Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian identity

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 no consensus, therefore keep. Nandesuka 17:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian identity

This page was successfully prodded with the concern, which I concurred with: Entire article is one long POV rant built from sterotypes and leftover material rejected by the main Canada article and related articles such as Culture of Canada, Demographics of Canada, Immigration to Canada, Geography of Canada, Politics of Canada, Multiculturalism, and History of Canada. Article duplicates existing articles and resurects old materials deleted due to their bias with a POV flare. Relisting on AfD after objections were raised on my talk page (listed here as first keep comment). Delete. Kimchi.sg 18:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - Had I known beforehand that the Canadian identity was on the block to be deleted, I would have objected.... Here are the reasons I propose to keep it...:

• Length - most articles listed on WP:PROD, in my quick random survey, are short - a sentence to two paragraphs. Canadian identity was considerably longer. The length also supports that it is more than some random user’s vanity page, and has been a collaborative effort, one of the main goals of Wikipedia..
• Notability - Canada is indeed notable (I hope no one would dispute that). I agree that the question “What does it mean to be a Canadian?” is a slightly different topic, but I would suggest that it is a question that is fundamental to the country. From the American Revolution on, the simple answer was “not American.” Why was Canada formed? In part, to keep from becoming American. The same reason is why British Columbia joined confederation, why the west (now Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba) was the subject of a huge drive on the part of the Canadian government to be settled, and why the Yukon Territory was formed. See also Canadian confederation. Canada is also special in the fact that its boundaries were not defined by war, ethic group, or common history, like most other nations (Europe, especially comes to mind).
• POV - it doesn’t surprise me that the article comes across without a NPOV. By vary nature, the article implies a point of view, because it is about how Canadians see themselves. As noted above, not being American is an important part of that. See “Mild anti-Americanism” in Canadian literature and the article on Molson’s I am Canadian commercials. I would welcome anyone to edit out the POV, but I would challenge them to do so without removing the facts. In any case, the mild POV throughout does not seem to cloud the message
• Uniqueness of topic - as you noted, the material here does not readily fit elsewhere. The topic is complex enough to require its own article, as demonstrated by its length. I read the articles that you suggested the material should be in, and found no significant overlap.
• Accuracy - this, above all, it what impressed me most about the article - it explained what it means to be Canadian in a clear, concise, and accurate manner. It is the sort of article I would point my American friends to. The clear explanation in and of itself is reason enough, in my mind, to keep the article.
• Suggestions for expansion/improvement (things I would be willing to undertake):
  • how the adoption of the maple leaf flag see Image:Flag of Canada.svg has made the maple leaf the Canadian symbol
    • how the maple leaf (or Canadian flag) is frequently attached by Canadian travelers to their backpacks to keep from being mistaken for Americans, who are stereotypically loud and rude
  • British ties, their influence on things such as architecture (I’m thinking of Victoria) and parliament
  • differences between French and Quebecois culture
  • folk songs such as I’s the b’y
  • issues with a united country and culture over the vast distance (it’s over 5000km from St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador to Victoria, BC)
  • insuring relevant articles have a link to Canadian identity and the see also section at the end of the article remains relevant

...–Mr Minchin 04:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep the article definitely needs some cleaning, may have some mild POV-flavouring and so forth, but that's hardly a pair of criterion for deleting it. Rather, those are criteria for improving it.

