Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 Points of interest related to Canada on Wikipedia 
Basic list - Portal - Category - WikiProject - Stubs - Deletions - Cleanup
Deletion Sorting
Project
Project page (talk)
Lists (by ABC)
Lists (by topic)
AfD: Today, Yesterday
edit · changes

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.

You can help maintain the list on this page:

  • To add a new AfD discussion (once it has already been opened on WP:AFD):
  • 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. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  • You can also tag the AfD by adding
{{subst:delsort|Canada}}<small>—~~~~</small>
to it, which will inform users that it has been listed here.
  • Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
  • You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Canada.

Please note that adding an AfD to, or removing it from, this page does not add it to, or 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.

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

Archive Relevant archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Canada/archive.
Purge page cache Watch this page

* Please also consider listing all AfDs at: Wikipedia:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Candidates for deletion


Contents

[edit] Canada

[edit] Mary Hanley (Edmonton)

Mary Hanley (Edmonton) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article has nothing other then an infobox with an image and some information which isn't sourced and fails to state anything that would make this school notable. Bidgee (talk) 06:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as unsourced and failing to show notability. The name is incorrect as it fails to identify the subject as a school. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 08:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. Virek (talk) 08:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and BMD, an infobox is not an article. I suggest though that the article creator be commended on a noble effort and counseled on how to better contribute. Perhaps merge to a table in the parent article? Franamax (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • An infobox is not an article, and elementary schools are not considered notable by default anymore. If the article can be expanded with actual proof of notability, then I'm prepared to change my vote, but right now it's a delete. Do, however, create a redirect from the proper article title, Mary Hanley Catholic Elementary School, to Edmonton Catholic School District. Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
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.  —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 15:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Today I Caught the Plague

Today I Caught the Plague (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Band that doesn't meet the WP:MUSIC notability standard. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. i don't think a metal-archives page for another band we don't have an article on will do it. tomasz. 21:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. A metal-archives page is a signal of notability, in accordance to the WP:MUSIC notability guide. So if I wanted to, say, make a Wiki article about said band, it would not be a candidate for deletion under the guide as they are in fact, notable. Now, since Today I Caught the Plague have two members from the afformentioned band, that meets one of the criteria in the WP:MUSIC Notability guide, making Today I Caught the Plague a notable band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.56.125 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. A metal-archives page is certainly not a signal of notability, in accordance to the WP:MUSIC notability guide. And generally to invoke the "other members in notable band" argument the band in question needs to at least have their own WP article. tomasz. 10:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmmmm. Notable because of their historical connection to another non-notable band. Nice one. Until I see some evidence that this band actually meets WP:MUSIC, eelete. Bearcat (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Confused I fail to see the correlation between being notable and having a wikipedia article. There isn't even a Wikipedia article on A Girl A Gun A Ghost. If a band is only notable if they have a Wiki article, maybe me making this article also makes this band notable? By your logic, that makes complete sense. Mongeese
Comment. Context is everything. WP:MUSIC includes "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable". Now, if a band contains members of The Rolling Stones (big, notable band: therefore likely to have WP article), it's therefore obvious some criteria of WP:MUSIC are being fulfilled. However, if they only contain members of The Not Very Well-Known Band, it's certainly not so obvious. Therefore relying on membership of another band that doesn't have a WP article is unlikely to cut much notability mustard. Not sure what the reference to A Girl A Gun A Ghost not having an article was relevant to. Should they have one? Hope this helps, tomasz. 12:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. A Girl A Gun A Ghost are a notable band that should, in fact, have a wiki page. The mentioning of that was to reinforce the fact that there is no correlation between a band being notable and having a wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.56.125 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. Having researched A Girl A Gun A Ghost, i respectfully doubt that they are notable per WP:MUSIC, but anyway: the point wasn't to suggest that there is always a correlation between notability and having an article, but that, as i mention above, generally to invoke the "other members in notable band" argument the band in question needs to at least have their own WP article. Please also note WP:WAX. tomasz. 11:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia content policy requires that articles are verifiable, have a neutral point-of-view, and do not contain original research. The WP:MUSIC notability guidelines are an aid to see if an article can meet those requirements. At this time, Today I Caught the Plague does not have independent reliable sources and cannot meet the content rules. Perhaps after the debut EP and tour, they will get some press coverage that will allow an article to be written but not now. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. There was an article about the band in the newspaper the other day written by a third party professional journalist for a respectable paper. If my scanner was working i could link to a scan of it now, though i will try and find a picture in the near future. Mongeese 8:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.56.125 (talk)
Comment. If you were to name the newspaper in question, that might be one non-trivial third party source. tomasz. 10:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment/Keep. [2] Mongeese 11:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
You can continue to comment if you wish, but you only get one "vote". Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Comment: the metal-archive Mongeese mentioned is not notorious for not allowing entries for bands that are not significant. From the page "If you wish to submit a band local to your area that is not very well-known even among metalheads, you're more than welcome." "First, the band must have at least released SOME material. If you don't even have a physical demo... forget it." "Must be a heavy metal band......Or close enough" You only need to exist, be heavy metal and have a physical recording. You can be on that site if thats all that is known about you. eg Unholy Black Blood Baptism only has a 2 song demo. Being on that site does not suggest substantial notability. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The article that Mongeese references above, in the Kanata Kourier-Standard, is a single reliable reference in a local paper. I've been attempting to research this other band, A Legend Falls, from which two of the band members came, but have not found sources to establish notability for that band. As much as I would like to support an up-and-coming band, I am not seeing evidence of the WP:MUSIC standard here, so I am left saying delete. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
That article says the same as this article. The newspaper article was written by someone called Johnny Mcarthur. A wikipedia article existed for someone of that name and was recreated as Johnny mcarthur (see [here]). Duffbeerforme (talk) 09:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
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.

