Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Canada

WP:CADTWP:CADT

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Canada. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Canada|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Canada. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Americas.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Canada

Canada articles for deletion

Flag of Cornwall, Ontario

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:N. Essentially orphaned. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV at all. Single-digit pageviews. Nothing here that can't be summarized in a sentence or two at Cornwall, Ontario. 162 etc. (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:01, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:13, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Pachal

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a mayor, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors do not get an automatic notability pass just for existing as mayors per se — the question of whether a mayor qualifies for a Wikipedia article or not doesn't hinge on minimally verifying that he exists, it hinges on showing a significant volume and depth and range of WP:GNG-worthy coverage that enables us to write a substantive article about his political impact: specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his leadership had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But there's no content of that type here, and Langley is not a large or prominent enough city that we can simply presume that such content will be forthcoming despite its failure to already be in the article now. A mayor requires a hell of lot more than just "he exists, the end" to qualify for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie LaBarge

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article from the start has been extensively edited by its subject, very clearly reflected in a highly promotional/casual/nostalgic tone, admitted to be taken from the subject's own website, which is a blatant WP:COI violation Shredlordsupreme (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. Shredlordsupreme (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep per quick search finding two mentions in Billboard, a mention in the Spokane Chronicle, an entry in the Canadian Pop Music Encyclopedia, and a music review in the Canadian Press. As there are already two reliable sources mentioned in the article, he might be notable. Nighfidelity (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Pinsk

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of an activist, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for activists. The attempted notability claim here is that he was the author of a petition, which is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself without significant WP:GNG-worthy sourcing to support it, but the referencing here consists primarily of primary sources -- his own Instagram, pieces of his own bylined writing, the text of the petition itself -- that are not support for notability at all, and the only technically independent source comes from a Substack newsletter rather than a WP:GNG-worthy media outlet of record, and thus cannot singlehandedly vault him over the notability bar all by itself.
Additionally, it warrants note that this was incorrectly filed in Category:Conservative Party of Canada MPs despite the fact that he is not, and never has been, a sitting member of Parliament.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have quite a lot more substance, and quite a lot more reliable sourcing to support it, than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Search in Google News did not lead to any coverage that is not already mentioned in the article, and even reliable coverage of the petition would still not be enough to build a biography. Kelob2678 (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not meet the notability and references. The citation are from social media platforms which is not allowed in the Wikipedia policy.

Dinitrify (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paris by Night 80

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, nothing to support notability found in a BEFORE DonaldD23 talk to me 01:18, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:18, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thúy Nga Productions – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 09:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator, I would also support this redirect. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:13, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eska Water

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article for a brand of bottled water. I don't believe that the references here assert notability under WP:NPRODUCT -- I previously draftified it, but it was moved back to mainspace without being accepted at AfC. The brand owner does not have an article to redirect this to, either. MediaKyle (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Canada. MediaKyle (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Eska has independent, reliable coverage about its operations and ownership, which meets WP:NPRODUCT. Countless bottled-water brands (example being Poland Spring) with similar sourcing have standalone pages. I can expand the article with stronger references if needed. Hayden Soloviev (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Companies. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Covered here [1], not the most flattering coverage, but it's coverage. Coverage here [2] and [3] Oaktree b (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Les Insomniaques s'amusent

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced. Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Daniel Bélanger#Discography – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added some referencing to properly support notability, and more is available — the key, however, is to dig into BAnQ rather than ProQuest or Newspapers.com, since most of its potential sourcing is in French. But there are real notability claims here, and sourcing to support it — Daniel Bélanger has been one of the biggest superstars in Quebec music for a good 30 years now, and this album got him about 2/3 of the way there all by itself (Quatre saisons dans le désordre finished the job), so the coverage is most certainly available. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the nominator I now support a keep per WP:HEY.4meter4 (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard Chris

