Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Liberal Party of Canada election ads


 * 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. Mailer Diablo 11:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

2006 Liberal Party of Canada election ads
Stinks of original research and POV with a sympathetic tone. -- Ardenn  02:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks neutral and factual to me. Very important turning point in the election too. We did not make that up. Kirjtc2 02:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Saying Weak Keep. On Wikipedia. This article is waaayyyy too much, and needs a severe copyedit and pruning, but certainly merits retention. A cleanup tag really ought to suffice. In Wikipedia. Agent 86 03:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep These ads played an important role in the flow and outcome of the 2006 election. Resolute 04:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * At least as important and notable a bit of election advertising as this classic; these played a very significant role in defining the tenor and the outcome of the Canadian federal election, 2006. I'm not making this up; I'm not allowed to make this up. (And I hereby propose a moratorium on any further comments in this discussion being written in the style of one of the ads...deal?) It's a keep to me, but failing that I'd settle for merging into Canadian federal election, 2006 rather than deletion. Bearcat 04:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and how. Ads are widely seen as a highly integral part of a federal election campaign.  If it needs some editing, go wild, but at it's current length a merge is inappropriate. WilyD 12:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment having read the article, it's actually pretty good, better than most Wikipedia articles, almost all of which could use some sprucing up. I'm not sure why people would complain.  Not sure who Ardenn thinks it's POV favouring, I couldn't discern much of a bias. WilyD 12:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. If anything having an article on the Liberal ads balances out the Chretien face ad that led to the Tories' downfall in 1993 (and comparisons have been made between the two campaigns). 23skidoo 15:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. They played a major role in the election. BoojiBoy 18:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The Chretien ad brought the Liberals to power, this ad brought them down. A notable event. --Arbiteroftruth 20:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep A notable part of recent Canadian politics. R.E. Freak 02:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete won't even be important in another year. Ste4k 04:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Then how is the 1993 Chrétien face ad important 13 years later? Kirjtc2 16:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The Liberals were behind in polls.  These adverts did not reduce that deficit and did not result in their victory. If that's "an important turning point in the election", I'm Margaret Trudeau. -- GWO
 * Comment Compare that to the 2000 and 2004 elections where Liberal attack ads were able to reverse any rising popularity the Canadian Alliance or Conservative Party of Canada were enjoying (along with some poorly timed statements from the right). In the 2006 election, the ads not only failed to change Liberal fortunes, they undermined later efforts to restore support.  Regardless, the controversy they caused alone makes them highly notable in Canadian election lore. Resolute 19:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Reduce and merge to the main election article. Marskell 16:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per all of the above. &mdash; stickguy (:^›)&mdash; home - talk - 03:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep the Liberal election ads attracted attention by the mainstream US media, and even a response from the white house if I remember correctly. --Cloveious 18:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep These ads were significant to the election, and any discussion of the election would be incomplete without them. The article seems to be well written, and of an appropriate length for the material covered. I think they contribute well to Wikipedia. --Mr Minchin [[Image:Maple_Leaf.svg|10px|Canada]] 18:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I found it interesting and informative.  I see no POV problems. -Timzor 00:46, 25 July 2006 (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.