's no notability in being the lead plaintiff in a notable case, and nothing here suggests there is any other basis for notability. I would suggest merging anything pertinent into Canada convoy protest class action lawsuit, but I see nothing worth merging.
I guess a redirect would be okay, if there's a thought that someone might be searching on the name of the litigant, but that's probably not needed. TJRC (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being okay with a redirect. This Google News link shows that Zexi Li has given numerous interviews to the media about the Canada convoy protest. This article calls her "spokesperson and the face of the lawsuit" against the convoy, so I think her name is a plausible search query. Several reasons from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Reasons for not deleting also apply such as "They have a potentially useful page history" (there is useful information about her activism about the Canada convoy that potentially could be merged) and they would "make the creation of duplicate articles less likely" (an article about a lawsuit's spokesperson is duplicate to an article about the lawsuit). Cunard (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I have to disagree that there is a "useful page history." I'll reiterate that there is absolutely nothing that I would consider merging from this article, so preserving the page history is of zero importance to me. I strongly prefer hard deletion, at which point if people think "Zexi Li" is a plausible search term, a redirect can be created later. Any support for a redirect that I've expressed here should be considered weak. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)14:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with GhostOfDanGurney on the page history. As I said above, although I don't object to the redirect, I see nothing worth merging, so there's no need to retain the page history, which is not potentially useful. TJRC (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting because although there is a consensus that this shouldn't be a standalone article, there are several different target articles suggested here. Can we narrow this down to one to Redirect or Merge to? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!04:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that details on her whereabouts are relevant and I'm not sure how WP:DUE applies to it. Canada convoy protest is a far better sourced article than either Zexi Li or Canada convoy protest class action lawsuit; merging Zexi Li is wholly unneeded when Canada convoy protest already covers everything relevant; her specific whereabouts (paragraph two) is covered by the text "...on behalf of downtown Ottawa residents over continuous air horn and train horn noise." and her specific testimony (paragraph four) is not relevant when looked at in the context of the article (it's obvious and well-sourced that Ottawa residents experienced varying levels of distress during the event).
Zexi Li is the lead plaintiff of a class action lawsuit against the Canada convoy protest. The second and fourth paragraphs discuss her living in a high-rise building in Ottawa and her testimony about how she and other Ottawa residents were disrupted by the noise generated by the Canada convoy protest. This is the crux of her class action lawsuit against the Canada convoy protest, making the information relevant—due weight—for both Canada convoy protest class action lawsuit and Canada convoy protest#Lawsuits. Cunard (talk) 05:23, 13 May 2024 (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. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for deletion at this time. BD2412T21:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP of a sports figure, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for sportspeople. To be fair, at the time this was first created, Wikipedia had a consensus that simple presence at the Olympics was an automatic inclusion lock regardless of medal placement or sourcing issues -- but that's long since been deprecated, and a non-medalist now has to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability. But a WP:BEFORE search turned up very little that could be used to salvage the article: apart from Olympic results reporting itself, I largely just get glancing namechecks of his existence and local high-school-athlete coverage rather than coverage that's substantively about him in any notability-building sense. I've further been completely unable to verify this article's claim that he was born in Sudbury — even the database entry present here as the article's sole source fails to claim that, and his local high-school-athlete coverage is found in Ottawa, not Sudbury. (And yes, I get that it's possible for people to be born in one place and then move to another, but we still need to be able to verify claims about a person's birthplace.) Finishing ninth in an Olympic event just isn't "inherently" notable enough anymore to exempt him from ever having to have more reliable source coverage than I've been able to find. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Ottawa Citizen is the local hometown coverage I mentioned in my nomination statement, the St. Cat's Standard is just a short blurb that nominally verifies a fact but is not long enough to imbue said fact with any notability points, and the Harbour City Star hit is literally just an advertorial to sell aquatic sport clothing that Tyler Lawlor is modelling, not an article about Tyler Lawlor doing anything noteworthy. So the Ottawa Citizen is still all we've actually got for GNG-worthy coverage, and that's still "local guy" coverage in his hometown newspaper (i.e. not enough if it's all he's got). Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Ottawa Citizen is one of the largest newspapers in Canada, and as such should be given the full weight of a normal significant source (esp. considering that locality of coverage is irrelevant). The Harbour City Star piece: yes, it is about a business of Lawlor's, but it seems to be written by a valid journalist by a valid company (Southam Newspapers, owned by Postmedia Network) – it seems to have enough details on him IMO to be categorized as covering him "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" – as far as I'm aware a source does not need to cover someone for them doing something one subjectively things is "noteworthy" to be considered significant. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody dismissed the Ottawa Citizen on size grounds, but all newspapers can still cover local residents in local-interest contexts that don't necessarily clinch nationalized or internationalized notability in and of themselves for a person who has virtually nothing wider than just their hometown. For instance, a restaurant owner in Byward Market is not going to clear GNG just because a restaurant critic reviewed his restaurant in the Citizen, a local artist winning a local arts award from the SAW Gallery isn't going to clear NARTIST standards on that basis alone, and on and so forth. Even The New York Times features coverage of local people in local-interest contexts that don't establish permanent national or international notability all by themselves just because their local coverage came from The New York Times instead of the Palookaville Herald, because GNG does take into account the context of what the person is getting covered for and not just the raw number of hits that exist. Bearcat (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's still only one source, I don't see quite enough for GNG or any sport notability as being met. I don't think we have notability, still a !delete for me. Oaktree b (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b and @Bearcat, there were actually four newspaper sources provided, not just one. Remember that a person does not need to be the sole subject (or even a primary subject) of a work for it to satisfy WP:GNG. I also disagree that "local" coverage is any less legitimate than national coverage in these papers, because their audience is the same, i.e. all Times subscribers will read it even if the subject is a New Yorker. For your specific examples (Byward Market restaurant owner, SAW Gallery award winner) – do you have specific examples of these types of subjects having articles deleted by community consensus? --Habst (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of the geographic range of a newspaper's readership, it's a question of the context in which the coverage is being given. There have been literally thousands of articles taken to AFD and deleted on the grounds that having a couple of hits of local coverage was not in and of itself enough to overcome the person's lack of a nationalized or internationalized notability claim — high school athletes (e.g. Marquis Fleming), local artists (Laura BenAmots), mayors (Cathy Heron) or municipal councillors (Corky Boozé) or unelected candidates for office (Tiffany Ford), people whose sole claim of notability was winning a minor award of exclusively local significance (Bob Frantz), restaurateurs (Emilio Vitolo) and on and so forth. Again, I didn't say that local coverage is entirely inadmissible for use — but having a couple of hits of local coverage isn't enough all by itself to overcome not passing WP:NSPORT. And I already addressed above why the St. Catharines Standard (a short blurb) and Harbour City Star (a fashion advertorial in which he's present as a model and not as the subject of discussion) aren't helping. Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat, thanks, I am interested in seeing at least one of the thousands of examples. Of the ones you linked,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corky Boozé: Subject is a U.S. politician, and Wikipedia articles involving post-1992 U.S. politics have higher quality standards than those for sportspeople. Despite this, only two different newspaper sources were provided (plus one dead link), while this AfD has three different publications cited above.
