Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of REITs in Canada


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Closing as no consensus. Between WP:LISTN and then citations, wiki links, etc. Feel free to work on improving the article and if that doesn't work out, or you see a strong deletion rationale, please revisit AfD or consider discussing options at the appropriate projects and talk page. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

List of REITs in Canada

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unmaintained list of real estate investment trusts (REITs) in Canada with little to no context as to how this list of REITs is significant, what they own, when they were established, or really anything. Most of the list is just a copy+paste dump from the Toronto Stock Exchange indices' lists, including even the section headers. As such, per WP:NOTDIR, this unmaintained list seems rather CRUFTy and, though Wikipedia notionally has "no deadlines," the lack of maintenance in keeping the article up-to-date (or even of an encyclopedic quality) is problematic in that (a) it is dispensing inaccurate information which, in turn, (b) reflects poorly on the encyclopedia. I see no benefit to keeping this unmaintained list and, since consensus can change at any time, any deletion should be without prejudice to re-creating it in the future if someone wants to re-create it, preferably in a wikitable format, with added context, actual and better sourcing, and regular maintenance (at least quarterly).

Friendly pings:  and  Doug Mehus  T · C  14:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus  T · C  14:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Why am I being pinged to this? It doesn't relate to my editing habits/interests or topical expertise.  As for the AfD, I would think we'd keep  list of this sort, but police it for WP:NOT entries and inaccurate ones, which might pare this down to a fraction of its size.  One of the common (but not required) purposes of stand-alone list articles is providing a place to briefly cover things that are at least marginally encyclopedic (do not fail WP:NOT) but which do not rise to the level of WP:Notabilty (worthy of a separate article).  That said, commerce-oriented lists of this sort sometimes do not do well, and either need to be removed, or need to have inclusion criteria that raise the bar, e.g. only notable entries which aren't redlinks (that is, the list would not be serving a place-for-barely-encyclopedic-entries function).  I would think we would try the clean-it-up approach first, then the only-notable-entries approach, then deletion as a last resort.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. As written, this fails WP:LISTN, no companies there appear notable, so also WP:GNG issues. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * KEEP 12 are blue links so its a valid list, it aiding in navigation. Any entry without its own article should be deleted unless there is a reference proving it is somehow notable enough to be included.   D r e a m Focus  06:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I feel putting blue linked articles into Category:Real estate investment trusts of Canada would be sufficient. Not every category needs to have a list. Uhooep (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Procedural relist per Deletion review/Log/2020 January 9. Can be closed now, but, as per the DRV, only by an administrator.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   21:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you please clarify the meaning of your !vote, above? Its first sentence has a grammar error (at least one missing word), and it's uncertain how the second relates to the first. It's not even clear how either relates to "delete", since as Dream Focus points out, the list already has a dozen blue-linked (notable) entries, and everyone but the nominator appears to agree with reducing the list (if kept) to only notable entries.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Similar to the above, can you also clarify what you mean by your argument above that, "no companies there appear notable, so also WP:GNG issues[,]" since WP:GNG does not apply (so much) with respect to navigational aids like lists, and also clarify or expand on how you feel that this article fails WP:LISTN? Doug Mehus T · C  21:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm struggling to see a delete rationale above, with the nomination apparently arguing for improvement. We have 12 articles about specific REITs in Canada and there are numerous books on the topic (e.g.,, ).Pontificalibus 08:05, 20 January 2020 (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.