This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related toCanada. It is one of manydeletion lists coordinated byWikiProject 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 atWP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page atWP: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 theedit 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 bya 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'sdeletion policy andWP: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 toAmericas.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Small online poker company that failsWP:NCORP, they claim to "have invented" online bingo, which is false, and even then, there are no RS about this company whatsoever, that isnt one of their many business accounts.ロドリゲス恭子 (talk)22:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This page doesn’t meet Wikipedia’s notability requirements for academics. Google searches for sources supporting this person’s notability have turned up nothing that meets the requirements either.Clowington (talk)15:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral.Here is one piece ofWP:SIGCOV.This is borderlineWP:SIGCOV although less convincing as it is interview oriented.This highlights him as a subject matter expert brought in to independently review the Bank of Canada. He's quoted as a subject matter expert in many articles, and has written pieces for several publications. For me this is borderline. May be a case ofWP:TOOSOON, but it's possible others can find something I didn't.4meter4 (talk)17:28, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FailsWP:No original research. Entirely unreferenced. I don't think we should be hosting content like this unless it is sourced. We have a lot of data here, some of which might be original analysis and not something officially published or taken from reliable materials. Like where is the votes by party throughout time coming from? We definitely could have an article here, but not like this... If we are going to have articles built around statistics we need to tell people where those statistics are coming from.WP:TNT it unless somebody can come along and verify this is accurate.4meter4 (talk)03:19, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the same reason as other repliers on similar AFD discussions. The nomination is simply wromg. This is not original research. If the nominator as another policy based reason for deletion, they should make that clear.Esolo5002 (talk)05:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FailsWP:No original research. Entirely unreferenced. I don't think we should be hosting content like this unless it is sourced. We have a lot of data here, some of which might be original analysis and not something officially published or taken from reliable materials. Like where is the votes by party throughout time coming from? We definitely could have an article here, but not like this... If we are going to have articles built around statistics we need to tell people where those statistics are coming from.WP:TNT it unless somebody can come along and verify this is accurate.4meter4 (talk)03:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the same reason as other repliers on similar AFD discussions. The nomination is simply wromg. This is not original research. If the nominator as another policy based reason for deletion, they should make that clear.Esolo5002 (talk)05:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FailsWP:No original research. Entirely unreferenced. I don't think we should be hosting content like this unless it is sourced. We have a lot of data here, some of which might be original analysis and not something officially published or taken from reliable materials. Like where is the votes by party throughout time coming from? We definitely could have an article here, but not like this... If we are going to have articles built around statistics we need to tell people where those statistics are coming from.WP:TNT it unless somebody can come along and verify this is accurate.4meter4 (talk)03:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the same reason as other repliers on similar AFD discussions. The nomination is simply wrong. This is not original research. If the nominator as another policy based reason for deletion, they should make that clear.Esolo5002 (talk)05:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FailsWP:No original research. Entirely unreferenced. I don't think we should be hosting content like this unless it is sourced. We have a lot of data here, some of which might be original analysis and not something officially published or taken from reliable materials. Like where is the votes by party throughout time coming from? We definitely could have an article here, but not like this... If we are going to have articles built around statistics we need to tell people where those statistics are coming from.WP:TNT it unless somebody can come along and verify this is accurate.4meter4 (talk)03:17, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the same reason as other repliers on similar AFD discussions. The nomination is simply wrong. This is not original research. If the nominator has another policy based reason for deletion, they should make that clear.Esolo5002 (talk)05:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FailsWP:No original research. Entirely unreferenced. I don't think we should be hosting content like this unless it is sourced. We have a lot of data here, some of which might be original analysis and not something officially published or taken from reliable materials. Like where is the votes by party throughout time coming from? We definitely could have an article here, but not like this... If we are going to have articles built around statistics we need to tell people where those statistics are coming from.WP:TNT it unless somebody can come along and verify this is accurate.4meter4 (talk)03:16, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the same reason as other repliers on similar AFD discussions. The nomination is simply wromg. This is not original research. If the nominator as another policy based reason for deletion, they should make that clear.Esolo5002 (talk)05:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FailsWP:No original research. Entirely unreferenced. I don't think we should be hosting content like this unless it is sourced. We have a lot of data here, some of which might be original analysis and not something officially published or taken