Based on this, it seems like it is very rare, if it has ever happened, that an article with as much coverage provided here has ever been deleted. I have an open mind, but I haven't been able to find any examples. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the number of links that are or aren't listed in the AFD discussion that matters, it's the number of sources that were or weren't present in the article that matters. They're all articles that cited a handful of local-interest coverage, which was deemed not sufficient in and of itself to exempt them from having to clear the defined SNGs for their occupations just because the articles had a bit of local-interest coverage in them. The rules for notability of people always work the same way no matter what occupation they were in: either they have an "inherent" notability claim that meets a defined notability criterion for their occupation, or they have a depth and range and volume of coverage that marks them out as a special case of significantly greater notability than the norm among all the other people in the same occupation who have failed to meet the "inherent" notability criteria. Local politicians do not get articles just because they have a couple of hits of local coverage; local restaurateurs do not get articles just because they have a couple of hits of local coverage; athletes who haven't otherwise passed NSPORTS do not get articles just because they have a couple of hits of local coverage; and that always works the same way across all occupations. Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat, I understand the distinction you are making, but it is one without a difference with respect to this discussion, because if we don't have the links to the actual sources, then we can't say that those articles were more well-sourced than this one.
> Local politicians do not get articles just because they have a couple of hits of local coverage; local restaurateurs do not get articles just because they have a couple of hits of local coverage; athletes who haven't otherwise passed NSPORTS do not get articles just because they have a couple of hits of local coverage
^ The above is what I'm looking for even one example of. All of the above AfDs linked have less available sources than this article, regardless of profession, so I don't think they are analogous. Until I find any evidence otherwise, I would have to disagree with the quoted text. --Habst (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2024 (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.
WP:BLP of a YouTuber, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for YouTubers. As usual, YouTubers are not "inherently" notable enough for 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 three of the seven footnotes here are the subject's own self-published content about themself on YouTube or their own website, and one more is a "staff" profile on the self-published website of an organization they've been directly affiliated with, all of which are primary sources that are not support for notability at all. Meanwhile, the other three footnotes are a Q&A interview in which they're talking about themself in the first person (which would be acceptable as verification of additional facts after GNG had already been covered off by stronger sourcing, but is not itself contributing to passage of GNG as it still represents the subject talking about themself); one brief glancing namecheck of their existence as a provider of soundbite in an article about something other than themself, which isn't support for notability; and just one source that's actually represents third-party analysis about Khadija Mbowe in any meaningful sense, but is too short to singlehandedly clinch passage of GNG all by itself if it's the only strong source in the mix. Obviously this is without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when an article can be sourced better than this, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to be better than this. Bearcat (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: When creating the article, my main rationale for notability wouldn't be based on inherently being a YouTuber, but I've rather tried to find enough WP:SIGCOV. Here are some other sources that mention them ([38][39][40][41][42][43], although I'm aware some of them are passing mentions). --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any of those count as SIGCOV for a biographical article, they're either very passing mentions or listicles without any depth to write an article from. AlexandraAVX (talk) 06:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not qualify for an inclusion in Wikipedia. As said by the nominator, it is decorated with lots of primary sources that neither prove notability nor show significant coverage, per WP:GNG. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2024 (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.
Biography of a former mayor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not "inherently" notable just because they existed, and have to pass conditional notability standards based on the depth of substance that can be written about their careers and the volume of sourcing that can be shown to support it -- but this, as written, is basically "mayor who existed" apart from a section that advertorially bulletpoints a generic list of "achievements" without really saying or sourcing anything whatsoever about what he personally had to do with any of them, and minimally cites the whole thing to one primary source self-published by the city government that isn't support for notability at all, one unreliable source that isn't support for notability at all, and just one hit of run of the mill local coverage upon his death that isn't enough to get him over GNG all by itself if it's the only GNG-worthy source in the mix. Trois-Rivières is a significant enough city that a mayor would certainly be eligible to keep an article that was written substantially and sourced properly, so I'd be happy to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to the necessary resources than I've got can find enough GNG-worthy sourcing to salvage it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more substance and sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Here's a decent French newspaper account of him being on the job for 10 years [44] and a Radio Canada piece about him, 50 years after he was elected [45]. I think we have enough for basic sourcing, with sustained coverage over the past half century or more. Oaktree b (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2024 (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.
Keep. The article needs work, including the addition of reliable citations. However, a quick search in the Wikipedia Library turned out a ton of reliable citations proving this author's notability. This includes reviews in places like Publishers Weekly (link 1 and 2), Kirkus (link) and many other places. The subject also has an entry in Baker & Taylor Author Biographies. All in all, easily meets Wikipedia's author notability standards. --SouthernNights (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it true that WP:N are based on the WP:GNG, which require significant in-depth coverage about the subject? I haven't been able to find such coverage so far. Additionally, if we're considering WP:AUTHOR, it requires the subject's work to be noteworthy. However, none of the subject's works are even mentioned on WP. So, how can we assume they're not noteworthy solely based on some WP:ROTM coverage and reviews. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 10:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria for WP:Author states "Such a person is notable if ... The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Nothing in that criteria states that the work itself must be represented on Wikipedia. Also, WP:GNG are the general notability guidelines while the guidelines for creative professionals give additional guidance. If a subject meets any of the criteria within any of the notability guidelines, they are assumed to be notable. SouthernNights (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2024 (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.
