Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada and US presidential elections

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. Sandstein 20:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canada and the 1960 United States presidential election

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada and the 2016 United States presidential election, these are poorly sourced original research essays about Canada's relationship to United States presidential elections. Mostly they serve as collections of anecdotal trivia, such as whether Canada got mentioned in presidential debates at all and when the elected president happened to make his first state visit to Canada afterward and Carolyn Parrish stomping on a Dubya doll (which, for all the Canadian handwringing about it at the time, had no actual impact on anything at all in the US) — but none of them offer any strong indication that Canada's relationship to that particular US election was significant enough to warrant an independent article as a standalone topic in its own right. I get that Canada's geopolitical and cultural relationship with the US occupies a disproportionately large percentage of the Canadian cultural and political space, but that's why we have the main article on Canada-United States relations — while it would be perfectly appropriate for that article to contain a brief summary of broad themes, such as the fact that Canadians generally poll as being much more strongly supportive of the Democratic candidate for president, I'm not seeing why we need a separate spinoff article to document relatively trivial aspects of every individual US presidential election as a standalone topic in its own right. Delete all. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some need more refs, but the later ones are well sourced. There's an inexhaustible supply of media and academic sources on this subject, so good articles are possible. - SimonP (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The overall thrust of Canada-US relations is certainly sourceable and inexhaustible. But Canada's relationship to each and every individual US election is not an independent topic in its own right, separately from the overall thrust of the overall relationship or from Canada's relationship to the next US election — the appropriate place for content about this is the main article on Canada-US relations itself. By the same token, we don't need a standalone article about Poland and the 2004 United States presidential election just because Dubya said "You forgot Poland" at one point in one debate — but that's about the level of substance that any of these articles actually offers. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - poorly referenced, and in some cases very problematic essays on trivial relations between the countries during US elections. No independent claim to notability, some bits of good info could be salvaged and put in the main election articles as needed. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all A section like "Looking back" of the 1960 article strongly suggests that there are several content issues. Some of the article content itself seems to question the notability of the topic ("issues like Social Security and education were central to the campaign but of little interest to Canadians. Moreover, the end of the U.S. election was overshadowed by the Canadian federal election held on November 27" from the 2000 election), depending on how you look at it. Wickypedoia (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What Bearcat said. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Per nom., Ajraddatz, and Wickypedoia.--NextUSprez (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per, as has been stated, WP:OR, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTESSAY, and, to a lesser extent, WP:REDUNDANTFORK, as any relevant information here can be better covered in the article about each specific election. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 19:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.