from reliable materials. Like where is the votes by party throughout time coming from? We definitely could have an article here, but not like this... If we are going to have articles built around statistics we need to tell people where those statistics are coming from.WP:TNT it unless somebody can come along and verify this is accurate.4meter4 (talk)03:16, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a policy based opinion. We have zero evidence that this content isaccurate. We don't publish a page of statistics without saying where those statistics come from. It is indeed OR because at the moment it isn't verified as accurate/true.4meter4 (talk)15:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, just because whoever added it didn't include the correct footnotes doesnot mean it's original research: "On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article". There's no reason to believe that the numbers were just made up from their own analysis:sources do exist from Elections Canada. These are verifiable. Just because you can't be bothered to find the source that's linked in the respective election articles and easily Googleable doesn't mean it's OR. — Reywas92Talk19:30, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No.WP:BURDEN works the other way. It's responsibility of people adding materials to demonstrate where they are getting the information. At the moment I'm just seeing a bunch of unprovableWP:SOURCESEXIST statements without actually linking directly to where these statics come from.4meter4 (talk)19:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not really seeing an exact correlation between what is on the election website and what we have in these pages, but perhaps I am not going to the right places on that website? It looks like while data of varying kinds is being pulled from the site, its presentation isn't necessarily the same, and there is someWP:SYNTH happening.4meter4 (talk)19:50, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FailsWP:No original research. Entirely unreferenced. I don't think we should be hosting content like this unless it is sourced. We have a lot of data here, some of which might be original analysis and not something officially published or taken from reliable materials. Like where is the votes by party throughout time coming from? We definitely could have an article here, but not like this... If we are going to have articles built around statistics we need to tell people where those statistics are coming from.WP:TNT it unless somebody can come along and verify this is accurate.4meter4 (talk)03:15, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you can support publishing original statistics not found in any sources. If you can point to where this data comes from that would be another matter, but as it is these numbers may be original. We don't publish unverified data.4meter4 (talk)16:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FailsWP:No original research. Entirely unreferenced. I don't think we should be hosting content like this unless it is sourced. We have a lot of data here, some of which might be original analysis and not something officially published or taken from reliable materials. Like where is the votes by party throughout time coming from? We definitely could have an article here, but not like this... If we are going to have articles built around statistics we need to tell people where those statistics are coming from.WP:TNT it unless somebody can come along and verify this is accurate.4meter4 (talk)03:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you can support publishing original statistics not found in any sources. If you can point to where this data comes from that would be another matter, but as it is these numbers may be original. We don't publish unverified data.4meter4 (talk)16:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not finding all of the content/numbers we have at that website, but perhaps I'm not navigating to the right part of it? This doesn't seem to verify all of the ways we are presenting our content which again makes we wonder if some of the statiscal presentation isn'tWP:SYNTH.4meter4 (talk)19:43, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Every riding's results are for every election is linked from there, like[4] from[5]. To see everything together for an election, there's the raw data: for the 2015 election you would select Table 12 on[6]. The numbers in the "Votes by party throughout time" table is obviously a simple sum of the party results in each election year table. Adding up numbers already on the page is not illegal synthesis. — Reywas92Talk19:55, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are still going back to the problem of pulling out PRIMARY data into original divisions. This is exactly the type of writing banned atWP:NOSTAT. We don't do this. We need to have some sort of structural organization based inWP:SECONDARY reporting, and frankly we cover each federal election better in numerous other articles (ie better sourced) than these. I'm not really seeing a good reason to keep these.4meter4 (talk)20:06, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is routine organization to subdivide a very long list, not original research. The data is not being manipulated beyond simple addition in the first table. This isn't indiscriminate or unexplained statistics, it's a compilation of election results. — Reywas92Talk04:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FailsWP:No original research. Entirely unreferenced. I don't think we should be hosting content like this unless it is sourced. We have a lot of data here, some of which might be original analysis and not something officially published or taken from reliable materials. Like where is the votes by party throughout time coming from? We definitely could have an article here, but not like this...WP:TNT it unless somebody can come along and verify this is accurate.4meter4 (talk)03:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. If the sources verify the content, and demonstrate that we have noWP:OR, yes. However, if our page has a bunch of original statistical analysis not found in the materials, than no. We can't be doing original data analysis because that is original research. Of course, you could just chop out anything that is OR, and then what is left would be fine.4meter4 (talk)03:30, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per my comments on related articles that should have been bundled, this is very