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Only sources that come close to in-depth are about the Twitter case, but the article still fails WP:BLP1E because the case was not significant. – MW_(t•c) 22:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Discrimination, Law, LGBTQ+ studies, Politics, Sexuality and gender, Australia, and Canada. Bridget (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Thriley (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Chris Elston aka Billboard Chris has received widespread serious press since 2020, with articles on his activities in Canada in the CBC: [4], [5], and Ottawa Citizen: [6], and widespread international coverage about his case in Australia. There appears to be plenty of other sources out there and some usable academic publications on Google Scholar: [7]. Thriley (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The CBC sources seem like WP:ROUTINE coverage of events Elston organized/attended, not coverage of the man himself. The Ottawa Citizen article is much better in coverage, but I think we need a stronger WP:THREE to keep. The Google Scholar sourcing is also quite poor — several of the top results appear to be self published, [8] this one is the best academic coverage I'm seeing and it's fairly middling. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Guardian article, Vancouver Sun, CBC, Sydney Morning Herald articles all seem to indicate sustained coverage and not just about the Twitter post (also the JK Rowling billboard). He gets in-depth coverage about himself, which seems sufficient for WP:GNG Oblivy (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: The coverage here is shockingly bad for how much of it there is, there's almost no biographical coverage of the the man himself. WP:BLP1E/WP:1E do not apply given there are numerous events he's covered in across RS. I think he slides by under WP:BASIC given the pure quantity of shallow coverage, but I don't feel particularly good about it. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, the article should probably be moved to "Chris Elston," most coverage mentions the nickname a single time but generally refers to him by his full name. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these comments are correct, I think, although "shockingly bad" is probably a bit much. There doesn't have to be a ton of biographical detail to support an article, but what there is is about his activism and that seems sufficient for GNG.
I'd support a name change to Chris Elston if the article is kept. Oblivy (talk) 04:21, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Coverage is not great for a WP:BLP but meets the criteria for WP:GNG Agnieszka653 (talk) 03:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sourcing is not good enough given that this is a BLP and the controversial subject matter, which necessitates a higher bar for meeting GNG. The Ottawa Citizen piece is good but the rest is not enough, the rest is just individual protests. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Better to know about all sorts of "political" ie "activist" freaks out there and what they may be plotting than not to have a clue and be very surprised when they come at you as a metro train out of a tunnel. But needs more details with links, methinks. Annabelleigh (talk) 03:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I feel the same way about this one as I did about Lilly Contino, I am a sucker for borderline BLPs; but there isn't much more than "he shows up wearing a billboard and talks to people" and occasionally this provokes people [9] and attracts criticism, but I feel a BLP article needs something more then "this attention getter gets attention". The above comment bothers me, we have policies about WP:NOTADVOCACY, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and it's incredibly hard to keep articles about attention seekers from appearing to be WP:ATTACK. Denaar (talk) 03:38, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Kursonis

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass GNG or NHOCKEY. A before search shows a singular source from the Worcester Telegram that may be worth including, but does not push the article over the notability line. Kline • talk • contribs 16:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and United States of America. Kline • talk • contribs 16:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NHOCKEY. No sense the subject meets the GNG, and playing for a minor collegiate program, no prospect of doing so. Ravenswing 03:57, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not pass WP:GNG at this time. Try again in a few years. Flibirigit (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Val Van Den Broek

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG, and WP:SIGCOV. At best they've received coverage for a single event when they were censured for behavior, but there's not enough to suggest continued coverage or notability. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Canada. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - poorly referenced BLP; mayor of a city of 30,000 people. Bearian (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:SUBNOT. Aneirinn (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayors do not get an automatic notability pass just for existing as mayors per se — the question of whether a mayor qualifies for a Wikipedia article or not doesn't hinge on minimally verifying that she exists, it hinges on showing a significant volume and depth and range of WP:GNG-worthy coverage that enables us to write a substantive article about her political impact: specific things she did, specific projects she spearheaded, specific effects her leadership had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But there's no content of that type here, and Langley is not a large or prominent enough city that we can simply presume that such content will be forthcoming. A mayor requires a hell of lot more than just "she exists, the end" to qualify for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Garret Cord Werner

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Cited sources are either promotional/unreliable or briefly discuss this obscure interior design firm. Gheus (talk) 10:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Companies, Canada, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same as the other one, coverage seems to mostly fail WP:AUD. I'm not seeing any notability here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 21:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am also inclined to push for a deletion on DELREASON 4 on a re-read, even though it doesn't quite meet G11. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:47, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is about an architecture and interior design practice with projects in the United States and Canada. In independent sources the firm is discussed mainly through coverage of specific completed work, including custom houses, multi unit residential projects and renovations of historically significant properties, rather than in general business reporting.