Keep. The team easily passes GNG due to substantial news coverage in Nova Scotia and the Maritimes. Here are a few of the more recent news on the team. [46][47][48][49][50] I question whether the nominator completed WP:BEFORE on this nomination. I'm baffled what is meant by "Unlikely to become notable, if the team is defunct". As per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, the article might be poorly sourced in its current state, but can easily be improved. Flibirigit (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed complete a before search. I found numerous news articles regarding the move of the team, all based on press releases. I found routine coverage, e.g. of matches. I found articles based on what a spokesperson for the team said, without WP:SECONDARY analysis. I found nothing that was WP:INDEPTH, WP:SECONDARY, WP:INDEPENDENT to satisfy GNG. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see a review of newly found sources to see if GNG is met. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Agreeing with Liz here, we also need clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusty4321talkcontribs14:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unfortunate accusations against the nominator aside, there's nothing approaching significant coverage applied, linked above, or found during my reasonable BEFORE which renders this subject sufficiently notable for its own article. I see no evidence this can be improved. BusterD (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BusterD: There was no intent to accuse anyone of anything. My only intent was to convey that I felt a BEFORE was not done. We simply disagree on the sources. I have nothing personal against @Curb Safe Charmer:. Best wishes and happy editing. Flibirigit (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Flibirigit: And that language would have been more appropriate to a civil disagreement, like AfD. "I-messages" are helpful because they're not so threatening. We must be able to argue freely, even sometimes beyond the bounds of reasonableness. Sometimes screaming is quite necessary. Give yourself permission to step over the line occasionally, if in doing so you might push our entire Wikipedia movement forward. IMHO, that's the heart of WP:IAR. I am proud to participate in a process in which civil disagreement makes us a stronger (and more cohesive) community. Nice to meet you. BusterD (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unfortunately I'm not convinced that the new sources linked here are enough to establish notability. They're all fairly routine, and the best sources are still almost entirely reliant on press releases or press conferences. CarringtonMist (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2024 (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.
Delete. As always, the notability test for actors and actresses is not automatically passed just by listing roles, and requires the provision of WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about her and her roles, but none is present here and I've had about as much luck as the above commenters at finding anything better. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject specific guideline for voice actors has been met. WP:NACTOR states: The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3045630/ She played one of the three Power Puff girls in all 52 episodes of Powerpuff Girls Z. She played Nya in Ninjago: Masters of Spinjitzu for 100 episodes. Wikipedia:Notability clearly states "It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)". You don't have to do both. Also those linking to WP:THREE, kindly ready the personal essay you are linking to, it states don't list more than three sources in an AFD or no one will bother looking them over. DreamFocus12:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The notability test for actors isn't passed just by having acting roles. Having acting roles is literally an actor's job description, so by definition every actor has had acting roles or else they wouldn't be an actor — which in turn means that if simply having acting roles were an instant notability freebie in and of itself, then every actor who exists at all would get that freebie and no actor could ever be non-notable at all anymore. The notability test for actors is passed by having WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about them and their performances. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they had GNG coverage then they'd pass the GNG and the subject specific guidelines wouldn't need to exist. Some are notable based on their accomplishments alone, others are notable because they got coverage by the media. More than one way to prove notability exist. DreamFocus09:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject played a significant role in all episodes of one notable work (PPGZ), voiced a primary character in the English version of all episodes of Tara Duncan (TV series), and played one character over 200 times in various iterations of Ninjago. By my reading, this is a clear pass of NACTOR, even for a voice or translation actor. User:Dream Focus and I often disagree, but we agree here WP:THREE is an essay with no relevance to this discussion, and the subject meets the SNG with lots of significant (even repeating) roles in their field. It's a BLP, so I'd like reliable sources about the person, but WP:ENT is met, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SNGs still require reliable source referencing to properly verify their passage, so claiming to pass an SNG is not in and of itself an exemption from having to have GNG-worthy sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I spent 30 minutes this morning trying to find a single RS on the subject, and the best I did was bare mentions. When I made my keep assertion, I failed to look for RS. There's an enormous amount of entertainment content out there on the subject, but none of it seems to come from sources which are reliable and have a reputation for journalism (or fact checking). While it is true the subject is abundantly verified, I've found nothing approaching direct detailing in RS, so I'm striking my keep assertion. I apologize to other participants in this process. BusterD (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as there is disagreement over WP:NACTOR is met. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!04:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's had several significant roles but there is no coverage. Bold in following quotes is added for emphasisWP:Notability (people) (which includes WP:NACTOR) states: People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.WP:Notability states : Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia Even WP:NACTOR only says may be considered notable. Schazjmd(talk)14:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree that this article may be deleted, since "adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found". I added cite needed tags to request WP:RSs, but another editor deleted them, adding more WP:OR instead. If WP:OR is added again, such as the unreferenced assertion that she voiced x number of episodes, User:Schazjmd, it will convince me that the article ought to be deleted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not original research. WP:OR, under primary, states:
3. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
So listing information listed in the credits of the primary source, is acceptable. So she voiced Buttercup, one of the three powerpuff girls in the show Powerpuff Girls Z, so was of course credited as being in every single episode. There was not a single episode that didn't have all three girls in it. And if you want to know what year the show was on, you can just click the link to the article for it, or if you want it in this article for some reason, you can just copy it from the primary source without problems. You don't need a secondary source for something no primary source would have any possible reason to lie about. DreamFocus13:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are interpreting WP:OR too narrowly. You are not offering a listing by the publisher of all the episodes showing her name, you are asking the reader to synthesize each individual episode's credits (not easily accessible) to note that her name is listed, and then count up the number of such episodes. Again, if this sort of fancruft is re-added to the article without a WP:RS, it will emphasize the paucity of coverage for this person. Is there really not a single review mentioning any of her performances? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2024 (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. I think this discussion has gone on long enough. It's not a straight Keep to acknowledge that problems still exist with this article despite the work that has gone on with it over the past three weeks. Also, the nominator didn't withdraw their nomination which also prevents me from a Keep closure. But I don't think a 3rd relisting would help at all here, this article just needs more work done on it. Editors with a COI, please suggest changes on the article talk page rather than editing the article directly. LizRead!Talk!05:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article has had zero independent sources cited since it was created six years ago. I am unable to find any significant discussion of the organization in reliable sources. ...discospinstertalk01:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' There's a little bit out there on this company, but not from reliable sources. I can't see the full text of the Martin Boewe doctoral thesis; if it has RS citations perhaps that could save this article, but where those citations would come from is anyone's guess. As it is, it's possibly eligible for CSD G11 (blatant promotion).keep per WP:HEY rewriting of article based on sources from @CunardOblivy (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lifechanyuan started from Zimbabwe when Xuefeng lived there and the 1st Second Home was built in Yunnan China so most of the theory(Lifechanyuan values) and introduction articles are in Chinese, with only a small portion of its theory and introductory articles translated into English, that's why the sources of the information is difficult to find.