obviously an issue of simply lacking the footnotes to Elections Canada, not original research or analysis.Reywas92Talk20:06, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FailsWP:No original research. Entirely unreferenced. I don't think we should be hosting content like this unless it is sourced. We have a lot of data here, some of which might be original analysis and not something officially published or taken from reliable materials. Like where is the votes by party throughout time coming from? We definitely could have an article here, but not like this... If we are going to have articles built around statistics we need to tell people where those statistics are coming from.WP:TNT it unless somebody can come along and verify this is accurate.4meter4 (talk)03:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why not userfy back to the editor who created all these articles? They seem to be very knowledgeable about this subject and they might be able to provide sources @Amrcmln, but sparingly edit.Katzrockso (talk)07:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Katzrockso: I'd be ok with that. Or a move to draft space. If they are rescuable, I'm all for saving them, and if time and space allow for a rescue we should support that. It might be best to require these go throughWP:AFC.4meter4 (talk)13:25, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is no way that any of these are independently notable based on current sources, it seems like arbitrary subdivisions of politics and then electoral results based on that. But maybe allowing the user time to transfer it to wikiversity or something? I really doubt any of it is really wrong, per se.Katzrockso (talk)13:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
original statistics not found in any sourcesoh really? It's not unreasonable to break up very long topics into subarticles, we don't need a source defining each exact division. — Reywas92Talk19:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In fact we do need sources discussing a topic directly and in detail. Breaking out statistical data in original ways, is in fact original analysis, which isWP:OR; particularly when analyzingWP:PRIMARY data which is what these websites are.4meter4 (talk)19:52, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having one article with results from A, B, and C ridings and another article with results from X, Y, and Z ridings is not analysis or original research. — Reywas92Talk19:59, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So there's no issue with a Canadian federal election results in Quebec page, but since that's too long to have in one article now there's a problem? We are allowed to use reasonable geographic regions to subdivide a topic. — Reywas92Talk20:10, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I didn't evaluate all 55 sources but they look like the usual slurry of routine coverage, trivial mentions, non-independent sources, interviews, and quotes from executives. Nothing better was found in a BEFORE search.Helpful Raccoon (talk)19:12, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wanted to provide context. This is a Quebec company, so the primary reporting is in French. It has been the central topic of at least three articles from different French Canadian newspapers, and the most recent news coverage is in October 2025.
A tiny municipal political party with one seat on the Montreal City Council, no evidence of notability. I draftified this and it was moved back by the author with minimal improvement.MediaKyle (talk)12:18, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Simple regional subsidiary of Lockheed Martin. Does not seem to meet threshold for notability. Whilst there are some external sources which mention LM Canada, most are either press releases or simple contract awards - almost no coverage of this subsidiary as an entity itself.
Redirect, as there's absolutely no pressing need to maintain the exact same information in two different places.Properly sourced lists of mayors are fine for big cities whose head articles are long and need to have stuff chunked out of them for size control purposes, but are not a thing that always has to exist for every smaller town across the board, especially if exact same table is already in the town's main article anyway.Bearcat (talk)03:36, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect toQualicum Beach#Mayors. Lists of mayorscould be split when the size of the article necessitates a split, but that could also be accomplished with a collapsible table on the main city page. In this case, the separate page is duplicative of what is on the main city page. --Enos733 (talk)17:27, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this isnot a majority vote, but instead adiscussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia haspolicies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, andconsensus (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 toassume good faith on the part of others and tosign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Completing nomination for IP user. Their argument for deletion is:
Ex biker who's written some books and consulted on some TV shows about being a biker.
Most of the sources are user generated sites like IMDB or sites linked directly to the subject. The independent sources that mention him are either passing mentions or promotional content.
DELETE - With the exception of one article onmalive.com, I am not seeing anything else to establish notability. (Note: I removed many of unreliable sources such as IMDB).Kyunde (talk)03:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Winterhalder was a former high-ranking world leader of the Bandidos motorcycle club who was instrumental in expanding the organization worldwide and was assigned to coordinate the assimilation of the Rock Machine into the Bandidos during the Quebec Biker War, a conflict that cost more than one-hundred and sixty people their lives. He's an author and subject matter expert published worldwide who has written more books about outlaw bikers and motorcycle clubs than anyone on the planet, and a television producer who has produced dozens of television shows about the genre.— Precedingunsigned comment added by~2025-34751-43 (talk)13:27, 20 November 2025 (UTC)—2025-3471-43 (talk •contribs) has madefew or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
Edward Winterhalder meets multiple criteria for notability underWP:AUTHOR,WP:CREATIVE, and general notability guidelines.
