Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada (English translation)


 * 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 Delete SkierRMH  ( talk ) 22:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Canada (English translation)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The following was left as an invisible note (visible only when you go to edit the article) on the article:


 * Unfortunately, one may not add on to the English article about Canada if no consent is given by "who knows?". "Someone" or "a small group of people" arbitrarily decided it was only an article presenting a "general view about Canada"; thus, filtering relevant information that could change one's perception of Canada, and censuring press liberty and freedom of speech.''


 * Therefore, this article was created to allow people to know more about Canada than what can be read in the small general English article about Canada. Thus, this article is only a translation of the French article about Canada. All references are inserted in the latter article. The translation may not be perfect, so corrections pertaining to errors in the translation itself or to the meaning of the words or expressions used by comparison to French are acceptable and fully welcomed, but please do not change anything or add on to this page if no changes occurred in the French article with respect to new or modified information.


 * Thanks for your collaboration! Hopefully that will help in education and in the sharing of information.

As this goes completely against attempts to create a consensus using talk pages, I'm proposing that this article be deleted. POV forks aren't allowed on Wikipedia, and this seem similar enough since it's a disagreement in point of view about what the article should focus on. --Icarus (Hi!) 06:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit: Note that this article is the author's first and only edit. I am going to assume good faith, that is, assume that this editor doesn't know Wikipedia methods such as consensus building and was not intentionally violating them. --Icarus (Hi!) 06:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nice try, but editor should have used a more kosher method instead. I'm assuming good faith as well. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 06:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as a content fork created out of misunderstanding of WP:CONSENSUS. In any case deletion of an article is not censure of the editor who created it. --Dhartung | Talk 08:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. The author, Nicko12345, should be made aware that he can post his intentions on the Talk:Canada page, and all subsequent work will be done from there. The reason the article Canada is currently locked has to do with massive vandalism on it. As it stands, Canada is a Featured Article, but that doesn't mean there is no room for improvement. We do not need a content fork, and it is unlikely that someone will type "Canada (English translation)" in the search box. --Blanchardb- Me  MyEarsMyMouth-timed 09:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, a fork, if ever there was one.--Aldux 13:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, a self-described content fork. Also, even though the user who created this article (Nicko12345) has only one edit, the "note" given at the creation of the article&mdash;where the user rants about being unable to add something to the Canada article because the powers-that-be prefer a "general view about Canada"&mdash;indicates that this user has indeed been previously involved in trying to edit the Canada article. As such, I strongly suspect that Nicko12345 might be a sockpuppet. If that is the case, then the fact that the user chose to create a sockpuppet rather than creating a content fork under his/her own username indicates that the user has more knowledge of Wikipedia rules forbidding content forks than we thought. I'd like to assume good faith, but the user's actions suggest otherwise.--Hnsampat 15:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a "Nicko" on French Wikipedia who is a regular contributor to the Canada article there, and there is no doubt in my mind that this is the same person who created the English translation we are now discussing. He has a page full of edits to the French version of the Canada article. So, be careful before accusing someone of sockpuppetry. The only wronggdoing on his part is that he tagged his own translation as being the main English article on Canada. I just undid his edit on French Wikipedia. I also left him a note, in French, on his talk page, about the situation. --Blanchardb- Me  MyEarsMyMouth-timed 16:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My suspicion was based on Nicko12345 claiming to have run into difficulty with editing the Canada article on English Wikipedia despite Nicko12345's edit history showing only 1 contribution (namely, this page up for deletion right here). This led me to suspect that he/she may have edited Canada under a different username, had those edits reverted while being told that the article was meant to present a "general view" of Canada, and then specifically created the username Nicko12345 for the purpose of creating this page. I am mindful that is possible that the Nicko12345 was simply unable to edit Canada because of its protected status right now, but the way he/she worded the comments above, I suspected possible sockpuppetry at the time. In voicing my suspicion above, I chose my words as as carefully as possible to avoid assuming bad faith and to not be accusatory while also at least giving voice to this possibility. I hope my comments are read with the good intentions that I made them with. --Hnsampat 17:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. Twenty Years 15:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as possible GFDL violation. Blueboy96 19:05, 2 December 2007 (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.