Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian values


 * 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 no consensus. The article is reasonably well-sourced, so the main issue here is WP:SYNTH. I don't really see either argument being clearly stronger than the other, so it looks like an issue where people will just have to agree to disagree. I do note, however, that the people voting to delete, merge, or redirect are significantly more numerous than the people voting to keep, so a proposed merge into Culture of Canada or Canadian identity would not be out of order. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Canadian values

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. WP:ESSAY which synthesizes a bunch of discrete issues -- publicly-funded institutions, same-sex marriage, gun control, the hijab, etc. -- to advance an original research definition of a phrase that happens to be newsy right now. But for one thing, a big part of the reason it's newsy right now is because nobody knows exactly what Kellie Leitch means by it -- and for another, the whole values argument actually kind of undermines itself because respect for difference, IOW respect for people's right to hold different values as long as they're not harming others in the process, can also be identified as a "Canadian value" (e.g. while SSM is certainly the law of the land in Canada, there are still people in this country who identify themselves more strongly with "traditional" religious values that oppose SSM -- but as long as they're not actively discriminating against LGBT people or firebombing LGBT-owned businesses, they're allowed to hold whatever personal beliefs they like.) For another, the barbaric cultural practices slash niqab alarmism of the 2015 election actually backfired, resulting in the election of a government that pledged to increase the number of Syrian refugees being accepted for settlement in Canada -- and the Quebec Charter of Values, similarly, was killed by the PQ government's defeat in the most recent Quebec provincial election (and anyway, that bill tried to legislate Quebec values, not pan-Canadian ones). I'll grant that it's a "controversial issue", but a central part of the controversy is the fundamental problem of even defining what the term means in the first place -- which means that a neutral encyclopedia that relies on outside sources and prohibits original research cannot presume to define it. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Many of the items listed lack a source identifying them as a "Canadian Value," and there is a major dearth of sources that actually define and discuss what "Canadian values" are with any kind of authority or certainty. I believe this should be redirected to Culture of Canada, in the same way that American values directs to Culture of the United States. Even if it can be reliably sourced, there's no agreement among sources (or in general) about what Canadian values are or aren't. Left alone, the article is will just become a battleground-y quagmire of poorly sourced SYNTH/OR. Until a large number of very reliable sources agree that "Canadian values" are a thing, and agree on what exactly they are (which will very likely never happen), we shouldn't have an article on this. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom and agree with User:Fyddlestix. Serious POV quagmire! Even the very selection and/or omission of certain sources and references is highly POV. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Culture of Canada as R with possibilities. There is potential for an encyclopedic article on this, but what that would be (i.e. sourcing to reliable sources specifically discussing Canadian values) is so far away from what this article is (i.e. this what some majority of Canadians believe, so it's a Canadian value, minority viewpoints aren't Canadian values) that WP:TNT applies. This is WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS to lump these various views into an article on "Canadian values". Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Definitely WP:OR, bits and pieces of this can be placed into articles about Canadian culture, certainly. South Nashua (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete While I agree with Patar that there is some potential for encyclopedic coverage here, it would be exceedingly difficult. "Values" are poorly defined, subjective, and, to an extent, aspirational (e.g. who we want to be, or ideally be, rather than who we are). Culture, on the other hand, is more straightforward to cover, as it looks at extant things (popular music, cuisine, lit, etc.) that reflect our aspirations. Anything saveable here would be better in the culture article.  The Interior  (Talk) 20:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Culture of Canada, or delete and WP:SALT. If deleted, I'm concerned that the subject article could be re-created.  I agree with Bearcat's analysis of the problem with the WP:SYNTH issues with the topic, and that it would become a magnet for editors who want to use it for SOAPBOX purposes/editing.   PK  T (alk)  20:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep in the last couple days the article has been heavily revised to remove most of the dubious material and add lots of fresh RS. Critics might take  a fresh look Rjensen (talk) 13:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I like the stuff you added, but I think it would be equally (and perhaps more) at home in Canadian identity or a similar article. The rest of the article still seems very disjointed and I am still seeing a lot of SYNTH/SOAPBOX issues. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Port over useful content to culture or identity. Might be something worth exploring to merge those two articles as well, however would require closer analysis. trackratte (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Culture of Canada, or delete and WP:SALT (per PK ). I used WP:WPCleaner to copy edit it a little but realised it was probably a waste of time... The name did seem dubious. (Which iz how I'm here.) I checked British values (which is a far more widely-used term) and even that redirects to the Britishness article—an article about a well-established and much-discussed quality. We could save anything worthwhile and move it to more appropriate articles but most seems WP:SYNTH and generally OR —  Iadmc  ♫ talk 21:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic has been sufficiently written about at least since Martin Seymour Lipset's comparison of Canadian and U.S. values. Canadian experts such as Gad Horowitz and George Grant have also written about it.  It has been used to explain such things as why Canada retains a monarchy, has developed major socialist parties, encourages multiculturalism, accepts refugees, participates in peacekeeping, and has publicly supported religious schools.  Of course one can argue what they are, whether the country has any shared values, or whether these values are good or bad.  Although values are part of the culture (See Culture of Canada), that topic includes the arts, sports, cuisine, and folklore.  Justin Trudeau's recent remarks have brought the issue into public debate:  "There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada. There are shared values — openness, respect, compassion, willingness to work hard, to be there for each other, to search for equality and justice."  TFD (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Article has indeed been substantially improved, and content disputes are not dealt with by deleting the article anyway. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge into Culture of Canada or into Canadian identity; i.e. add a section about Values in one of those articles. IMHO. Peter K Burian (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The term "Canadian values" is used by Canadian journalists, academics and politicians. Deletion of the article will merely deny Wikipedia readers information regarding how the term is being used.  It is preferable to have readers learn how the term is being used and make up their own mind regarding whether Canadian values exist and what those values are.  "Canadian values" are a different concept than Culture of Canada, which deals with arts, sports, cuisine. WSDavitt (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think this is an article that I could ever read, no matter how well sourced, and feel that it is based on anything solid. "Canadian values" are obviously not shared by all Canadians, so what is the threshold for it to be included here? 50% or more of Canadians have this value? What about the millions of Canadians who don't share these values? I agree with previous comments about it being WP:SYNTH and possibly WP:OR. This seems better suited as an essay or an opinion piece, not a Wikipedia article. Air.light (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Are "Canadian values" a topic of interest for an encyclopedia. It is of interest to many scholars in several countries, and to most of the major parties & prime ministers of Canada--they indeed write and give major speeches and shape foreign & domestic policies as if Canadian values are important to Canada.  Rjensen (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. If this was ever a test case for WP:HEY, this is it. Bearian (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:OR. There is no definition for this term and this article is a summary of opinions without clear sourcing. -- HighKing ++ 17:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Despite the claims of synthesis, I see reliable sources which treat the subject as a single topic. WP:GNG is met, that an article is difficult to write well is not a criteria for deletion under WP:DEL. Moreover, WP:HEY is met. --joe deckertalk 17:25, 13 January 2017 (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.