Dr. Martin Boewe and his wife visited the 4th branch of the Second Home in 2012, during which they had an interview with founder Xuefeng, here are the links for his interview （1-3）:
It is imperative to accurately convey what Lifechanyuan truly represents to the world, without misunderstanding or misleading the public. As a member of Lifechanyuan for nearly 18 years, I aim to share the truth based on the past 16 years of practice of the Second Home, spanning from China to Canada. Tongxincao (talk) 03:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are Chinese language secondary sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources, then you should offer them up here. A YouTube interview with the founder is not going to do it. Oblivy (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The more I think about this, the more I think there should be an article. But not this article. I found a single WP:RS article from the New York Times in 2014[51] but it's paywalled. Somewhere there's an interesting follow-up story to be told. Probably not one for Wikipedia until that story gets published but someone feel free to surprise me.The article creator @Snewman8771 is a SPA which did just three things: create the article, wikilink to an article on intentional communities, and then two years later try to create an article about East Turkistan Republican Party which was declined.[52]. @Tongxincao your account was created on the same day in 2015 as @Snewman8771. He started editing in 2018 and then stopped, and you didn't start until 2023. [53][54]. Can you explain? Oblivy (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was in China from 2015 to 2022, during which I have very limited access to WIKIPEDIA, and our communities in Chins were always under monitor, so I was quite careful to get access to google and facebook etc. Besides I am not familiar with the rules and how do people add new items on Wikipedia, I think put a brief introduction for Lifechanyuan will not be a big problem for Snewman8771. So we didn't pay much attention on it as we are focused on the community establishment and safe existence in China at that time.
In Nov 2022, I came to Canada and after settlement, we plan to develop the society with our founder and members together. We are looking for some volunteers to come and help our work in Canada，so the introduction of society here in WIKIPEDIA is important and must be true and clear. Tongxincao (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of Wikipedia is not to introduce societies and organizations to the rest of the world, it is to document things that are already written about in reliable, third-party sources. Furthermore, some of the previous content in the article was highly promotional in tone, which makes it seem like you are trying to use Wikipedia's popularity to recruit new members. ...discospinstertalk23:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uncertain about the detailed requirements of Wikipedia, and how reliable second sources are defined, but information displayed on it should be based on facts, avoiding conveying misinformation. I believe that is a fundamental rule. There are very few reliable second sources of Lifechanyuan in English, as it is a small group rooted in China, and only a few members are proficient in English. I can gather some sources in Chinese to verify the information, including English sources from Ecovillage network newsletters or reports from our sister communities, although some of their links may have expired or changed (though I have the PDF or JPG files). As you may know, the media in China is controlled by the government, and reports related to religion, belief, etc., including Lifechanyuan, are forbidden from being published. This has been ongoing for many years.
Lifechanyuan is based on all articles written by founder Xuefeng since 2001, totaling over 3000 articles. Only a small part of it has been translated into English, and it is not well-known to the public.
Snewman8771 joined Lifechanyuan and became a member in 2018, his member name is Kasi Celestial. In China, access to some internet platforms is restricted, making it difficult for us to reach out to Wikipedia or Facebook, besides the rule for editing WIKIPEDIA looks quite complicated for us. Snewman8771 offered to help edit, but as a new member, he was only familiar with a brief history and didn't fully understand our values and information. Due to communication challenges, we were unable to clarify, so we left it as it was. Now, I would like to revise and present it accurately to the public. Tongxincao (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article notes: "Members of this idyllic utopian commune tucked away in the mountains of southwest China share an agrarian life that would probably have delighted Chairman Mao: Every day they volunteer six hours to work the fields, feed their jointly owned chickens and prepare enough food to fill every belly in the community. The bounty of their harvest is divided equally and apparently without strife, part of a philosophy that emphasizes selflessness and egalitarian living over money and materialism. “What we’re doing here is basically communism,” said Xue Feng, 57, the soft-spoken founder of Shengmin Chanyuan, or New Oasis for Life, whose 150 members include illiterate peasants and big-city corporate refugees. “People do what they can and get what they need.”"
The journal notes: "In Lincang Prefecture, a rural subtropical area in southwest Yunnan near the borders of Myanmar, Laos, and Vietnam, a group of 150 people from different walks of life came together to create the Shengming chanyuan 'New Oasis for Life Commune' (Levin 2014). This Buddhist inspired community sought to create a self-sustaining and spiritual alternative to what they regard as an alienating and materialistic society found in the sprawling cities of modern China. As is discussed further below, these people are drawing upon a long Chinese tradition of escape to the mountains for the purposes of solitude, meditation, and respite. What is interesting about the New Oasis instance is the choice of location. To have created such a community in Lincang before 1978, or even before 1949, would have been extremely difficult. Lincang is a border region that for most of its history has been inhabited by various non-Han minorities. It was a remote and often dangerous place for the unwary visitor, a place that James C Scott (2010) regards as part of a larger highland zone he calls "Zomia" that for much of history was beyond the immediate reach of centralized states. But times have changed and the once "remote" and "dangerous" places have now been made "accessible" and "tame." Unfortunately for the members of this community, the local authorities looked upon this religiously inspired endeavor with great skepticism and used various measures to make them disband."
The article notes: "En la última parte del artículo, presento un estudio de caso del Templo Zen de la Vida (生命禅院, Life Zen Temple). Se trata de un movimiento idiosincrásico tanto por su insistencia en ser a la vez comunista y religio como por sus experimentos sobre el amor libre. También es un buen ejemplo de los efectos de los cambios legislativos y administrativos de Xi, ya que pasó de lo rojo a lo gris y, finalmente, en 2021, a lo negro."
From Google Translate: "In the last part of the article, I present a case study of the Life Zen Temple (生命禅院, Life Zen Temple). It is an idiosyncratic movement both for its insistence on being both communist and religious and for its experiments in free love. It is also a good example of the effects of Xi's legislative and administrative changes, as he moved from red to gray and finally, in 2021, to black."
The article notes on page 57: "El 28 de abril de 2021, a partir de la 1:00 de la madrugada, la Seguridad Pública y agentes de la unidad especializada en la lucha contra el xie jiao empezaron a hacer redadas en los dos asentamientos comunales del Templo Zen de la Vida (生命禅院, Life Zen Temple), situados en zonas remotas del condado de Tongzi y del condado de Anlong, en la provincia de Guizhou. A las 6:30 de la mañana, ya habían tomado el control de los dos locales, donde vivían unos 100 devotos de 13 provincias diferentes. Fue una redada clásica contra una “secta”, aclamada por la policía como un éxito total (he reconstruido el incidente basándome en los comunicados de prensa de la Seguridad Pública de Guizhou)."
