Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of broken election promises (Canada)


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

List of broken election promises (Canada)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Compare Articles for deletion/List of broken election promises (United States). Unencyclopedic, OR, POV, etc. KuyaBriBri Talk 18:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per my reasoning with the United States version. (Never can be NPOV)--Unionhawk Talk 18:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment My main issue with this is the sheer volume of items such a list would contain, as it involves nearly every provincial and federal campaign promise and budget right back to Confederation and before into colonial times. Political articles are inherently POV to start with, as with history; but there are grounds to consider a line-cited list of particulars, and there's lots of sources for that (journalism as well as opposition/rival party analyses).  Some facts just inherently are POV, or have a POV effect.  It's like any list of scandals, which are in the eye of the beholder; but when the beholder is the public, and the major media, theyr'e certifiable realities, POV or not.  It's not a matter of partisanship, or doesn't have to be; it can be a straightforward list;  Trudeau said "no wage and price controls" and wham bam we had wage and price controls in his next term; Mulroney said "no free trade" and what we got was the FTA.  Chretien said "end the GST" and we got the GST".  here in BC, Campbell said he wouldnt' seel BC Rail or BC Hydro, and that's exactly what he did.  Listing facts which have negative impacts on the perceptions of those who committed them is not POV; it's partisan selection, or partisan commentary, that would be.  I say Strong Keep, though I think separate lists shoudl be made for each province/territory and the federal government (omitting cities except maybe the biggest ones).  And if an effort is made to encompass the whole history of them, not just the recent/modern ones.  Another potential list of this kind is "List of XXX party donators who receieved government contracts", which again sounds POV in nature but is really a matter-of-fact assemblage of facts (also easily sourceable via journalism).Skookum1 (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And not Original Research, either, as the journalistic sources have doen all the research; and the rest is on-line courtesy of disclosure laws.Skookum1 (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Entirely dependent on one's PoV in both editing and reading. As it stands, it seems to be entirely focused on transgressions of the Liberal party, and so should be considered suspect. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  21:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Burn it with fire. "Broken campaign promises" is empty political rhetoric, and this is going to attract a pile of trivial complaints that someone, somewhere called a broken promise. This is a magnet for POV lint, and if any of these topics are worth mentioning, they're already mentioned in the articles on the party, campaign, politican, bill, etc. No, no, no. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:SOAPBOX. Bearcat (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - totally unencyclopedic for the reasons identified by the above editors. Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR  shirulashem     (talk)   00:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete like the US variant. THis can't be verified without breaking policy. - Mgm|(talk) 12:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete + salt - unmaintainable and POV. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  06:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unmaintainable, and any charge of "breaking promises" can always have alternate POVs explaining why it isn't a broken promise.YobMod 08:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Hopelessly subjective and unmaintainable. CJCurrie (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2009 (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.