234:
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 Knowledge 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.
233:
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
202:
325:
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
136:
131:
140:
123:
196:
334:
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.
414:. 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. —
127:
381:
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
254:: 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
119:
71:
163:
217:
184:
298:
492:
456:
439:
423:
402:
345:
310:
290:
269:
243:
65:
278:
435:, 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. --
110:
95:
178:
464:
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,
174:
362:
224:
486:
330:
comes up in every municipal and provincial election cycle since about 1997, and the 1864 Charlottetown
Conference was regarding the
190:
340:
264:
90:
83:
17:
59:
104:
100:
447:. As for past AFDs about list of proposed secessions from California, etc., about which lots has been written. --
509:
40:
481:
239:
357:
become
Canadian provinces or not is not the point of the list — the point of the list is that they've been
235:
505:
411:
36:
385:
happen has nothing to do with whether this is a notable topic or not — the mere fact that they've been
255:
469:
436:
327:
306:
286:
210:
369:, but the point of the list isn't to suggest that they're likely, but to document the fact that
465:
452:
398:
79:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
504:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
419:
432:
335:
259:
331:
302:
282:
250:
322:
53:
448:
394:
157:
415:
393:
of how realistic their actual prospects of really happening are or aren't.
365:— very few things listed there are likely to ever actually happen
361:
as
Canadian provinces or territories. This is no different than
500:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
410:. I'm not seeing an argument for deletion here, except maybe
466:
one of the 60 arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
153:
149:
145:
209:
120:
List of proposed provinces and territories of Canada
72:
List of proposed provinces and territories of Canada
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
512:). No further edits should be made to this page.
297:Note: This discussion has been included in the
277:Note: This discussion has been included in the
389:is historically significant in and of itself
223:
8:
111:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
299:list of Canada-related deletion discussions
258:discussed; my apologies if I've missed it.
296:
279:list of Lists-related deletion discussions
276:
363:List of U.S. state partition proposals
7:
353:. Whether any of these things would
24:
96:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
251:I read it so you don't have to
1:
86:(AfD)? Read these primers!
529:
321:- the list functions as a
493:21:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
457:00:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
440:17:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
424:16:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
403:12:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
346:10:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
311:10:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
291:10:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
270:09:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
244:01:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
66:12:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
502:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
377:. Furthermore, there
84:Articles for deletion
328:Toronto provincehood
256:reasons for deletion
313:
293:
101:Guide to deletion
91:How to contribute
64:
520:
489:
484:
228:
227:
213:
161:
143:
81:
56:
34:
528:
527:
523:
522:
521:
519:
518:
517:
516:
510:deletion review
487:
482:
343:
267:
170:
134:
118:
115:
78:
75:
62:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
526:
524:
515:
514:
496:
495:
459:
442:
426:
412:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
405:
348:
339:
332:Maritime Union
315:
314:
294:
273:
272:
263:
236:Otis the Texan
231:
230:
167:
114:
113:
108:
98:
93:
76:
74:
69:
58:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
525:
513:
511:
507:
503:
498:
497:
494:
490:
485:
479:
478:
475:
472:
467:
463:
460:
458:
454:
450:
446:
443:
441:
438:
434:
430:
427:
425:
421:
417:
413:
409:
406:
404:
400:
396:
392:
388:
384:
380:
376:
372:
368:
364:
360:
356:
352:
349:
347:
342:
337:
333:
329:
324:
320:
317:
316:
312:
308:
304:
300:
295:
292:
288:
284:
280:
275:
274:
271:
266:
261:
257:
253:
252:
248:
247:
246:
245:
241:
237:
226:
222:
219:
216:
212:
208:
204:
201:
198:
195:
192:
189:
186:
183:
180:
176:
173:
172:Find sources:
168:
165:
159:
155:
151:
147:
142:
138:
133:
129:
125:
121:
117:
116:
112:
109:
106:
102:
99:
97:
94:
92:
89:
88:
87:
85:
80:
73:
70:
68:
67:
63:
61:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
501:
499:
476:
473:
470:
461:
444:
428:
407:
390:
386:
382:
378:
374:
370:
366:
358:
354:
350:
318:
249:
232:
220:
214:
206:
199:
193:
187:
181:
171:
77:
57:
49:
47:
31:
28:
197:free images
391:regardless
336:Ivanvector
260:Ivanvector
506:talk page
371:proposals
323:set index
303:Shellwood
283:Shellwood
37:talk page
508:or in a
433:WP:NLIST
387:proposed
359:proposed
355:actually
164:View log
105:glossary
54:Eddie891
39:or in a
471:Laundry
449:Doncram
395:Bearcat
375:existed
203:WP refs
191:scholar
137:protect
132:history
82:New to
437:hroest
431:. Per
416:Kawnhr
383:really
367:either
175:Google
141:delete
474:Pizza
373:have
341:Edits
265:Edits
218:JSTOR
179:books
158:views
150:watch
146:links
16:<
462:Keep
453:talk
445:Keep
429:Keep
420:talk
408:Keep
399:talk
351:Keep
319:Keep
307:talk
287:talk
240:talk
211:FENS
185:news
154:logs
128:talk
124:edit
60:Work
50:keep
468:. –
379:are
225:TWL
162:– (
491:)
488:c̄
477:03
455:)
422:)
401:)
344:)
338:(/
309:)
301:.
289:)
281:.
268:)
262:(/
242:)
205:)
156:|
152:|
148:|
144:|
139:|
135:|
130:|
126:|
52:.
483:d
480:(
451:(
418:(
397:(
305:(
285:(
238:(
229:)
221:·
215:·
207:·
200:·
194:·
188:·
182:·
177:(
169:(
166:)
160:)
122:(
107:)
103:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.