Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Similarities between Canada and New Zealand (second nomination)


 * 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 of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Similarities between Canada and New Zealand
Extreme unsourced original research. Was previously AfD'd in April 2005, and hasn't gained one decent source to verify its claims, nor does it establish why such comparisons are important. I'd support Canada-New Zealand Relations, but this isn't it. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 04:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, but i do want something to be made of it. Joeyramoney 04:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete the very concept implies original research and it is made express on reading it. I believe there may be a similar Aus/Can page somewhere. It isn't likely to be of much use either, certainly not as much use as content about Aus v NZ or Can v US. This stuff, if verified, could be part of a more useful relations page per the nom. Jammo (SM247) 04:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:NOR. --Coredesat 05:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. An interesting comparison for an idle moment, but not a topic for an encyclopedia. Piccadilly 06:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for extreme silliness. Are we to have every pairwise combination of countries, each of which have some similarities and differences?  LotLE × talk  06:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's uncalled for. These two countries have a lot more in common than most pairs of countries, and it is an intelligent article on a perfectly reasonable issue. But not an encylopedia style article unfortunately. Honbicot 18:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, and WP:POV problems. Agent 86 08:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as OR. But I did like In both nations, the national sport (...) is a contact sport marked by legal aggression and incidents of illegal violence. Inner Earth 10:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral. It's pretty interesting and would be a shame to lose, but I can't vote to keep something that smacks of OR. BoojiBoy 13:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Unless someone has written a book or research paper on this, putting it all together is OR at best. Kevin 13:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non encycopdeic and original research. --MichaelMaggs 16:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no original research. The article also fails to establish the relevance of these similarities. Extraordinary Machine 17:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions.   -- r2b2 23:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. per nom.   I think the NZ-Aus was deleted or transformed into Australia-New Zealand relations, but I don't think NZ and Canada have such a relationship. --Midnighttonight 01:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete NOR. &mdash; Khoikhoi 03:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but prune and split. Not entirely original research, as the NZHerald op-ed article makes much the same comparisons about politics. I believe splitting the article into more focussed articles such as Canada-New Zealand relations and Politics_of_Canada_and_New_Zealand_compared would be better than outright deletion. No concern about original research has been expressed on the talk page or edit summaries of Politics of Australia and Canada compared and Politics of Australia and New Zealand compared. -- Avenue 11:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * PS I have just added a couple of external links that I think are useful sources, especially the immigration/multiculturalism paper. -- Avenue 12:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete OR. Homey 21:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP per Avenue, and it is not entirely original research. Split/move article.Brian | (Talk) 21:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'll just quote from the first nomination: "This is interesting, useful, quite well-written, and original research. JRM · Talk 00:36, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)". That's over a year ago and it hasn't gotten any less original. There is some stuff that can be salvaged from the article and incorporated into other articles, but that does not mean this article shouldn't be deleted. JRM · Talk 22:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * To "salvage" parts of it, don't we have to keep a record of who contributed which bits to abide by the GFDL? It's much easier to do this if the article is moved rather than deleted. I'd be happy to give it a temporary home in my user space while we figure out what can be salvaged. -- Avenue 15:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * By "salvage" I mean extracting whatever sourceable and relevant facts are in there (which are not all that many) and add them to whatever article is most appropriate for them. That doesn't mean the wording has to be preserved. If it did, this would be a more general problem, since we can't really maintain articles that should be deleted because someone copied a sentence from it to put in another article. In short, I propose that we salvage facts (such as there are), not the words. JRM · Talk 17:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * keep/split/move - as per Avenue. This isn't entirely original research, it's a more than occasional subject of news articles in NZ. The fact that new Zealand is more frequently compared with Canada that with Australia in itself says something about the strength of the similarities - I doubt it would lead to a rah of other "comparison" articles. The fact that it has been here over a year with remarkably few of these other articles appearing is also indicative of this. Grutness...wha?  01:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia does not need pages comparing random pairs of X and Y. Indrian 19:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per Indrian, Coredesat and nom. We can't have such pages otherwise we'll get things like Similarities between George Bush and Tony Blair or something like that.  Noble eagle  (Talk)  06:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is about counties, not people. New Zealand is frequently compared with Canada, the article can be improved, and it is silly to delete it. There are also Canadian and American politics compared, Canadian and American health care systems compared and Canadian and American economies compared if this article is deleted so should those. Brian | (Talk) 06:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There's been a whole year since the last nomination to improve the article. Not much seems to be happening. If it's so easy to remove all the original research, stick in references, and obtain a respectable article, why hasn't it been done?
 * "If this article is deleted so should X, Y and Z be" has never been a valid argument for preserving an article (or for deleting one, for that matter). It's rather more instructive to see why the articles you mention are not in danger of deletion while this one is. The issue is not that we can't have articles which compare things-of course we can. We just have to report on comparisons as made by others, with proper references. "Similarities between Canada and New Zealand" is way too general a topic, and the original research runs rampant. Comparisons between politics, health care systems and economies of countries that can be meaningfully compared are much more concrete topics, and if you'll care to look, the articles you mention are much better referenced. "Similarities between X and Y" is a non-topic. If there were lots of scholarly works specifically comparing George W. Bush and Tony Blair, then that would make it a valid topic, and we could have a "George W. Bush and Tony Blair compared" article. But it's not very likely that there are credible sources doing that, and that's why it's not an article. JRM · Talk 17:31, 23 June 2006 (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.