From Google Translate: "On April 28, 2021, starting at 1:00 in the morning, Public Security and agents from the unit specialized in the fight against xie jiao began to raid the two communal settlements of the Zen Temple of the Life (生命禅院, Life Zen Temple), located in remote areas of Tongzi County and Anlong County, Guizhou Province. At 6:30 in the morning, they had already taken control of the two premises, where about 100 devotees from 13 different provinces lived. It was a classic “cult” raid, hailed by the police as a complete success (I have reconstructed the incident based on press releases from Guizhou Public Security)."
Wei, Jing 魏婧, ed. (2021-07-27). "自称上帝使者，鼓吹性爱自由……"生命禅院"非法组织被依法取缔！" [Claiming to be a messenger of God and advocating freedom of sex... the illegal organization "Shengmin Chanyuan" was banned according to law!] (in Chinese). China News Service. Archived from the original on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29.
The article notes: "中国网7月27日讯 据中国反邪教网消息，自称上帝使者，鼓吹性爱自由，裹挟成员聚居，“生命禅院”非法组织被依法取缔！"
From Google Translate: "China Net reported on July 27 that according to the China Anti-Cult Network, the illegal organization "Lifechanyuan" was banned according to law because he claimed to be a messenger of God, advocated freedom of sex, and coerced members to live in gatherings!"
The article notes: "从2002年起，张自繁借用佛教、基督教、伊斯兰教、道教等宗教理论，并歪曲现实社会提倡的种种价值观，再糅杂一些心灵鸡汤，编造出一套唬人的“生命禅院”理念。之后，他又以“雪峰”为笔名，将这些所谓的理念集结成册，先后印制了《雪峰文集》《禅院文集》《新时代人类八百理念》等书籍。后来，这些书籍也成为张自繁对信徒实施精神控制的重要工具。"
From Google Translate: "Since 2002, Zhang Zifan has borrowed religious theories such as Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and Taoism, distorted various values promoted by the real society, and mixed in some chicken soup for the soul to concoct a set of bluffing "Life Chanyuan" concepts. After that, he used the pen name "Xue Feng" to collect these so-called ideas into books, and successively printed books such as "Xue Feng Collected Works", "Zen Yuan Collected Works", and "Eight Hundred Ideas of Humanity in the New Era". Later, these books also became an important tool for Zhang Zifan to exercise mental control over his believers."
"現實版1Q84：婚姻是痛苦根源" [Reality version 1Q84: Marriage is the source of pain]. World Journal (in Chinese). 2014-01-18. p. B3.
The article notes: "香港蘋果日報報導，生命禪院的「理論基礎」是雪峰數十萬字關於人生的意義、36維空間、20個平行時間等論述，聽得人一頭霧水。唯一聽懂的其中一項核心理念：婚姻家庭是痛苦根源。 ... 「我們的情愛性愛是比較自由的！」從紐西蘭回國、年約30歲的雙胞胎姊妹顏渝和顏瑾，是生命禪院裡擁有高學歷的成員，她們在海外原本過著很好的生活、擁有良好的職業，但受這兒純樸的集體生活吸引，去年6月加入。"
From Google Translate: "Hong Kong Apple Daily reported that the "theoretical basis" of Lifechanyuan is Xuefeng's hundreds of thousands of words on the meaning of life, 36-dimensional space, 20 parallel times, etc., which makes people confused. One of the core concepts I only understand: marriage and family are the source of suffering. ... "Our love and sex are relatively free!" Twin sisters Yan Yu and Yan Jin, about 30 years old, who returned from New Zealand, are highly educated members of Lifechanyuan. They used to live a very happy life overseas. I have a good life and a good career, but I was attracted by the simple collective life here and joined in June last year."
"「共妻淫亂」 生命禪院被斷水電 雲南「第二家園」 性愛自由、人人皆「情人」 成員改名換姓務農自足 3分院面臨解散" ["Shared Wife and Fornication" Lifechanyuan was cut off from water and electricity. Yunnan's "Second Home" offers free sex and everyone is a "lover". Members changed their names to work in farming and are self-sufficient. Branch 3 is facing dissolution.]. World Journal (in Chinese). 2014-01-18. p. B3.
The article notes: "中國唯一自稱真正實施共產主義的社區─雲南省「生命禪院第二家園」，近日遭當局以「共產共妻聚眾淫亂」等理由取締，三個分院面臨解散危機。港媒近日深入該社區，發現區內雖推崇性愛自由、以女性為尊，卻沒有想像中的肉慾橫流，而是由失婚婦女與逃避社會壓力的年輕人等，以各自獨立又相互合作的方式共同生活。"
From Google Translate: "The only community in China that claims to truly implement communism, the "Lifechanyuan Second Home" in Yunnan Province, was recently banned by the authorities on the grounds of "communist wives gathering together for lewdness", and the three branches are in danger of being disbanded. Hong Kong media recently went deep into the community and discovered that although sexual freedom and respect for women are respected in the community, it is not as sensual as imagined. Instead, divorced women and young people escaping from social pressure work independently and cooperatively. live together."
The article notes: "香港蘋果日報報導，位於雲南的「生命禪院第二家園」成立至今四年多，園內約150名成員皆不得擁有私人財產，且放棄原本姓名，改用被稱為「精神導遊」的56歲創建者「雪峰」賜名，彼此則互稱「禪院草」。"
From Google Translate: "Hong Kong Apple Daily reported that it has been more than four years since the establishment of the "Lifechanyuan Second Home" in Yunnan. About 150 members of the park are not allowed to own private property, and have given up their original names and replaced them with the 56-year-old "spiritual tour guide." The founder "Xue Feng" gave the name to each other, and they called each other "Zen Yuan Cao"."
"「婚姻是痛苦根源」" ["Marriage is a source of suffering"]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2014-01-18. Archived from the original on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29.
The article notes: "雪峰告訴記者生命禪院的「理論基礎」是他數十萬字關於人生的意義、36維空間、20個平行時間等論述，聽得人一頭霧水。"
From Google Translate: "Xuefeng told reporters that the "theoretical basis" of Lifechanyuan is his hundreds of thousands of words on the meaning of life, 36-dimensional space, 20 parallel times, etc., which made people confused."
"云南社区 共产共妻 性爱自由回归自然" [Yunnan community communism and wife sharing, sexual freedom returns to nature]. Nanyang Siang Pau (in Chinese). 2014-01-19. p. A23.