=== 1. Widely Cited and Recognized as an Important Source on Outlaw Motorcycle Culture ===
Winterhalder is consistently cited by journalists, authors, documentary producers, and media outlets for his insider knowledge of outlaw motorcycle clubs. His commentary and expertise have appeared across major national and international media platforms, includingFox News,ABC Nightline,National Geographic,History Channel,Inside Edition, and theCBC.
This demonstrates he is “widely cited by peers or successors,” satisfying the first criterion under WP:AUTHOR.
=== 2. Major Contributor to an Extensive, Recognized Body of Work ===
Winterhalder has authored or co-authoredmore than fifteen nonfiction books, many of which have been translated into multiple languages (including German, French, Spanish, Dutch, and Japanese), indicating broad international reach.
His works document significant historical events—most notably theQuebec Biker War and theassimilation of the Rock Machine into the Bandidos—which are frequently referenced in academic, journalistic, and cultural discussions about outlaw biker history.
This satisfies the WP:AUTHOR requirement for having "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" that has receivedindependent, repeated coverage.
=== 3. Subject of Multiple Independent Articles, Interviews, and Media Features ===
Winterhalder’s work is not self-published or self-promoted; it has been covered by numerousindependent periodicals, including:
GQ
USA Today
Vice
Seattle Weekly
Austin Chronicle and others.
Because WP:AUTHOR requires that a creator’s work be theprimary subject of multiple independent, reliable sources, this criterion is clearly met.
=== 4. Major Roles in Television Production and Documentaries ===
As atelevision producer and creator, Winterhalder has developed multiple nonfiction TV series, including:
Quebec Biker War (based on his books)
Real American Bikers
Steel Horse Cowboys
Living on the Edge
Biker Chicz
These areindependent works that have received media coverage and industry recognition, meeting WP:AUTHOR’s third criterion regarding creators of “significant or well-known works.”
Additional ongoing productions—includingHeavy Duty Bikers (UK, currently in development)—further demonstrate sustained notability.
=== 5. International Literary & Cultural Presence ===
Winterhalder has appeared as a keynote literary speaker, including at major international events such as the2019 Emirates Airline Festival of Literature—one of the world’s largest and most notable literary gatherings.
This constitutes “significant critical attention” under WP:AUTHOR and reinforces his standing as a notable creative professional.
----
== Conclusion ==
Edward Winterhalder fulfills multiple independent criteria underWP:AUTHOR andWP:GNG. His longstanding influence as a writer, media figure, producer, and cultural commentator—combined with extensive coverage from independent, reliable sources—clearly establishesencyclopedic notability. The article should therefore beKEEP under Wikipedia’s guidelines.~2025-35227-69 (talk)19:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Winterhalder meets the followingWP:NAUTHOR criteria
1.The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; Winterhalder was a former high-ranking world leader of the Bandidos motorcycle club. He was involved in the Quebec Biker War to the extent he was notably subject to legal proceedings in Canada to prevent him from entering the country. 2.The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); He documented his career in the Bandidos and his account of the Quebec Biker War in his autobiographical books The Assimilation and Searching for My Identity Volumes 1 and 2 providing a unique first hand view of these events, which is currently in development for TV.Winterhalder also PassesWP:GNG given above and his wide range of other books and TV projects and interviews— Precedingunsigned comment added by~2025-35222-97 (talk)21:54, 20 November 2025 (UTC)—2025-35222-97 (talk •contribs) has madefew or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Keep perWP:GNG. The subject's associates are not helping his case here but the sources linked above do evidence notability, though a few are passing mentions. Particularly[50], the MLive source[51], this seattle weekly source[52],[53], this full piece in the Courant[54], from a search I did that wasn't even comprehensive and didn't delve much into non-surface web sources. Sources are spread over a wide geographical and chronological range as well. Lots of interview sources as well, though those are less useful for proving notability. All in all, he is a notable person who has been covered in reliable sources (probably also passes NAUTHOR but I did not check for book reviews). I would keep a closer eye on this article for promotional editing.PARAKANYAA (talk)18:26, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further input on the sources listed by several editors above? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,CycloneYoristalk!01:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article created by a paid editor who openly admits to be using the Wiki community's labor for promotional purposes[55]. Also seems connected toWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive375#Marriott properties (esp in Asia). Editors have started to clean up the article, but there's still lots of promotional wording, for example,Interior design emphasizes natural light, open spaces, and a modern aesthetic. The hotel includes a lobby designed as a multifunctional social space, incorporating art installations and minimalist design elements. Numerous publications have highlighted the architectural ambition of the project, noting its integration of wellness, technology, and urban living.
