Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brampton Board of Trade


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 15:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Brampton Board of Trade

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No Reliable sources that this organization is Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why start with AfD for an organization that dates to 1887, and serves the business community for a municipality of over 593,000? --  Zanimum (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. For an organization founded in 1887, many of the references are likely to be pre-Internet. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are hundreds and hundreds of articles about the organization in Brampton Guardian and Brampton Times that have never been digitized, let alone made available on the internet. Yesterday, I added references to the group from newspapers outside of Brampton and the nearby media hub of Toronto. If I get a chance, I'll add Toronto news sources (available through ProQuest databases), but admittedly I had a full lineup of projects before this AfD. --  Zanimum (talk) 02:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would want a lot of persuading that an organisation this old is not notable. Rathfelder (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * , before I continue adding more references, would you mind looking at the article again, and seeing whether your original statement still stands? Since your last comment, I and another user have added mention of a BBOT President that became a provincial politician (equivalent to a state senator), mention of the organization's archival fonds, a list of notable speakers that it has hosted (primarily based on coverage in non-local newspapers including from Vancouver (00on the Pacific Coast of Canada), a policy position mentioned in the Toronto media (the first of many available in the newspaper), and a lengthy section about an annual Santa Claus parade that they host in town, which has a 160,000 person attendance and 250,000 television audience.
 * Something that I might add, if I can find a source (currently it would be "synth", is that Chisholm, Runians, Duggan, Wegenast, Charters all served as both BBOT president and Mayor of Brampton.
 * Among the content that I have yet to introduce to the article, a flubbed real estate deal that left the organization in a bad position as of a decade or so ago, that led to the board replacing the entire staff. It's documented over a series of articles in the local newspaper of record, The Brampton Guardian, which I've largely avoided to this point, in order to focus on larger publications. Thanks for your consideration, --  Zanimum (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Well, I'm voting Keep, for the record. --  Zanimum (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 08:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep 59 references? Many seem notable? 133-year history? Only thing I don't understand is why User:BeenAroundAWhile has ignored questions and hasn't withdrawn the nomination. Massive failure of WP:BEFORE. Nfitz (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.