The article notes: "中国云南一个自称是真正实施共产主义的社区，近日被官方以“聚众淫乱”为由，即将面临取缔。香港《苹果日报》记者近日采访这个推崇性爱自由、回归自然的“生命禅院第二家园”。记者发现，社区没有想像中的肉欲横流。官方指控的所谓“聚众淫乱”，其实他们是不鼓励一对一的爱情或性关系。生命社区第二家园创于2009年，在云南省共有3所分院。社区常驻人口150人，投入集体生活前要经半年考察，加入社区后可随时退出。"
From Google Translate: "A community in Yunnan, China, which claims to be the real implementation of communism, has been officially banned recently on the grounds of "gathering people for lewdness". A reporter from Hong Kong's "Apple Daily" recently interviewed this "Lifechanyuan Second Home", which advocates freedom of sex and returning to nature. The reporter found that the community was not as sensual as imagined. The so-called "gathering of people for lewdness" that the authorities accuse is actually discouraging one-to-one love or sexual relationships. Life Community Second Home was founded in 2009 and has 3 branches in Yunnan Province. The permanent population of the community is 150. Before joining the collective life, a six-month inspection is required. After joining the community, you can withdraw at any time."
"三所分院常驻人口051人" [The three branches have a permanent population of 051.]. China Press (in Chinese). 2014-01-19. p. B5.
The article notes: "生命禅院第二家园创于2009年，在云南省共有三所分院，常驻人口150人，年纪最大的87岁，最小的5岁。投入集体生活前要经半年考察，在网上交流，可随时退出。"
From Google Translate: "Lifechanyuan Second Home was founded in 2009. It has three branches in Yunnan Province with a permanent population of 150. The oldest is 87 years old and the youngest is 5 years old. Before joining the collective life, you need to undergo an inspection for half a year, communicate online, and you can withdraw at any time."
@Cunard well done as always bringing the sources. The difficulty I have with this article is the disconnect between what's in the page and what can be documented. Let's assume someone wants to do the significant revision required to eliminate proselytizing and otherwise unencyclopedic content. What would then be left would be three propositions:
there was a commune in Yunnnan in the late 1990's and early 2000s - well established, can almost get to notability with the NYT article but Apple Daily seems to be based on information the founder has provided to them, not independent journalism. I couldn't find the world journal articles but if they are just regurgitating A.D.... Nanyang Siang Pau maybe?
there was a crackdown - well established through Chinese media, can describe them based on Chinese media reports plus the Introvigne article. There's a bunch of unreliable media out there as well on this.
the founder moved to Canada and his organization continues to recruit members while he refines his philosophy and issues volume after volume of deep thoughts - notability not well established except through self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability
I think that is a good outline of the topics that could be covered in article. The article could also cover what Shengmin Chanyuan's followers believe since pages 60–62 of Introvigne 2022 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFIntrovigne2022 (help) discuss that. Cunard (talk) 05:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done my part revising the article so it is based on reliable sources. I had to put in some primary sources just to bring the article up to date as AFAIK no reliable secondary source has mentioned them since they came to Canada. I'll change my vote to keep provided that the article remains objective.One final comment - the article was created as Lifechanyuan International Family Society apparently following the rejection of Lifechanyuan at AfC. LIFS is the Canada reboot of the Chinese commune. The rebuilt article is about Lifechanyuan as a movement rather than the Canadian commune, suggest a rename to Lifechanyuan once this is finished. Oblivy (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Apple newspaper was in Hongkong and they are one of the medias resisting Communist Party, so they came and interviewed some members, but they were not reporting our community in an objective angle, they are using it to attack the Central government. And the official source claiming we were illegal in 2021 is the media from Chinese government.
The New York Times reported us in around the end of 2013 when we were facing the 1st disbandment from authority.
For the times and facts, there are some mistakes as well.
I appreciate your effort of investigating the sources and try to introduce in your way, but what it is is what it is, and what is fact is fact, this is not an academic content, cannot be edited by the way of only based on limited sources. On behalf of our society, we require to delete it, let people search and investigate, read and experience by themselves, but not by the limit information and reports from non-independant medias. Thank you. Tongxincao (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is neutrally written and sourced to reliable sources (except for two sentences appropriately sourced to the company's website and a press release that explains what the group's beliefs and its current practice). Wikipedia:Autobiography#Creating an article about yourself says:
Anything you submit will be edited mercilessly to make it neutral. Many autobiographical articles have become a source of dismay to their original authors after a period of editing by the community, and in several instances their original authors have asked that they be deleted – usually unsuccessfully, because if an article qualifies for deletion the community will typically do that without prompting, and an article won't be deleted just because its subject is unhappy with it.
We hope this can be deleted because the information is not correct, objective, and complete, for example it says "couples sleep separately", this is so wierd in expression and will scare and mislead people. The truth is that everyone in the community is independent so there is no "couples" or "marriages" in the community. This will mislead people so much, therefore it will mislead the public seriously on what real Lifechanyuan is. Tongxincao (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please raise further content concerns about the article on Talk:Lifechanyuan International Family Society as those concerns belong on the talk page rather than at AfD. The New York Times article says, "Certainly, some aspects of the group’s structure and practices are rather unorthodox. Members are known as celestials, all property is shared, and couples sleep apart." The wording in the Wikipedia article is an accurate paraphrase of The New York Times article. Cunard (talk) 06:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Couples sleep apart" is not a correct and complete description, because there is no marriage and family in the new life mode of the Second Home, and couples are well prepared for this before they decided to join the community and live a collective community life. Therefore, each part of the original couple has their own bedroom, but they can sleep together when they feel like to do so. As an adult, everyone has their own bedroom as the space of his/her own. The reporter from New York Times visited us when we are encountering disbandment in the end of 2013, so they just stayed for several hours and did really quick interview with limited information being understand and collected.