Additionally, extremely problematically, there is promotional verbiage that fails verification; for example, the claimThe Humaniti complex, including the hotel, has been recognized in architectural and real estate competitions is cited to a source which makes no mention of competitions. This is a clear case of a company attempting to get aWP:BOGO. A usable article would effectively require restarting from scratch, given these factors the article should be deleted perWP:NOTSPAM andWP:TNT.
Beyond that, I'm not seeing evidence of notability. The coverage cited is simply cut and pasted adcopy withoutWP:SIGCOV as we require forWP:NBUILDING andWP:GNG, and I'm not seeing anything better in aWP:BEFORE search. Even the sources which on first glance seem GNG-level, for example[56], read exactly like ad copy upon closer inspection.🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs)21:17, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:WP:COI is an ongoing problem. I am not going to !vote keep or delete in this AfD, as I am on the fence regarding the sources that do exist. I agree with @wasianpower about the article needing drastic clean-up however. The sooner that is achieved, the better.11WB (talk)21:42, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
InSpecial:Diff/1322698617, the article's original creator wrote thatI am connected to the hotel through my employment at Urgo Hotels Canada. I am not writing article text; I am only providing sources and a suggested structure for independent reviewers. IMO, this is a clear instance of a company cynically realizing they canspam us with low quality articles and have us do the cleanup for them, as described inWP:BOGO. I'd strongly discourage the community from rewarding this behavior by doing cleanup for them. The simpler and better solution isWP:TNT.🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs)21:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Source 8 is probably the best, but talks about the bar, not the entire hotel/building. The rest seem to be brief reviews or PR items. I don't find anything about the hotel itself.Oaktree b (talk)01:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities andcommercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.
The article notes: "Bold is beautiful. The Humaniti Hotel Montreal, Autograph Collection is a shimmering new landmark that opened in June at the nexus of some of the city's most vital locales. It's across the street from the Palais des congrès and within a few blocks of the Quartier des spectacles and Old Montreal. Humaniti is a tour de force of hospitality à la 2021, starring innovative architecture by Lemay, ultra-modern interiors by Andres Escobar of Lemay + Escobar and sensational cuisine by Jean-Sébastien Giguère. It's a live-work-play complex of condos, offices, hospitality and wellness. At ground level, the meditative side of Humaniti is represented by a courtyard that connects de la Gauchetière St. and Viger Ave., creating a mini-park with benches, flora, a reflecting pool and a café patio. The futuristic perspective is sky-high: three linked glass towers rise to nine, 19 and 39 storeys. Indoors, Humaniti is comfortable, sophisticated and upbeat. The lobby's design lines are soft and sensuous, with cushy sofas and round club chairs wrapped in velvety fabrics and cheeky pops of yellow, aqua and fuchsia. The 193 guest rooms and suites boast floor-to-ceiling windows, silvery and white decor with warm wood accents, and great beds - not too soft, not too firm. Decor-wise, I loved the textural contrast of lustrous, silky drapes against rough concrete pillars."
The review notes: "The most exciting high-rise development in Montreal’s recent memory–perhaps in all of Canada’s–is the LEED-certified, design-forward Humaniti, a multi-use building smack in the center of the city’s best location. It’s modern, it’s sexy, and it’s environmentally-friendly–what more could you ask of a hotel in 2023?"
The article notes: "Opened last month within strolling distance of Old Montreal, Humaniti Hotel Montréal joins the city’s first “smart vertical community” — architect-speak for an H-shaped highrise complex that also houses condos, office space and retail. The 193-room hotel promises plenty of on-site diversions, including poolside aperitifs on a spacious rooftop terrasse; a restaurant with a regionally obsessed menu from chef Jean-Sébastien Giguère; a 3,000-bottle wine cellar curated by award-winning sommelier Hugo Duchesne; a 24-hour gym outfitted with handcrafted wooden NOHrD machines; and a 2,000-square-foot urban spa offering skin care treatments designed by Montreal’s facialist to the stars, Jennifer Brodeur (Oprah’s a fan)."
