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. MBisanztalk 03:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. I only found one independent news source (Toronto Life), and it was published two days ago. This doesn't warrant an article until such time as it has more breadth of coverage in the media.Mindmatrix 15:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep per Bearcat's updates.
Mindmatrix 21:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)reply
This is definitely a poorly written and
primary-sourced article in its current state. To be fair, it was written in 2006, a time when our sourcing rules actually did not preclude primary sourcing anywhere near as strictly as they do now — any source at all which
verified the content, even if it was a primary one, was once perfectly acceptable. However, a
ProQuest search confirmed that it actually does have the level of RS coverage needed to clear the bar under the current standards: it gets hits dating all the way back to 1998 in "Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies". Keep; I'll take a stab at cleaning it up.
Bearcat (
talk) 17:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Update: I've rewritten the article to a more encyclopedic and less advertorial format, and entirely overhauled the sourcing — so it's now in a much more keepable state than it was half an hour ago.
Bearcat (
talk) 19:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep per the additional information and sources that have been added here, though I wish there were more articles cited outside of the Toronto Star.
和DITOREtails 00:13, 17 January 2016 (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.