I have mentioned several times all the sources being quoted here is limited and there is not a deep and complete report introducing what Lifechanyuan and the Second Home really is. Plus there are mistakes on time, date, and place, number of members around the world etc. So please delete this item as it is spreading wrong and one-sided information when using the world "fled to Canada", whatever the reason is, "fled" already shows the judgement of the editor here and this is not subjective description, but very objective description. We are from lifechanyuan and you raised the conflict of interest rule, so we cannot prove ourseles, but the edtion here definitely cannot represent what Lifechanyuan international family society is either. Please delete this edition to avoid the misunderstanding and mislead the public. Let them know, analysis, and judge by themselves, but not by you. Tongxincao (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment during the first listing there were two explicit votes, both keep, plus the nom. No other participation since then except for two SPA accounts affiliated with the article subject (one is on the AfD talk page). Reading the comments liberally, the SPA's initially voted for keep, then flipped to delete once the article was revised to reflect policy on secondary sources. SPA's aren't happy with the revised article as it doesn't tell the story as they want it told, but @Cunard and I have been trying to channel this to the talk page where I've accepted some of their proposed fact edits while holding the line on independent sourcing.@Discospinster are you still thinking the revised article is !delete? Are the comments by COI/SPA editors blocking consensus? What other shoe needs to drop? I feel like I'm being a WP:Bludgeon but the stream of complaints about how we're "misleading" the public by insisting on WP:RS is getting tiring. Oblivy (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely better in terms of sourcing, but if we're going to end up with content warring issue due to involved editors, I don't know if it should be "live" until some sort of consensus emerges on the talk page. If that makes any sense. ...discospinstertalk14:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It does make sense, sort of. I just don't know what we're supposed to reach consensus over - the argument seems to be that secondary/independent sources mislead compared to primary/promo, and that just isn't going to reach a policy-based consensus.(Introvigne is actually quite sympathetic to the group but they still quibble). We don't usually delete articles over WP:IDONTLIKEIT.At this point it's been relisted, and the admins are doing their level best to keep things from piling up ATM so I don't want to make an issue over the relisting (although perhaps one more closed AfD could ease that burden!). I'm just hoping to distill down what the issues are so maybe we don't get to a 3rd relisting. Oblivy (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Oblivy and other Editors of the article, thank you very much for your effort of making the article subjective and neutral，I apologize for the part that might offend you during the period, as I don't know about the rules here so it's very hard for us to understand the discussion. I can only share the facts and the truth as we have the record of our history, please kindly understand. We appreciate the openness that you showed and consider what we raise up here.
The article looks much neutral now, while there are some details still need to be corrected:
"They later moved to Hetan in Gansu."
-- In April 2009 Xuefeng came back from Zimbabwe, meet with near 2000 members in Taiyuan, Shanxi Province, then in May with around 30 members they moved to Kunming, Yunnan to establish the first Second Home community. There is not a "Henan" in Gansu, "Henan" and "Gansu" are both provinces of China.
"He took the name Xuefeng and started Lifechanyuan in 2005".
-- It was started in 2001, as he started writting the Chanyuan Corpus and Xuefeng Corpus in 2001 in Zimbabwe, when he posted his articles on the website of ”中国魂“ (Chinese Souls) and other Chinese website platforms. In 2004, with the help of one member who knows IT visited him in Zimbabwe, Lifechanyuan established its own website, and later moved to anther server in 2005.
"According to Chinese sources, the organization had about 2,000 members in 2021, of which about 100 were active."
-- The number of members temporarily reached to a peak of near 2000 in 2009, but after that many of them left( most of which joined because of family relations and did not understand well about the core of Lifechanyuan), so the latest number is around 400, of which around 200 is active.
And the last, "the office of society" is not in Vancouver, it is in Lac La Hache BC before we bought the new resort, and now it is in Anahim Lake, BC with an update on BC society website.
Thank you and I promise with my faith, I'm only telling the facts, did not exaggerate or reduce the facts.
Please raise edit requests at the talk page of the article, and for each please provide the reliable source that supports the edit. One specific note: Hetan (河滩) is in Dongxiang County, Gansu and I believe that sentence is fully supported by the cited source. Oblivy (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Oblivy, I agree that among non-COI editors there is a consensus that the subject meets the notability guideline since the sources have not been contested. These two relists have given the AfD's participants and the rest of the community more time to discuss evaluate the sources presented in the AfD. If no concerns are raised about the sources' independence, depth, and reliability after the additional time given by these relists, it strengthens the case for a "keep" close (though the closer could go with "no consensus" owing to the limited participation).
Oblivy (talk·contribs) has done admirable work in rewriting the article to be neutral and incorporating the feedback from a COI editor when the changes can be verified by independent reliable sources. Thank you again for your excellent work here.
Paid editors must respect the volunteer nature of the project and keep discussions concise. When proposing changes to an article, they should describe the suggested modifications and explain why the changes should be made. Any changes that may be contentious, such as removal of negative text, should be highlighted.
Before being drawn into long exchanges with paid editors, volunteers should be aware that paid editors may be submitting evidence of their talk-page posts to justify their salaries or fees. No editor should be expected to engage in long or repetitive discussions with someone who is being paid to argue with them.
To Oblivy, if reviewing feedback from COI editors becomes tedious or a burden, I recommend asking them to submit an edit request on the talk page so that another editor can review. That way, it doesn't become a time sink for you. See for example my response to Special:Contributions/Winmark update after I reverted their promotional edits. They started an edit request, which was declined by another editor for not being supported by reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 08:51, 12 May 2024 (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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, Soft deletion is not an option. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!21:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles discuss the subject directly and in detail
✔Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, Soft deletion is not an option. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!21:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
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.
WP:BLP of a writer and musician, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for writers or musicians. This was previously deleted in 2019 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Ferrier and then got recreated in fall 2023 after his death, but this version is still referenced almost entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all -- even the one footnote that's technically citing a newspaper is still just his paid-inclusion death notice in the classifieds, not a journalist-written news story about his death, and virtually everything else is content self-published by companies or organizations he was directly affiliated with, while the one potentially acceptable source (LitLive) is not enough to clinch passage of GNG all by itself. And for notability claims, there are statements (a minor literary award, presidency of an organization) that might count for something if they were sourced properly, but there's still absolutely nothing that would be "inherently" notable enough to hand him an automatic notability freebie in the absence of proper WP:GNG-worthy sourcing. And the French interlang is based entirely on the same poor sourcing as this one, so it has no GNG-worthy footnotes that can be copied over to salvage this either. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both the English and French articles are based entirely on primary sources that are not support for notability, such as "staff" profiles or press releases on the self-published websites of organizations and companies that he was directly affiliated with — only one source (LitLive) is GNG-worthy at all, and one GNG-worthy source isn't enough. People don't pass GNG just by using primary sources to verify facts, people pass GNG by showing third-party journalism and/or books that cover said facts as subjects of news and analysis. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While every opinion after the deletion nomination has been a bolded 'keep', I am still not suitably persuaded. Further discourse regarding the 'quality' (in Wikipedia terms) of the French sources appears to be needed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:48, 4 May 2024 (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.