[edit] Canada Proposed deletions

Also check the list at WP:PRODSUM


[edit] British Columbia

[edit] Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

No proposed deletions at this time


[edit] Ontario

[edit] Fisher Park Public School

Fisher Park Public School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable School. Fails WP:ORG Delete GreenJoe 15:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It also fails to cite sources. GreenJoe 16:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. It appears to have more history than many other schools, having changed hands and changed its name on a number of occasions. Because of its complex history, it is not an ideal candidate for merger into its school district. --Eastmain (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I'm getting tired of these vendettas against school articles. Even a small school is a major public institution with an annual budget of hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars and the hub of a neighbourhood or town. If subway stops, coffee shops, and anime characters qualify for articles, why shouldn't schools? In any case, Fisher is notable for several reasons, including the celebrities who attended it as students and the acrimonious public debate over the highschool closing a couple of decades ago. David (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    Hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent on traffic lights, individual fast food restaurants, and individual gas stations, all of which do not and should not have articles. Each of these are major hubs in a neighborhood or town!
    "We have articles on this!" is generally a bad argument. The fact that individual schools are almost always the subject of discussion in reliable sources, well, there you're onto something. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    Those are good points, but I think that schools still stand out from the other examples. Individual traffic lights might cost a few thousand to put up, but each one doesn't have an operating budget of a few hundred thousand or a million a year; a fast food restaurant location or a very big gas station might have that kind of budget, but it's not a public institution. None is a community hub in the way that a school is: they don't host dances, sport events, candidate debates, community group meetings, sales, or fairs (well, maybe a gas station somewhere does all that, but if it does, it's probably notable enough for an article). Also, unlike the others, schools represent important stages in thousands of current and former students' lives. I agree that Fisher is particularly notable, but I think that ever school should be considered notable by default because of what I just listed (while every gas station or traffic light should not). After all, Wikipedia is not running out of paper, and school articles are not vanity pieces or trivia. David (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    Wikipedia's limit is not the amount of paper, but the supply of sources for words on that paper. One can make an argument that schools are as important as [thing we have] or as unimportant as [things we don't], but such an argument contributes nothing to an AFD.
    Once you focus on WP:V and WP:N and talk about whether we can write an article about this school based on the sources, you move from airy philosophical discussions that please none to practical discussions with applicable results.
    Wikipedia articles are not badges of merit or measures of importance or directories of public institutions. They are not awarded, they are written. They are summaries of what reliable sources have seen fit to say on the subject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per refs added by Eastmain. This article now meets WP:N.--Sting Buzz Me... 22:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - this school has a particularly unusual history and sources are available to easily meet WP:ORG. Nominators should look beyond what is in the article to what is available to be added. Stubs are like small acorns; if they are pulled out of the ground they will never develop but if they are nurtured they may grow into giant oaks. TerriersFan (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Silver Springs Public School

