Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decade of Darkness


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Decade of Darkness

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article relies on one reference that mentions the titular quote upon which the whole article text hangs, the remainder is a clear WP:COATRACK to put forward a large number of unsourced and highly selectively biased complaints as a criticism of one particular past national government. This article is essentially a Blog entry. The one ref cited is actually a very balanced treatment of the topic, but with the coatrack text removed the article would be just two sentences and is thus not suitable as a Wikipedia article. - Ahunt (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per Ahunt; also fails WP:NAD and WP:NOTADVOCATE. Rostz (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Article is clearly bias and poorly sourced. When I first saw the page, I initially tagged it for speedy deletion, but then I decided to give the author a chance to improve it, which he did not. JDDJS (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Military History, under whose scope this article falls, has been informed of the existence of this deletion discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Rick Hillier if there is a section there that qualifies as wp material and is well sourced. The term may be sought by some readers and that is where it started. --Canoe1967 (talk) 05:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Reverse ferret. There is also a book, song, etc with the same name. We may need a dab page in the future. A dab page would work now with 3 redlinks and definitions in case they make it to article status. Dab rules seem to allow that.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. This is clear-cut POV pushing. Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete POV-based neologism. Resolute 15:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NEO and WP:COAT. I believe there is an important article to be written on the historic and sweeping austerity measures taken by Chretien-Martin in the mid-1990s, including their impact on military spending, as well as all other areas of federal spending. But this article is not it, as outlined above. And I don't see much in the way of NPOV content to merge into the articles on Chretien, Martin or the Canadian military. I for one don't favour a redirect to the Hillier article (which makes no mention of this specific term, at present). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - for the multiple above reasons. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

DO NOT Delete This is ridiculous harassment in a blatant attempt to cover up the previous Liberal government's disastrous decade in office. The Decade of Darkness happened; whether that term and time period gets an article with that name, or something else which more completely describes the Liberals' decade in office, this Decade of Darkness happened, and it is historical and relevant and necessary to acknowledge. ARMY101 (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I made it more neutral and removed the POV tag. It is far easier to source now as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - still a neologism without widespread usage. Parsecboy (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't find any evidence that the term "decade of darkness" is widely used in this way. Chrétien's term as Prime Minister is notable, but if it is to have its own Wikipedia entry, it should have a neutral title, like the current PM: see Premiership of Stephen Harper. This isn't about harassment or a cover-up or even about bias - to me this one hinges on notability; the expression "decade of darkness" doesn't meet notability standards. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Jean Chretien; the subject does not appear to be notable in and of itself, and thus fails WP:GNG. That being said, as its primary subject is actually about the Canadian Government under Prime Minister Chretien. If it is an alternate name, the article should be replaced by a redirect, as I understand is the standard procedure.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Tricky It was actually the Cretien/Martin era. Cretien retired and the reins went to Martin. An article on the Eras of the Canadian Budget may pass an acid test.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Or we could create Liberals are horrible people, and redirect to it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect. History of the Liberal Party of Canada has a section that it could be mentioned in from a re-direct.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep There are lots of references out there for those interested in building wikipedia rather than deleting it. With one simple google these additional refs turned up:
 * http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/chat-hillier.html
 * http://www.thestar.com/news/article/182858--general-draws-liberal-fire
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/08/19/dnd-budget-cuts_n_931664.html
 * Keep in mind that every time an artcle is deleted from wikipedia scores of wannabe editors also disappear. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Not wanting editors to leave is not a reason to keep an article. Refs might appear but it does not change the bias nature of the article. JDDJS (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - clearly doesn't comply with WP:NPOV. Shritwod (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I just added a section to History of the Liberal Party of Canada including an anchor in case a re-direct is made to that article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And I've removed it per WP:COAT. I'm sorry, I had meant to reply to you here more promptly, Canoe1967. I object to adding Mr. Hillier's WP:NEO term for that decade to the main article on the history of the Liberal Party of Canada, as you have done. just as much as I object to the article under discussion here. Please try to get consensus for this addition at Talk:History of the Liberal Party of Canada before adding it again. (If a redirect is merited, the target should be the Hillier bio article imo). And again, my apologies for not registering my objection more promptly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. I was just being bold and that gets slapped down sometimes. I wonder if it woke up some polarized watchers of that article. Should we bold Mr. Hillier's article the same way to rattle some more chains?--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I do agree that it should be added to Hillier bio article. And again, I wouldn't object to a redirect there. So if you wish to go ahead, I'd have no objections at all. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. Does anyone else want to go that route so we can close this AfD? I haven't got time to add it but anyone can just paste my text from the deleted LPC section I made.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Since this AFD should be closed today I would rather see it run its course and if the article is deleted then you can later create a redirect if you see fit, to remove the POV text from the system, rather than leave it for later revert. I would caution that the term "Decade of Darkness" has many multiple meanings, though and it will probably end up as a disambiguation page in the long run. - Ahunt (talk) 11:17, 4 January 2013 (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.