The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. There was some discussion about merging some of the material, but there still was no meaningful assertion of notability. I will be happy to userfy information here if someone wishes to attempt a different article.
XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done 20:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete all. Simply being a Crown Corp doesn't make something notable. Looking over the Alberta corp, for instance, I am seeing nothing in the way of non-trivial coverage of the subject.
Resolute 01:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete all - This is kind of like how some bands are notable, but not all members are independently notable, if that analogy works for you. Policy isn't written so that all Crown Corporations are considered to be automatically notable, thus they need to demonstrate individual notability, per
WP:CORP. These don't.
Dennis Brown -
2¢ 12:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment - Perhaps as a compromise they could all be put into one list?
Me-123567-Me (
talk) 17:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. They serve an educational purpose for those wanting to learn about financial systems in Canada. Converting them to redirects in a list is also possible. +
mt 21:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)reply
A merged article about the concept, with each of these remaining in place as redirects to it, might be appropriate — but as much as "education" may factor into Wikipedia's mandate, the topics are not so critically important that the desire to educate readers about financial systems, or Crown corporations, in Canada can constitute a valid exemption from Wikipedia's content policies about
verifiability in
reliable sources. With the exception of one newspaper citation in the Manitoba corporation's article, all of these are either entirely unsourced, or resting solely on a single
primary source, which means none of them have been properly demonstrated to pass either
WP:CORP or
WP:GNG. Delete or merge into a common list.
Bearcat (
talk) 18:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. There was some discussion about merging some of the material, but there still was no meaningful assertion of notability. I will be happy to userfy information here if someone wishes to attempt a different article.
XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done 20:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete all. Simply being a Crown Corp doesn't make something notable. Looking over the Alberta corp, for instance, I am seeing nothing in the way of non-trivial coverage of the subject.
Resolute 01:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete all - This is kind of like how some bands are notable, but not all members are independently notable, if that analogy works for you. Policy isn't written so that all Crown Corporations are considered to be automatically notable, thus they need to demonstrate individual notability, per
WP:CORP. These don't.
Dennis Brown -
2¢ 12:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment - Perhaps as a compromise they could all be put into one list?
Me-123567-Me (
talk) 17:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. They serve an educational purpose for those wanting to learn about financial systems in Canada. Converting them to redirects in a list is also possible. +
mt 21:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)reply
A merged article about the concept, with each of these remaining in place as redirects to it, might be appropriate — but as much as "education" may factor into Wikipedia's mandate, the topics are not so critically important that the desire to educate readers about financial systems, or Crown corporations, in Canada can constitute a valid exemption from Wikipedia's content policies about
verifiability in
reliable sources. With the exception of one newspaper citation in the Manitoba corporation's article, all of these are either entirely unsourced, or resting solely on a single
primary source, which means none of them have been properly demonstrated to pass either
WP:CORP or
WP:GNG. Delete or merge into a common list.
Bearcat (
talk) 18:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.