The review notes: "Marriott’s Autograph Collection hotels can generally be counted on to hold more interest than the average luxury hotel — places like the Humaniti Hotel Montréal have learned the lessons of the boutique-hotel era, and come standard with eye-catching contemporary design and restaurants with a point of view."
The article notes: "A new H-shaped mixed-use high-rise at Montreal’s Place Jean-Paul Riopelle is home to this Autograph Collection hotel opening in May. The eighth letter of the alphabet is a recurring influence throughout the hotel, from a sculpture named Hanima by Québécois artist Marc Séguin to the 193 rooms in four categories – Hop, Halo, Hibiscus, Harmonie – and the 1,200-square-foot suite Hero. Hotel guests have 24-hour access to a 2,000-square-foot gym with eco-friendly NOHrD equipment made from wood and leather. Executive chef Jean-Sébastien Giguère will oversee h3 restaurant, lounge and terrace, and Hugo Duchesne, Quebec’s sommelier of 2020, will manage a 3,000-bottle wine cellar."
The article notes: "Montreal has long awaited the completion of the Humaniti project, but the result was worth it: This striking new Marriott Autograph Collection hotel is in a mixed-use building with commercial and residential space and has the largest patio in Montreal, plus one of the city’s very few outdoor hotel pools. The 193 rooms have a hard-edged industrial vibe with large black-and-white photographs, yellow statement chairs, and geometric light fixtures and area rugs. Humaniti is also home to Restaurant h3, which includes a wildly impressive wine cellar and a tasting menu that playfully incorporates French flavors and Canadian ingredients in dishes like foie gras crème brûlée with haskap berries and scallop ceviche with lime buttermilk and saltwort. Rooms feature floor-to-ceiling windows and curated local artworks."
The article notes: "Hotel Humaniti Montréal, Quebec's first Marriott Autograph Collection Hotel opened in June 2021. It's a beautiful, contemporary hotel in a great urban location in Old Montreal within walking distance of Place des Arts and Chinatown. The 193-room property provides stunning views of both the urban landscape and the St. Lawrence River. The city's first "Smart Vertical Community", Humaniti is an architectural landmark with a focus on sustainability that offers top drawer accommodations where every room and suite is a light-filled sanctuary encompassing floor-to-ceiling windows ranging in size from the 334 to the 1,200 square foot 'HERO' suite. A restorative spa & wellness center and several distinct dining spaces along with the impressive rooftop space (one of the largest in the city) creates a desirable destination in itself. Seasonal alfresco dining, cocktails under the stars, poolside lounging, or swimming a few laps make Humaniti an ideal summer destination too."
The article notes: "Montreal's newest rooftop Terrasse Alizé is located on the 9th floor of the Humaniti Hotel Montréal, bordering the neighbourhoods of downtown Montreal and Old Montreal. Time Out Tip: The Humaniti Montréal hotel is also home to one of the city’s sexiest rooftop pools. The exceptional outdoor pool and modern HIGI sauna is the spot to relax and soak it all in miles above the bustling city below."