Over a number of years these projects have been written up in independent design and property publications as full project features, not just brief mentions. For this type of practice, coverage of built work is often the main way independent sources address the subject. I have added a couple of additional independent sources to the article to reflect this more clearly.

When I created the article I based my judgement on wiki policy that this kind of firm is less likely to receive sustained general coverage and more likely to be known through notable projects, in the same way that law firms may be covered through significant cases or academics through their h index and peer reviewed work. I still think this is the situation here, and I first learned about the company while reading about a historic renovation project that caught my attention. I also think there are a few good articles about the company that provide significant coverage. I have shared my view and I am happy to leave the final decision to other editors.

[10][11][12] Nullius Inverba 2 (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Totally disagree with WP:AUD assessment above as two countries make it more than just regional. There is also a source in Chinese: https://vancouverboulevard.com/2020/03/livable-luxury-%E5%AE%9C%E5%B1%85%E2%80%A2%E5%A5%A2%E8%8F%AF/ Nagirakitan (talk) 12:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Acceptable for the niche. I've evaluated a few sources:

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?	Overall value toward ORGCRIT
https://www.generalcontractors.org/the-best-interior-designers-in-seattle-washington			a few paragraphs, but matters
https://www.seattletimes.com/pacific-nw-magazine/seattles-garret-cord-werner-gives-condo-its-own-glow/			about a project
https://www.ft.com/content/bf538d5d-884e-4b3f-ba7d-daacfbe9e916			about a project
https://westernliving.ca/homes-and-design/homes/this-vancouver-home-feels-more-like-a-resort-can-we-check-in-please/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Brosticate (talk) 10:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:27, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Brosticate Bagwe Neza (talk) 06:08, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What evidence do you have that Western Living and General Contractors Magazine have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy Bagwe Neza and Brosticate? They look like vanity/content farm websites from the about pages. I'm willing to defer this to a opinion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard but surely there's something intelligible to say about your position (like what would normally go in the rj= box)? Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:46, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of early Acadian families of Port Royal

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTGENEALOGY. This is a huge list of non-notable people who lived in a particular geographic area. I removed some of the "famous descendants", because they were not supported by the source cited. I'm wondering what possible use this would be to a reader of Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Canada. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:SALAT, specifically being too selective. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unclear why I'm supposed to care about any of these names (literally just names for the most part). Reywas92^Talk 03:00, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This does probably pass NLIST. These families are listed in a number of books, also see the List of family names at Port-Royal in Acadie and along the Rivière du Dauphin before the Great Upheaval from the Government of Canada... And the article does make it clear why we care, when it says up to 5 million people in Canada and the United States can today trace their ancestry to the original 400 Acadian settlers in Port Royal and the Rivière du Dauphin -- MediaKyle (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Still not sure why I'm supposed to care even if I'm one of the 1% of Americans/Canadians descended from them, this is just a list of names and birthdates, one of the most pointless articles I've ever seen. Everyone is descended from somebody, most of whom are recorded in censuses and other documents. Worthwhile prose summary can go at Port-Royal (Acadia). — Reywas92^Talk 15:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note this type off list has several precedents including:List of Jamestown colonists, List of Mayflower passengers, List of Mayflower passengers who died at sea November/December 1620, List of colonists at Roanoke, First Families of Virginia. HISTORBUFF (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Precedents? That's like saying Mozart family is a precedent for Ozzy Ozbourne family. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are very different pages and contexts... — Reywas92^Talk 15:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is it any different from the list of Jamestown colonists or list of mayflower passengers? The list can easily be referenced by the Port-Royal (Acadia) page. Fin 22:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's time to start removing long lists of non-notable family members, starting here. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe this does not fall under Wikipedia:NOTGENEALOGY as it works as it fits the criteria for inclusion as a standalone list per Wikipedia:CSC as only 1 of the people (currently) have their own article. I do believe the article should be unorphaned, and I am going to try to work on that myself. Fin 22:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page is unorphaned now. 3 Pages link to it (including one that was already linked to it). Fin 00:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:34, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plug-in electric vehicles in the United States and Canada by charging connector

