Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Federal Government, Financial Year 2003-04


 * 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 --Bubba hotep 20:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Federal Government, Financial Year 2003-04

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The last time I checked, Wikipedia was an encyclopedia, not an almanac or a collection of statistics or budget revenues or expenses. This might be able to become an article, but then it probably wouldn't warrant it's own article at all. At present, it violated WP:NOT. I recommend a straight delete -Royalguard11 (Talk·Review Me!) 18:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The government is better able to track and update this information than Wikipedia will ever be. -- Dhartung | Talk 20:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. GreenJoe 21:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia actually is an Almanac. However, there is no need for articles like this for individual years.  Unless more information can be added, merging such information into single articles would be more useful. Resolute 22:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment incorporating elements of doesn't necessarily mean is. When it says it incorporating elements of an almanac, it probably refers to the fact we do have some statistics (sports related on player pages, population related on cities, other things) but they are usually incorporated into the encyclopedic content. When I said we're "not an almanac", I mean we're not literally an almanac. Like we don't have whole pages or topics that deal with the historical day to day prices or stocks, the temperature in a year, random sports statistics (like season by season standings), or things like that (the just numbers things). -Royalguard11 (Talk·Review Me!) 02:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, we have hundreds, if not thousands, of season-by-season articles for sports teams and leagues, and a very strong prcecident supporting their existence. What you are arguing here is that this article requires expansion, as opposed to deletion.  I would suggest that the fiscal information of a national government is useful, and its inclusion would be merited uner WP:5.  It does require prose to help add to it, however. Resolute 03:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You might want to look at Articles for deletion/FA Premier League results December 2006 and Articles for deletion/FA Premier League 2006-07 goalscorers and even Articles for deletion/La Liga 2006/2007 results December 2006 then. If you think it's worthy of an article, extend it then. So far it's still nothing, just numbers. Not acceptable. You want to keep it? Then do something constructive and sofixit. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Review Me!) 04:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/1902 LSU Tigers football team, Articles for deletion/2006-07 New Jersey Devils season and Articles for deletion/Swindon Town F.C. seasons. As I said, precident for keeping such information, and I would suggest that my examples form a much more acurate parallel to this article than yours do.  Regardless, I am not an expert on government spending, and the impacts it has, so I will leave cleanup to someone who knows better.  So far, the only thing you have successfully argued is that the information has merit, as you have repeatedly suggested that expansion would "fix" it, but instead choose to take the lazy way out yourself by requesting deletion.  This article is a stub, and being a stub is not a valid reason for deletion. Resolute 22:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A stub is actually worthy of having an "expand and cleanup" tag put on it. This isn't even stub class. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Review Me!) 18:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per my arguments. A need for cleanup is not equivalent to a need for deletion. Resolute 03:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * EXPAND & Keep a government's budget is often a major lever used for ecconimic control. The tables of figures are not as important as what they mean, in relation to the political realities of the day.  This sort of information is more interesting when compaired over a time span. cmacd 12:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — bbatsell  ¿?   ✍  03:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Abstain I abstain from vote. Please maintain respect to great nation of Canada.Wen Hsing 05:37, 2 April 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.