Much of this coverage isWP:MILL coverage direct from advertising copy. The Gazette source is probably the strongest, but the others are low-effort listicles or short articles parroting what is available from official materials. Importantly, the sources other than the Gazette and Time Out also provide affiliate links (in the case of USA Today, Conde Nast and AFAR, for example) or offer direct booking (in the case of Michelin), which would make them non-independent. Whether it meets GNG is also only part of the issue, with the other issues outlined in the nomination.🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs)06:09, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In hindsight, I should have phrased slightly differently — it brings into question their independence, rather than makes then non-independent outright. The articles read like ad copy, and that the writers stand to profit from them possibly explains why they would do so. I'm really not a fan of the Conde Nast source; it reads like it's going down a list of items from the hotel website rather than an independent review.🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs)02:58, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I think we need more discussion and feedback on Cunard's sources to reach consensus here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Left guide (talk)23:06, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article was not only created by an editor who was admittedly engaging in paid editing on behalf of the hotel's management, but it also reads like it was written for promotional purposes. We would be better off deleting this article and allowing it to be re-created later by someone writing from aneutral point of view rather than a promotional point of view. --Metropolitan90(talk)16:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How thorough of aWP:BEFORE did you do? Googling got methis andthis, which wouldn't indicate notability on their own, but definitely make it seem like a more detailed dig through newspaper archives might be worthwhile–that, and the fact that he's a member of his school's Hall of Fame and had a long coaching career, much of which was before the internet age.Hatman31(he/him ·talk ·contribs)00:39, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First off, it's so poorly constructed it probably needs theWP:TNT treatment. Secondly, large portions of the article are nearly verbatim reprints of the source materials, to the point that I believe the article is riddled with possibleWP:COPYVIO and needs a total re-write if it's to exist at all...though the easiest thing is that it should be condensed into a blurb in the CF-35 section per the nomination.nf utvol (talk)20:25, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve There is no need to delete this article. If a separate discussion results in the consensus that it should be summarized and re-incorporated into the main article then that can be done and this article would need to be turned into a redirect, with no deletion needed. Personally I think even a summarized and shortened version would still be too long to incorporate it into the main article and it would just need to be split out again. As the article itself notes, this has been a very complex and very long procurement process, a true Canadian national scandal (as stated by several of the cited refs) and it is not even over today. Right now only 16 F-35s have been ordered by Canada, none have been delivered, the whole purchase is under government review and may yet be terminated or modified. If anything the story documented here is continuing to get longer and more complex, not simpler and shorter. For that reason alone it should be kept and improved and not deleted. -Ahunt (talk)16:04, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In a more general vein I think it is well past time that we stop deleting articles from Wikipedia, because all Wikipedia articles are now archived and available to the public forever, in this case:
Search engines already pick up links pointing to those articles, too.
What this means is that the article is never actually deleted, instead it is just frozen in time and cannot be edited ever again. That means that deleting articles is a worse outcome than fixing them and keeping them. -Ahunt (talk)16:04, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really arguing that AfD shouldn't exist because archives exist? The vast, vast majority of people looking for information in Wikipedia aren't searching for old, deleted versions of pages in archives that aren't indexed in most search engines. Anyone likely to be pulling up deleted pages in archives are people actively searching for the deleted article, and are unlikely to be using it to obtain reliable information.nf utvol (talk)03:10, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly I am pointing out that AfD and other deletion processes do not make articles go away, so the whole process is a bit misleading. They are never deleted, they live on, just in a form that cannot be edited any more. In practical terms I think this means that we should only be deleting articles in very clear cases of things like spam or hoaxes, otherwise, given realities, it makes much more sense to improve articles and continue to edit them, rather than "delete" them, rendering them basically immortal and untouchable instead. -Ahunt (talk)12:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why would an editor ask for the deletion of this historically accurate article. There are multiple mainstream sources including the government of Canadas own web pages and reports.
The main reason I’d suggest an editor wants this deleted is because it make the current liberal government in Canada look like a total disaster. They cost Canadian tax payers $10’s of billions in extra costs for fewer aircraft. All because of a political decision. Only to chose the same aircraft they first rejected (because the previous conservative government chose the aircraft first!). This page needs maintaining because it show the depth of political interference and corruption for political purposes and the shear Incompetence of elected officials.— Precedingunsigned comment added by~2025-35702-12 (talk)19:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article about an awards program, notproperly sourced as passing inclusion criteria. As always, awards are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to passWP:GNG on third-party coverage and analysis about them and their significance -- but this is referencedentirely to the awards' ownself-published content about themselves, with not even one hit of GNG-worthy media coverage about them shown at all. This has existed for four years as a redirect toBrunico Communications, the company that stages and hosts these awards, so obviously that can be reinstated if desired -- but this article, as written and sourced, has not demonstrated the notability needed to get its own standalone article separately from the parent organization.Bearcat (talk)14:33, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect toBrunico Communications per nom. There are 15 citations in this article, 14 of which are to kidscreen.com -- the website of the award and its organizer. The only independent source cited doesn't actually support the sentence that it is being used to support; specifically,this Animation Magazine article says nothing about a red carpet reception or hosted entertainment. --Metropolitan90(talk)17:54, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FailsWP:GNG andWP:NAUTHOR. Very minor author, with no reviews beyond GoodReads and Amazon type stuff. Created by an SPA, and edited by two more SPAs. Has been tagged for notability since 2013, so has had plenty of time to become more notable. Enough!Edwardx (talk)10:19, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: ALL seasons to the main page about the show, these really should have been batch nominated, they're all in the same format (primary sourcing with nothing else for notability)Oaktree b (talk)00:46, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This small online payments processing company was only founded in 2006. I don't believe the sources present in the article satisfy the depth required for articles about companies, and this is effectively a brochure. As one might expect, the article is a typical summary of funding rounds and a description of their products, nothing that makes an encyclopedia article.MediaKyle (talk)12:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Helcim was founded in 2006 does not affect its notability. A company’s age is not a determining factor on Wikipedia.