The article topic is perfectly encyclopaedic

Large sections of the article are well sourced and referenced. Some parts may not be, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The claim that the information is also in other articles is wholly irrelevent. If article A and article B have the same content, they should be merged. But if the information in article A can be found scattered across articles B through Z, it makes sense to also have article A, rather than forcing users to scour 25 articles looking for information on a single topic. WilyD 18:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this is nothing more than an OR rambling social commentary. I highly doubt that any authoritative source has grasped what "Canadian identity" is, and any attempt at doing so is OR. The references provided are, I imagine, also personal and explorative meanderings on the subject, and we cannot base an encyclopedia article on this. Also, at most 3 of them relate directly to the topic at hand, maybe just 1. The article is also riddled with weasel words to account for the lack of academic backing "Many Canadians believe...", "Canadians often like to see themselves as brave warriors", etc. In short, the article is hopelessly and irrevocably OR. AdamBiswanger1 18:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Reporting Pierre Burton's thoughts on what it is to be Canadian is hardly OR, same goes for Robertson Davies. If you have problems with parts of the article, article them and work on it, but to delete this article is just cutting off your nose to spite your face. Parts of it may fail WP:OR, but the article does not overall. WilyD 18:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep Come on, people. Of course there are sections that aren't NPoV: they're about how Canadians perceive themselves. It needs cleanup, not a wholesale slaughter. Doogie2K (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Mr Minchin covered all the relevant points. --ColourBurst 20:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per nom and AdamBiswanger1. This is an essay masquerading as an encyclopedia entry. It is far too subjective and personal. What constitutes "Canadian identity" mostly a matter of opinion, speculation and conjecture. "Canadian identity" pretty much varies from province to province, region to region and, in many respects, from person to person. Many of the sources cited are opinions in and of themselves. That does not make the statements in the article relying upon those sources factual. Agent 86 21:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to add that there is an article on Canadian culture. AdamBiswanger1 00:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I agree. If the issue is with the POV, it needs a discussion on the talk page, not to be listed on AfD. Canadian identity is unique, it's not American, and it's not British, but a combonation of many different cultures and traditions. -Royalguard11^Talk 21:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Canadian identity doesn't exist. Neither does American identity or British identity or French identity. Well, it probably does exist, but the idea is far too vague and subjective to warrant an encyclopedia or even a stab at definition. AdamBiswanger1 00:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that's why there aren't articles on British identity, French identity, Australian identity, Greek identity, or Kenyan identity. (There's one on American identity, but it's really an article about a book.) Agent 86 01:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I actually nominated that redirect for deletion earlier today : ) AdamBiswanger1 01:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that there is a seperate Canadian identity. One we've tried to define for 139 years. The main reason we try to make sure people know is so we don't get mixed up with our neighbour to the south. We don't like being called "American's" because we aren't. We have our own identity. In WWI and WWII, we tried to secure our own identity, seperate from the Brits. Now it's from the Yanks. -Royalguard11^Talk 03:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Canadians' obsession with their own identity is one of their core characteristics. The article needs some cleanup, and there will always be some NPOV problems that will need watching, but it still should be kept. -- Whpq 00:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but shorten and rewrite from essay into article. BTW, Canada's borders were also established by war (see French and Indian War and War of 1812). Not sure where some of you got the idea that it wasn't. Deet 11:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

By war, I meant in the way that Isreal established it's borders by the 6 day war; the French and Indian War occured in 1754-63, more than 100 years before Canada was a country (see BNA Act (1867)), and the War of 1812 was more than 50 years before Canada was a country, and ended in status quo ante bellum. The vast majority of US-Canadian borders were established through negotions between the US, Canada, and Britian over the years. --Mr Minchin 20:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Further Comment I suppose a section at the top (of the article) should be added explaining the significance of the Canadian identity to Canadians. I think part of this comes down to a discussion of "soft" vs "hard" encyclodeadic enteries. By hard, I mean things like Carbon, something that is defined by facts and figures; by soft, I's refering to topics which are defined by ideas (perhaps like Self-concept). Much policy on Wikipedia seems to have been developed regarding what "hard" topics should and should not be included, but I haven't read anything on the policy of which "soft" topics to include. If someone is aware of such a policy, could they point me there? Thanks, --Mr Minchin 20:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and per User:Agent 86.

• Entire article is one long POV rant built from sterotypes and leftover material rejected by the main Canada article and related articles such as Culture of Canada, Demographics of Canada, Immigration to Canada, Geography of Canada, Politics of Canada, Multiculturalism, and History of Canada. Article duplicates existing articles and resurects old materials deleted due to their bias with a POV flare describes this article perfectly, its parts should be split and added to "real" articles on Canada at the most.
• If anyone took the time to look, the only "real" article that links here is Culture of Canada, the others are nothing more then old mentions on old talk pages.
• Throw the baby out with the bath water? Heall yeah! and throw it far far away and make sure its dead. The article is so unencyclopaedic its not even funny.
• By no means does it "explain what it means to be Canadian in a clear, concise, and accurate manner", in fact it does the opposite, pushing an insulting false representation of Canadians everywhere. I would be ashamed to show this to any of my American acquaintances.
• The very suggestion that this specific "Canadian identity" exists is POV itself, and best described as superficial make-belief (this coming from a proud Canadian).
• There is no single so-called "Canadian identity", and if you make one for every possible imaginable group, (i.e. Canadian identy (terrorists), Canadian identy (right wingers), Canadian identity (socialists)), where are you going to stop? Are you going to do it for every country? Allowing this article to continue to exist sets a terrible precedence for Wikipedia.
• Again, most, if not all of it is redundant given that the Culture of Canada article already exists. Also, sections on Frech-Canadians and Quebec have been superseded by Culture of Quebec. 198.103.172.9 22:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• For one thing, I don't see why Canadian identity merits an article, if things like French identity, British identity, Polish identity, etc., don't. For another, much of it is simply redundant with Canadian culture. And for a third, it's not an encyclopedia article — it's a research essay. And not one that would beat the grade curve, either. Delete. (And I'm Canadian.) Bearcat 00:30, 26 July 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.