Silver Springs Public School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

relatively unknown elementary school in Toronto. The article is just one sentence long. Yettipolitician123 (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Street, Markham

John Street, Markham (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada Roads/Golden Horseshoe#Issues to consider for the rationale. Johnny Au (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. This is a secondary arterial in a suburban city, which doesn't even have a regional road number, and was created by an editor who largely operates under the belief that every single street in Markham should have its own article — he's even created articles on residential cul-de-sacs. Its only cited reference is a map. I should also note that this particular road is just a western continuation of the same roadway as the previously-deleted Esna Park Drive. And, in fact, an earlier article on John Street got canned in this discussion, which means this may even qualify as a G4 speedy. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Umm... The other discussion was the overall discussions for many roads in Markham. It was not just for John Street alone. Therefore, there were lack of discussions on John Street last time. Before you G4 Speedy this, I hope you can AT LEAST read this comment.
Like you said in the other comment at Bur Oak Avenue AfD, roads with notable history may be kept. Well, I think we are missing a point here. John Street is in fact notable. John Street forms the backbone of the old and new Thornhill. John Street, if you take a look at the road signs along John Street between Bayview Avenue and Yonge Street, you can clearly see the signs denoting "Old Thornhill, circa 1794". Therefore, John Street is considered as a historical street. It forms the basis of the old hamlet of Thornhill, as settlers begin progressing up Yonge Street. Thus, John Street is completely able to satisfy the historical needs. In addition, near the road, there are many historical structures.
If that is not enough, take a look at John Street, being a major arterial in Markham / Thornhill. It is considered as the downloaded portion of York Regional Road 71, as YRR 71 ends at Alden Road, and begins again at Centre Street near Bathurst. John Street was one of the portion chaining this connection up. Esna Park, I admit, was not notable. After all, that was my first article in Wikipedia. However, John Street is notable considering the above points. It contains historical heritage. The Canadian Roadgeek (Road talk) 00:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:50k is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) 15:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Editors are, however, obliged to follow WP:RS and WP:N. Bearcat (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I know full well that it's an essay. It's one that I wrote, and as such is the definition I use to decide whether I think something should or should not get my supporty at AfD. Many other users also use it fior the same reason. Grutness...wha? 01:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but the WP:50k essay suggests that if the road has a significant historic and geographical notability, then the article can be an exception from the 50k rule. Since John Street has historical significance (and really old too, from the 1800s), then 50k does not apply. Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk)22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
True, though simply being one of the oldest streets in a city isn't by itself of significant notability. Being the former main street of a former settlement now amalgamated into Markham makes it less obviously a deletion, but whether that fact gives it enough independent notability outside Markham is questionable - and notability to the extent that it is well known outside Markham irrespective of its local familiarity is what I was getting at with WP:50k. Take, for example, the city where I live. It has close to 150,000 people, and there are three streets with WP articles on the basis of size, plus Baldwin Street, Dunedin, which makes it to article status by dint of its uniqueness. If there was something specific that made John Street unique in some way (say a famous event known as "The John Street Incident", or its prominence as the former site of Markham Town Hall), then I'd reconsider - but as it stands it doesn'y quite qualify. Grutness...wha? 00:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
However, Thornhill is popular seen as a separate community from Markham, though it is officially part of the Town of Markham and the City of Vaughan (i.e. it straddles along the Markham / Vaughan border). Therefore, I think the street is famous beyond Markham.
There are several historic landmark on the road, for example, the Edey House, built in 1845, and moved to John Street during the widening of the nearby Yonge Street. The house is an example of the rare Regency Classical Revival style.
Also, the Sutton Frizzel's House, built in the 1800s, now currently located at 18 John Street, its original occupants played a major role in a major historical event of the Rebellion in 1837. A plaque is also erected there by the Town of Markham, recognizing its importance. Does the Rebellions of 1837, and the other historical buildings, and its historical function as the 14th concession meet your criterium of "something specific that made John Street unique in some way"? Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) at 12:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Changing to keep. Indeed, the Frizzel link and other features are enough to tip it over. If some notability had been shown for the street earlier, then it's likely it wouldn't have been brought up for afd - thank you for providing reasons to support it being kept! Grutness...wha? 02:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Let see if this edit satisfy both Ohconfucius and Bearcat's needs of historical context. Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk)22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Ohconfucius and I are not applying any special standards beyond basic Wikipedia policy around notability and verifiability in reliable sources. Kindly address the needs of Wikipedia policy, not the "needs" of individual users. Bearcat (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
It satisfies WP:RS and WP:N, how's that? Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) at 21:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per above.--JForget 00:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rodick Road (Markham, Ontario)

