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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC) reply

List of proposed provinces and territories of Canada

List of proposed provinces and territories of Canada (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

It doesn't seem realistic that places like Acadia, Toronto, Cape Breton, North Ontario, and all these proposed provinces have a chance of ever getting created, put to a referendum, or even having a formal discussion/proposed bill among a ruling party in the parliament or local legislatures. Even more so ideas like joining the maritime provinces. Ideas of Scotland, Iceland, and US states seem almost like a not even an idea but some ridiculous thoughts that a group of a just few people had. While many countries continue to create new administrative divisions (like Algeria created 10 new provinces in 2019) and Wikipedia has an article about proposed administrative divisions for India, Philippines, Pakistan, and a few other countries, Canada has very strict policies that make it very difficult to create territories and even more so provinces. That is because Canadian provinces and territories just like American or German states are very autonomous territories where the national government's governance is limited. They also have so much historical and cultural value. On the other hand most countries administrative divisions (like Algeria, Tunisia, Philippines, Turkey, Vietnam) are created mainly or solely for the purpose of subdivision and being local stations that help the job of the countries' federal governments. Such countries local governments don't have the right to pass laws of their own, reject most laws or bills the federal government's passes, have serious criminal trials in circuit courts, don't have semi federal courts and prisons, and many more local rights that for example Canadian provinces, American states, German states, Swiss cantons and few other countries local divisions, have the right to. Therefore in such countries the creation of administrative divisions is very easy and are often created without any referendums or widely supported movements who call for a creating a new administrative division. Creating new provinces and territories in Canada, would require huge support from the locals, formal and strong provincehood/territoryhood movements that have active for years and years, large support from a ruling party or powerful opposition party, and years and years of negotiations, which none of these proposed provinces and territories have. They would also require to be based of the areas cultural and historical differences from the rest of the province/territory. Creating a new province or territory in Canada (as in creating for example a new state in the US) is extremely expensive as they build a new legislative and provincial/territorial law court headquarters building (Canadian/American legislature buildings/top provincial or state court buildings are usually grand marble or limestone palaces), a residence for the lieutenant governor, whole force of provincial/territorial police/other essential forces and services, and setting up a huge system of semi-federal government and judiciary. Most of these proposed Canadian provinces and territories are ideas that a very tiny group of people and politicians mentioned once or several times. And most of these politicians with these ideas are from parties that have near zero votes in both local and even more so federal elections. The only exemptions to these nearly impossible chances of having these areas become provinces/territories are Labrador, Nunatsiavut, Nunavik, National Capital Territory, and St. Pierre and Miquelon. The province of Newfoundland and Labrador is sort of like 2 separate divisions under one provincial government and Labrador has it's own flag and coat of arms. That is why it would make sense that Labrador would want to become separate someday. For Nunatsiavut and Nunavik it is because these regions are mainly inhabited by the indigenous population and therefore have their own culture and because of the strong demand for more indigenous rights and autonomy. It would for the same reasons Nunavut separated from NWT in 1999. As for a National Capital Territory, the reason would be most countries do separate their national capital from any administrative divisions (like Washington D.C or Berlin not being in Brandenburg) and countries from time to time do create a new separate division for the capital (like Malaysia did by separating Kuala Lumpur from Selangor in the 1970s). St Pierre and Miquelon would want to join Canada for same reasons Newfoundland joined in 1949. Also is the last part of New France and independence might not do well given the fact only 7000 people live there. However Labrador, Nunatsiavut, Nunavik, National Capital Territory, and St. Pierre and Miquelon, are very unlikely to become provinces or territories any time soon. I'm just saying that in our lifetime their may be strong and formal demand for becoming provinces/territories. On the other hand none of the other ideas have a chance of ever becoming a province or territory or even a formal debate for all the reasons I have mentioned. Because of the huge unlikelihood of the majority of these proposed provinces/territories ever being created and even debated, I have nominated this article for deletion. I'm very sorry this deletion paragraph is so long but in order to understand why this article is nominated for deletion, all these details explain it much better than a short paragraph would. Otis the Texan ( talk) 01:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• I read it so you don't have to: the deletion argument is that none of these proposed new subdivisions is likely to be established, except for the ones that might, and the ones that already have. I do not see any reasons for deletion discussed; my apologies if I've missed it. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 09:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep - the list functions as a set index of notable proposals for new political subdivisions in/of Canada, all referenced, and many with links to full articles. The proposals' political feasibility is not an indictator of notability: provincehood for Iceland might be highly unlikely but Toronto provincehood comes up in every municipal and provincial election cycle since about 1997, and the 1864 Charlottetown Conference was regarding the Maritime Union until John A. Macdonald butted in; the originally proposed union is still discussed to this day. Some of it is tacked-on and probably doesn't belong but that can be fixed well short of deletion. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 10:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Whether any of these things would actually become Canadian provinces or not is not the point of the list — the point of the list is that they've been proposed as Canadian provinces or territories. This is no different than List of U.S. state partition proposals — very few things listed there are likely to ever actually happen either, but the point of the list isn't to suggest that they're likely, but to document the fact that proposals have existed. Furthermore, there are sources here, so while some referencing improvement is still needed it can't be claimed that there's a lack-of-sourcing problem either. Again, the likelihood that any of these would ever really happen has nothing to do with whether this is a notable topic or not — the mere fact that they've been proposed is historically significant in and of itself regardless of how realistic their actual prospects of really happening are or aren't. Bearcat ( talk) 12:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I'm not seeing an argument for deletion here, except maybe WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As the above editors say, the point of this list is not whether any of the proposals are likely to succeed, but whether the proposals have garnered significant attention— which they have. — Kawnhr ( talk) 16:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Per WP:NLIST, the items are even independently notable. As Bearcat mentioned, it is irrelevant if these proposals come to fruition or not, only if they are notable. -- hroest 17:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. As for past AFDs about list of proposed secessions from California, etc., about which lots has been written. -- Doncram ( talk) 00:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep Nominator's argument is not based on policy. This wall of text is hard to understand, but it mostly says that these proposals are no longer active, one of the 60 arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:54, 16 June 2021 (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.