Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles sold in Canada but not the United States


 * 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) 12:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

List of vehicles sold in Canada but not the United States

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

This should be deleted per WP:NOT, as although my personal bias is that it's an interesting article to motoring enthusiasts such as myself, generally, it could be seen as WP:LISTCRUFT (on the other hand). Basically, I'm not sure whether it could be merged into another article or deleted. I'm not suggesting a blanket deletion of all List of XYZ articles but rather that there's not indiscriminate ones. Samllaws300 (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes that's what you said about my last account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilary T (talk • contribs) 20:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - trivial, unreferenced list. Also, what's next? List of vehicles sold in Burkina Faso but not Guinea Bissau? List of vehicles sold in Kyrgyzstan but not Kazakhstan? List of vehicles sold in Manchester but not Liverpool? - Biruitorul Talk 15:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Biruitorul. Non-notable, non-encyclopaedic. Alarics (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Biruitorul. Hard to see how this could possibly be notable or encyclopedic. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SALAT. The list's topic is too narrow and is trivial; therefore it doesn't contribute to human knowledge and isn't an appropriate topic. Tavix (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT. A list that exists solely for the purpose of having another list. KuyaBriBri Talk 18:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Unless this complete list has previously been published by a reliable source, then this article is in violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. No indication that such a list has been previously compiled. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, fatuous examples like those provided by Biruitorul only serve to weaken your case. These are two major markets which can be expected to overlap, exceptions to the rule are interesting. Hilary T (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC) — Hilary T (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Fatuous? And here I was thinking the international system was comprised of states sharing sovereign equality... - Biruitorul Talk 02:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I found it interesting - and I hope those people that regard Canada as a sort of shadow of the USA will take note. Where two large nations abut and have little in the way of border control, and indeed share the same International dialling code, differences are important. Peridon (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * An article being interesting is not a reason for keeping an article. See WP:INTERESTING. Tavix (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Make that then 'Keep per DGG and Mandsford (below)' Peridon (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, notable phenomenon, its not a narrow topic. ViperSnake151 22:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It definitely needs some sourcing, but it helps dispel the ignorant notion that Canada is "just like the U.S.A." Mandsford (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep  Extremely valuable and interesting list. I hope it can be supplemented by information about the cuses of these differences.  But even as it is, its appropriate and encyclopedic..DGG (talk) 07:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not sure it will be possible to cite references for the fact that these vehicles are not sold in the USA.  This kind of negative is typically very hard to find reasonable sources for.  Even if the manufacturer states that it is not available, what about gray imports?  This is a thorny article subject, and I'm not sure it's possible to bring it up to the relevant standards. JulesH (talk) 08:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No encyclopedic value whatsoever. Dahn (talk) 09:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Even if we can reasonably expect the markets to overlap, the topic is still not encyclopedic. - Mgm|(talk) 11:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, I don't see being sold in one country but not in another as a useful criterion. J I P  | Talk 12:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I do when they're as close as the USA and Canada - or the UK and Ireland - both geographically, economically and at least superficially culturally. Peridon (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I just don't see this being a notable topic.  I might be convinced otherwise, if there was some validation of notability from reliable sources.  But that only opens up a more serious problem with the article as it stands: reliable sourcing.  As it stands, there's no referencing to back up the list members, and that's critical for a list such as this with potential for gray areas and false-positives (even if not marketed in the US, could an on-border dealership have had an import arrangement that allowed a Canada-specific car to be sold?), especially when we're on the scale of specific model years. Serpent&#39;s Choice (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, Move. I was actively searching for a list like that, so outright deletion would go a bit far I think. It should be referenced though while I think the lead is descriptive enough. It could be renamed to something like List of cars marketed differently within North America with a possible inclusion of Mexican versions. Squash Racket (talk) 06:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think the issue of grey imports and near-border dealers is relevant. Here, the Nissan Figaro can be seen on the roads, but they were never MARKETED here. (Can't see why people are importing second-hand ones now, but that's personal opinion...) The title could better be Marketed to avoid this. The creator of the list mightn't have realised that Wikipedians can nitpick better than a convention of lawyers with a misprinted agenda. Peridon (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The nominator's citation of WP:NOTMANUAL was most appropriate. Under point 6, Case studies, it reads Many topics are based on the relationship of factor X to factor Y, resulting in one or more full articles....This is perfectly acceptable when the two variables put together represent some culturally significant phenomenon or some otherwise notable interest. Often, separate articles are needed for a subject within a range of different countries due to its substantial differences across international borders. Articles like Slate industry in Wales and Island Fox are fitting examples. Writing about Oak trees in North Carolina or a Blue truck, however, would likely constitute a POV fork, original research, or would otherwise be outright ridiculous.  This article is clearly more closer to the "ridiculous" and WP:OR than something that represents some culturally significant phenomenon or some otherwise notable interest.  If it would, then reliable sources would back up why the relationship between cars sold in American and Canadian would belong in an encyclopedia. Failing WP:N is a good indicator that this article is not suitable for an encyclopedia.  Them  From  Space  01:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think the list couldn't be referenced. I tried the Buick Allure and I've found it in The Vancouver Sun with the article pointing out:"(...)the Allure (called the LaCrosse south of the border), due out later this year(...)" So a Canadian source uses the name of the rebadged version and mentions the original name only in brackets. Canadian Driver, an online automotive magazine even goes into details:"Oshawa, Ontario - General Motors is betting big that a new mid-size sedan with a new name will rekindle interest in Buick, GM’s premium brand. Out are the Buick Century and Regal. In is the Buick Allure. In the U.S., the Allure will be called the Lacrosse, in keeping with Buick’s on- again, off-again tradition of giving its vehicles French names like LeSabre, Rendezvous, Rainier. But in French Canada, Lacrosse has a potentially derogatory second meaning. So the name was changed. One name or two, the marketing task will be daunting and expensive for GM. Century and Regal were well-recognized nameplates that accounted for 60 percent of Buick sales. It will take a lot of advertising dollars to build the same kind of awareness for the Allure and to counter the confusion of Canadian consumers exposed to U.S. media and advertising pushing the same vehicle with a different name." Don't know whether that source is reliable or not, but the article's writer is:"Grant Yoxon is an Ottawa-based automotive journalist and Managing Editor of CanadianDriver. He is a member of the Automobile Journalists Association of Canada (AJAC)." That was just a quick search and just one model. I think this list complements badge engineering (or the not-yet-written Auto industry in Canada), both of which are obviously notable topics. Would it be better to merge this list into one of those articles? If renamed to something like List of cars marketed differently within North America it may also include the cars that were exclusively marketed in Canada. Squash Racket (talk) 05:24, 30 March 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.