Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BC Report

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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BC Report

BC Report (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

No references and defunct magazine plus no Google hits except for Wikipedia. Whenaxis (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I found a number of hits using Google. Defunct is never a reason to delete. Once notable, always notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Alberta Report. The sources added fall well below the standard of "significant coverage in reliable sources" that our policy requires. I am surprised, however, that a published news magazine, especially if the details of its columnists in the article are correct, doesn't have more coverage. I can't find any more coverage but the search terms are quite difficult to configure. Unless significant coverage can be found, this should be merged to the article of the BC Report's parent and subsequent iteration, the Alberta Report, as there would be insufficient sources for a stand-alone article. A merge will at least preserve the limited sourceable content in the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silverseren^C 19:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silverseren^C 19:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Eastmain. Just because it is defunct doesn't mean it is no longer notable. Silverseren^C 19:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Well if it weren't for you (Silver seren) and Eastmain, the article was a total mess before with no references, no external links and there were minimal Google hits. But now you have changed it after I nominated it. Whenaxis (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what we're here for. ^_^ Silverseren^C 22:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – I added citations to articles from the Financial Post and Canadian Press. With the Post article in particular, I think there's enough there to meet the general notability guideline. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to keep. Paul Erik's sources do appear to be significant coverage. Certainly not the others. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Coverage appears adequate for notability purposes.--Michig (talk) 11:33, 12 April 2010 (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.