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Some of the info on this article is useful and should be added to each vehicles' individual articles, but I don't see how this is a notable category / satisfies WP:GNG. It's an indiscriminate collection of information that belongs in sections of a main article rather than a standalone list. Also appears to contain original research, with a number of government documents used as sources, some of which don't even support claims being made in the article. aesurias (talk) 09:10, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Canada, and United States of America. aesurias (talk) 09:10, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits have substantially changed the scope and sourcing of this article, so the original concerns about indiscriminate listing and original research are now much less applicable. The page has been refocused away from a speculative, model-by-model directory into a sourced overview of the main charging connector families used on plug-in vehicles in the United States and Canada, with only a small, clearly labelled table of representative vehicle usage. The current version relies on independent, non-Wikipedia sources (NRCan, U.S. DOE AFDC, SAE, Joint Office of Energy and Transportation, CHAdeMO, CharIN, and consumer guides) to summarise how J1772, CCS1, CHAdeMO and NACS are deployed in this region, rather than synthesising government documents to infer details that are not stated. From a content-organisation standpoint, trying to maintain connector information separately in dozens of individual vehicle articles is both impractical and error-prone; connector standards cut across manufacturers, platforms and model years, which makes a centralised, sourced overview article more maintainable and more useful to readers than scattering partial duplication across many pages. Per WP:LISTN and WP:NCON, the topic here is not a trivial "list of trivia" but a region-specific overview of EV connector usage that is already the subject of significant discussion in reliable sources. If further trimming of the example tables is needed to reduce directory-style content, that can be handled by normal editing; outright deletion is not necessary to address the earlier issues. Likeajc (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 10:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From NFB to Box-Office

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM/WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 03:24, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 03:24, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:18, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The sources in fr.wiki are not so much better than here. Svartner (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Denys Desjardins#Selected films: As an ATD unless WP:Library, Cunard (talk · contribs), or otherwise can help us out. Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 16:34, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalist-13

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources do not evidence notability. All the sourcing is local news and low-quality monitor org publications (and this specific monitor org is not reliable, or significant, unlike the ADL or SPLC or w/e), or passing mentions. The only reliable source here that actually gives sigcov is the CBC source and the Radio Canada source but even that is not a source that particularly evidences notability, in the WP:ROUTINE territory of "local menace is menacing" and only in the context of a broader topic. Merge to Active Clubs, as the sources only talk about them in the context of being one of many. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Organizations, and Canada. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Disagree with the rationale stated in the nomination that "sourcing is local news and low-quality monitor org publications. . . or passing mentions." The CBS is not a local organization an the included article is does not have just a passing mention of the group but looks more deeply at the locations where Nationalist-13 members meet based on photographic evidence + describes some of their telegrams posts. The article drew attention from public officials + follow up coverage too [13]. And how was it determined that Canadian Anti-Hate Network is not reliable or significant like the ADL or SPLC? Some would argue the anti-defamation league is distinctly biased/unreliable. Additional reliable sources that at least mention the group and with potentially significant coverage depending on one's opinion (my opinion is lean-yes to yes for significance): [14], [15]. I also think deleting an article that covers a group, with sourcing from across at least 4 months, based on an argument of WP:ROUTINE event coverage is also inappropriate here. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CBS is not cited here (I assume you mean the CBC?) and even the New York Times can report on local news. The Canadian Anti-Hate Network is a monitor org that does not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and does not have the reputation of those other two organization (that it is not criticized as much is because it is too low profile). The two sources you mention are to the tune of one or two sentences each and are not sigcov, they say nothing other than repeating what they said in videos they released, and the other is the CBC again. The sources are all in pieces about active clubs, because active clubs are notable, and they give this as an example, because it is their local iteration. All the other sourcing is literally just descriptions of their social media posts, which is routine and not in depth coverage as is needed to pass WP:NORG. There is really nothing to say about them outside of "they are an active club". PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is the Canadian Anti-Hate Network listed as an unreliable source? Lazarbeem (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a list of every source ever made, so I don't see why that is relevant. Plenty of unreliable sources or marginal sources are not listed anywhere, but we judge by WP:RS. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well judging by WP:RS, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network is a source that can be used on Wikipedia Lazarbeem (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not to my reading. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So in your opinion? Lazarbeem (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by WP:RS, it is not a source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy that sees wide usage by academic sources, unlike the ADL or SPLC. It is not a NEWSORG so we cannot assume reliability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the person in charge of CAHN the former executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation? Lazarbeem (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia a reliable source? PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per PARAKANYAA. The source analysis is spot on. We have reliability concerns with some of the sourcing, and the coverage that is reliable is either not in-depth or too local in scope to overcome the burden of WP:NOTNEWS. We would need better coverage to have an article under WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG.4meter4 (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough sources and recent coverage Regna sereno intenso ed infinito (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found this Guardian Article: [[16]] CBC [[17]] ADL [[18]] Radio Canada [[19]] The London Free Press [[20]] and the Southern Poverty Law Center: [[21]] Agnieszka653 (talk) 04:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Agnieszka653 Most of the sources you mention are addressed above, and if you want to vote above. But I am confused why you think most of the rest count for notability; addressing the other sources you brought up the CBC source and radio-canada which are one sentence each, and the SPLC and ADL sources, which do not appear to mention this at all? Could you point out where the SPLC and ADL sources mention this Canadian group called Nationalist-13? PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there a policy to determine what is considered "too local"? I am still confused as to why WP:ROUTINE is cited as a reason for deletion since this page is not about an event but a group.WP:NORG is a good argument for deletion though many of the issues that NORG addresses (e.g. advertising) don't apply to this case.