Rodick Road (Markham, Ontario) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada Roads/Golden Horseshoe#Issues to consider for the rationale. Johnny Au (talk) 02:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. This is a secondary arterial in a suburban city, which doesn't even have a regional road number, and was created by an editor who largely operates under the belief that every single street in Markham should have its own article — he's even created articles on residential cul-de-sacs. It doesn't even cite a reference. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep It's not a secondary arterial. A secondary arterial will not have a traffic light. As well, the road is notable. Someone just had not read it thoroughly. First note. Rodick Road is the western boundary of Unionville and Downtown Markham. That might not seem extraordinarily notable, but worth making a note. Second. It was a major issue and a major debate within the town of Markham, and even spread to York Region and Highway 407 ETR, about the extension. The extension connects Rodick from 14th Av to Woodbine Av, and thus the road becomes very busy, and widely used by the local citizens. This has also brought to a major controversial that the Town of Markham proposed to lower the speed limit to discourage excessive traffic. However, that did not become the case. Majority of the road remained to be a Maximum 60 speed limit. The controversial and the debate of Highway 407 Overpass is certainly notable. Third. The road is also made up of several notable landmarks, including First Markham Place, a Chinese themed shopping mall. Fourth. Important buildings of the York Region government is also located on this road. For instance, the Waste Hazard Disposal. Last but not least. The road has different sorts of zonings along the road, and very much describe Markham. It consists of light density residential to townhouses to ethnic themed malls to industrial usages and to waste disposal facilities. The road is also one of the heavier travelled roads in Markham. Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road Talk) 01:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:50k is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) 15:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Editors are, however, obliged to follow WP:RS and WP:N. Bearcat (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I know full well that it's an essay. I wrote it, and as such is the definition I use to decide whether I think something should or should not get my supporty at AfD. Many other users also use it to decide on articles in the same way. Grutness...wha? 01:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I applaud TCR's efforts to put Markham "on the map". If we all did that, we would have a very comprehensive set of articles on roads around the world. However, the reasons given by TCR to keep the article seem to me to be only his subjective appreciation of the importance of a road, and not necessarily its significance or notability. So delete for now. I'd like to see some independent third party sources which testify to its notability if any road article is to be worth keeping. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per discussion referenced in the nomination. I work for a company that's located on Rodick and use the south end of it in my commute. There is nothing particularly notable about the road other than it has some twisty bits and there is an occasional speed trap set up at the south end of the bridge over the 407, where you're going downhill and the limit is 50 kmh. PKT (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - No real major landmark along that road.--JForget 00:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ontario Proposed deletions

no articles proposed for deletion at this time

[edit] Quebec

[edit] Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

no articles proposed for deletion at this time