Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impact of the Alberta Report


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Impact of the Alberta Report

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is an essay entirely outside the scope of Wikipedia. At first I thought we could merge useful content, given the length, and number of citations. However, the whole content has a tone that's incompatible with an encyclopedia. The creator of this essay is using it to put forward a particular perspective. Most of the citations are from the subject itself. They are put together in a way designed to support the original author's original perspective and conclusions. Rob (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Rob (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete There should only be one article on this seemingly minor magazine: Alberta Report. Only for the most important topics should WP have an article on the topic and another on the impact of the topic.  Any well-cited info in this one can be added to the other. BigJim707 (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete POV and even mindreading phrases abound: "Alberta Report gave a voice to Western grievances that went unaddressed", "Alberta Report seemed to possess an instinctual sense for what its readers believed, allowing full voice to the vexation of Albertans". But more importantly, the scope of the article can not extricate itself from a biased viewpoint, with the current citations, even if the content was completely rewritten. I do not think there is anything essentially biased about the title, but there is no indication that sources exist to cover that subject. Anarchangel (talk) 04:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I apologize for blundering into this one and starting to slash away without more closely examining the tags up top--I came to it from AWB and was working from the middle up. I agree that it's unlikely that enough sources exist to justify this article at all, and even if they did, this article would need to be restarted from scratch as a POV disaster. Khazar2 (talk) 08:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. If there's anything that's worth saving it could be added to Alberta Report, but there's certainly no need for this separate puff piece.   PK  T (alk)  21:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I notice this is one of a number of articles listed at Canada Education Program/Courses/The Newspaper in Canadian Society (Michael Valpy), that is part of an educational project.  Other articles that would qualify for deletion were made in (or moved to) user space.  So, some consideration should be given to a) moving this to user space or b) removing such content as not belonging.  Personally, I feel this should be outright deleted, because it is entirely outside the scope of Wikipedia, and we should not make a habit of hosting such content anywhere.  But, I think treating any one article in a special way is problematic.  --Rob (talk) 06:23, 15 April 2012 (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.