There are alternatives to deletion here to with subject-appropriate targets for a redirect like List of white nationalist organizations (though that page needs work). I am not seeing an article covering white nationalism in Canada specifically but such a page would also make a good target. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Banff Airport

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I entirely fail to see why this airstrip merits an article, and the only questio iaa where to redirect it. An editor redircted it ti List of airports in Alberta#Banff Airport but I incline towards Banff National Park.TheLongTone (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Banff National Park. It can be briefly mentioned in that article.4meter4 (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Banff National Park#Transportation as I hadn't thought about that as a target yesterday. I notice that Banff Park Compound Heliport also redirects to the section on that page. Frankly back in 2005 / 2006 stubs like this were welcomed but times change and today minor airports like this should be redirected. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Canada. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 17:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:38, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Banff National Park#Transportation, given the sources present, it probably deserves about one sentence on the page but redirecting makes the most sense here. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't currently covered, so a merge will be necessary.4meter4 (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In its current state, it makes sense why one would want to delete this page. There is actually a large history of Banff Airport involving a fight between Parks Canada and Transport Canada on whether to keep it open, ending in its current state as an emergency-only landing strip. I think that instead of deleting the page, we should work to add the information about CYBA that is currently missing, including its history before it was closed and, probably the main reason why someone would want to go to this page, the fight between PC and TC. This is not just some random remote airstrip; it actually has an interesting story involving not just aviation but government infighting. Jacob p12 (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Currently it looks to me that the discussion is leaning more to redirecting the page rather than deletion. If there is some further information about a disagreement between Parks Canada (PC) and Transport Canada (TC) and it's supported by Wikipedia:Reliable sources then the redirect can be expanded. However, I doubt that there is much in the way of a disagreement between PC and TC. TC would not care about the opening or closing of an airstrip not owend or operated by them. I think any disagremeent is going to have been between PC and the unnamed environmentalists. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:02, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Banff National Park#Transportation, adding to the existing mention of the heliport. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There at least appears to be some amount of information about this little airport, including Banff: History, Attractions and Activities, Hutchings 2002, p. 83; 1969 version of Canadian Aviation; and Popular Aviation (1993), p. 110. I couldn't go far enough back for a decent newspaper search, and while the Hutchings book looks clearly significant I can't access these enough to clearly save the article. If additional sources can be found, there shouldn't be any reason why this couldn't be recreated - maybe a combination draftify and redirect? SportingFlyer T·C 22:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For some input on SportingFlyer's comment, although consensus is clearly leaning towards merge/redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other Canada Deletions

Canada proposed deletions

Jasper Fitzhugh (via WP:PROD on 5 November 2025)
List of premiers of Alberta by time in office (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2025)
List of joint premiers of the Province of Canada by time in office (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2025)

Canada speedy deletions

Canada redirect deletions

Canada file deletions

Canada template deletions

Canada category deletions

Category:Games of basketball teams in Canada 2025-10-21
Category:Canadian women by role 2025-10-17

Canada miscellany deletions

Canada deletion review

Canada undeletion

Canada deletions on Commons

%