WP:BLP of an artist and writer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for artists or writers. As always, creative professionals are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their work exists -- the notability test doesn't hinge on sourcing their work to itself as proof that it exists, it hinges on sourcing their work to external validatation of its significance, through independent third-party reliable source coverage and analysis about them and their work in media and/or books. But this is referenced almost entirely to directly affiliated primary sources -- the self-published websites of galleries that have exhibited her work, "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of organizations she's associated with, etc. -- and the only footnotes that represent any kind of third-party coverage are a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person and a single article in the local newspaper of her own hometown, which doesn't represent enough coverage to get her over the bar all by itself. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: subject of a 16 minute segment on CBC radio, holds a residency, has exhibited in many exhibitions. Plus, this well-referenced article seems to be the work of a new editor participating in an editathon, who submitted their work to AfC and had it approved, and has since created another well-referenced biography of a different artist; to delete this would be a slap in the face for a serious new contributor to the encyclopedia. (I was initially suspicious of COI or paid editing because I noticed that the editor had made 10 varied edits a little while before starting this article, but I note that the artist's name was on the list of "Suggestions for notable artists / writers / curators / contributors, etc. without articles:" at Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver/ArtAndFeminism 2024, so I believe this art historian is a genuine enthusiastic new editor in the field of artist biographies.) PamD11:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Artists do not become notable for having exhibited in gallery shows by sourcing those gallery shows to content self-published by those galleries (as was done here) — artists only become notable for having exhibited in gallery shows if you can source the gallery shows to third-party content about the gallery shows, such as a newspaper or magazine art critic reviewing said show, but not a single gallery show here has cited the correct kind of sourcing to make her notable for that.
And the CBC source is an interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person, which is a kind of source that we're allowed to use for supplementary verification of stray facts in an article that has already passed WP:GNG on stronger sources but not a kind of source we can use to bring the GNG in and of itself, because it isn't independent of her. And no, articles aren't exempted from having to pass GNG just because they came out of editathons, either: editathons still have to follow the same principles as everybody else, and the articles resulting from them still have to properly source their notability claims. Bearcat (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the CBC radio piece is an interview, surely her selection as the subject of an interview in a series on a major radio station is an indicator of notability? As is her selection for two residencies: the organisations hosting the residencies are independent of the artist, and there are sources from those organisations. PamD21:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The CBC interview is from one of the CBC's local programs on one of its local stations, not from the national network, so it isn't automatically more special than other interviews just because it came from a CBC station instead of a Corus or Pattison or Rogers station. So it isn't enough to get her over GNG all by itself if it's the only non-primary source she has.
It isn't enough that the organizations hosting the residencies are independent of the artist — they aren't independent of the residency, so they're still affiliated sources. The source for a residency obviously can't be her own website, but it also can't be the website of the organization that she worked with or for either — it has to be a third party that has no affiliation with either end of that relationship, namely a media outlet writing about the residency as news, because the organization is still affiliated with the statement. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, reluctantly. It seems to me I've previously read something about this artist, and her work has been exhibited in well known galleries. I'm just not finding any additional independent reliable sources beyond the first one in the article. Willing to change my vote if better sourcing is found. Curiocurio (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: borderline but I think tagging the article for relying on primary sources might be sufficient without needing to delete the entry. FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If primary sources are virtually all it has, then just tagging it for relying on primary sources isn't sufficient — it's not enough to assume that better sources exist that haven't been shown. Better sources have to be demonstrated to exist, not just speculated about as theoretically possible, in order to tip the balance between an AFD discussion and just being flagged for better sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG as well as the four criteria set down by WP:NARTIST. The nominator's report is spot on. After discarding the interviews and the primary sources, we're left with a non-existent case for inclusion. Wikipedia is not a directory of artists, nor a collection of indiscriminate information. And the extensive discussion is rather surprising for such an evidently straightforward issue. -The Gnome (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With the Guleph Today piece and CBC coverage, there is non-primary coverage. Whether aspects of the biography sourced to primary sources are wholly due as paragraphic body text or could be better rendered as a list of works/residences is a content question at the article level rather than an inclusion/deletion question at the encyclopedia level. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - most of the sources are primary, and not high-quality at that, as they are very promotional. She has very little reliable third-party coverage. Swordman97talk to me03:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A dozen warm-up edits then creation of a detailed article with mostly commercial non-archival references. Article has a cereal-filler claim to notability ("She is primarily known for her sculptural works which incorporate a variety of natural and industrial materials.") This looks like some kind of fan-page or COI. 2600:1700:8650:2C60:89EE:CBB:BDD3:F68E (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being mentioned in a RS source does not indicate that the coverage contributes evidence of the subject's notability. I agree with other commenters that this falls short of WP:Artist, her importance in Maple Ridge, British Columbia notwithstanding. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All these guidelines that allow us to say "passed xyz standard", or "fails XYZ standard" is handy to have. But the fact of the matter is, we have articles like this one, where it should be obvious that this is an accomplished artist. Maybe she does/or doesn't exactly fit into the guidelines we so love to haul out for our assessment. Wikipedia has kept stubs and others with far less content and substance than this one. As far as I'm concerned, her article shows her qualifications to be here. We get carried away sometimes on one view or the other. I say she's notable as an artist, and I'm sticking to my perspective on it. — Maile (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll concur with Maile66. I see sufficient anchoring sourcing (Guleph Today and CBC) and plenty of less independent stuff (which may be used to detail the subject once NOTE is met, which I now assert). Given the usual dearth of direct detailing of visual artists in media, this sourcing is pretty good. BusterD (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2024 (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.
Of course there's some like that - perhaps even a majority! But look deeper. Where did you search during the BEFORE? What's wrong with the references C&A highlights below? Nfitz (talk) 04:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Plenty of significant coverage found in Newsbank also. Many of the hits are low quality PR, but there are more than enough that aren't. E.g. "Quiksilver Retrenches Its Top Leadership February 12, 2008 LA Times," "Downhill Run March 19. 2010 The Deal," and "Trouble in the tube April 3, 2010 The Age". The LA Times piece is already used in the article, but the others aren't. Therefore meets GNG. Central and Adams (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2024 (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.
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see how a bunch of news announcments make a subject notable. Keep? Look at the state of this? Almost everything is unsourced. Tells you the low-quality state of Wikipedia. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NLIST no indication this has been discussed as a group, meets LISTCRUFT, there is nothing encyclopedic here. // Timothy :: talk22:14, 29 April 2024 (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.