Independent media have written about Helcim because of its growing success in the fintech
BetaKit, a well-known independent tech outlet, has covered Helcim several times. Its reporting on Helcim’s 2024 funding round discussed how the company positioned itself as a transparent, merchant-focused alternative to larger processors and how it planned to expand into the U.S.
There's a piece about Helcim’s partnership with Verizon. His article explored what the deal means for both companies, how Helcim’s platform differs from other fintech models, and why the partnership is significant for its U.S. growth.
Helcim has received national recognition throughThe Globe and Mail’s 2025Top Growing Companies list andWaterstone Human Capital’sCanada’s Most Admired Corporate Cultures program.
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
Keep. Helcim meets the notability guidelines. There are several reliable, independent sources that cover the company’s growth, strategy, and expansion in meaningful depth.
The fact that Helcim was founded in 2006 does not affect its notability. A company’s age is not a determining factor on Wikipedia. What matters is the depth and independence of coverage, which Helcim has received from reputable outlets.
Over the years, independent media have written about Helcim because of its growing success in the Canadian fintech scene, not as promotional pieces.Avenue Calgary ran a feature on founder Nic Beique and the company’s rise from a small local startup to a national player. The story looked at its role in Calgary’s tech sector and how it built its team and technology base locally.
BetaKit, a well-known independent tech outlet, has also covered Helcim several times. Its reporting on Helcim’s 2024 funding round discussed how the company positioned itself as a transparent, merchant-focused alternative to larger processors and how it planned to expand into the U.S.
More recently, journalistRobert Lewis wrote a detailed piece about Helcim’s partnership with Verizon. His article explored what the deal means for both companies, how Helcim’s platform differs from other fintech models, and why the partnership is significant for its U.S. growth.
On top of that, Helcim has received national recognition throughThe Globe and Mail’s 2025Top Growing Companies list andWaterstone Human Capital’sCanada’s Most Admired Corporate Cultures program. Both are established, independent business rankings.
The article itself is neutral and factual, summarizing Helcim’s verified history and recognition. It may still be improved for tone and structure, but the range and quality of independent coverage already show that Helcim is notable and merits a standalone article.TheDocOck (talk)15:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Agree that the current sourcing is inadequate. I've found some better sources, but I don't know if they sum up to a pass:
weak keep: Forbes staff writer review of their software[65], PC Mag is ok as well. Article is now sourced mainly to PR items, but there is some serious coverage found.Oaktree b (talk)16:42, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Within WikiCurling, the level of notability for curlers to have a wikipedia page I've attached along the side as shortcuts. Both Elias and Cameron meet 2 of these criteria through medalling at Canadian Juniors, participating in Grand Slam of Curling events, and at the Canadian Olympic Curling Trials as one of the top 8 teams in Canada. The reason why in Curling leads and seconds do not have many independent articles about them as much media coverage is focused on the Skip/Captain, however they would still meet this level of notability that was agreed upon. If this gets overruled and deleted, I am ok with it, however there are many less notable curlers in terms of achievements in the sport, as well as all players who play lead/second who have the same level of detail articles are written on, who still have wikipedia pages, so I think this needs to be applied equally.
Weakkeep. Has played in a Grand Slam event (the highest level of competitive curling), and will be in the Canadian Olympic Curling Trials.--Earl Andrew -talk05:25, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, is there a link to this discussion? I am not sure how else one establishes notability for athletes that would not somehow be completely ambiguous. Although I could understand that not all Olympians for example, would warrant their own Wikipedia page simply on that criteria. Thanks for sharing any info on that if you have it!Words in the Wind(talk)19:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he plays on a notable curling team as lead and in significant roles and events to warrant his notability as a curler. However, I would add that this page depends heavily on curling based articles. I would suggest this page would benefit from various national sports coverage and links to establish notability.Words in the Wind(talk)19:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Limited participation and no clear consensus on SNG. Final relisting to allow more editors to review and weigh in. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,EmilyR34 (talk)04:57, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
