Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics of Australia and Canada compared

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 and no precedent AfD isnt the place to write policy, policy should be the result of clear Community discussion. This weighed heavily with my decision to end with a no result, while leaning towards keep. The arguments presented of WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH dont address the issue of published material serving to advance a position there isnt any position being advanced only explaining the difference between two Political systems that developed from the same basics with similar demographic dispositions. The issues of sourcing and cleanup need to be addressed within the article page. Gnangarra 01:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Politics of Australia and Canada compared (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I hesitate to nominate this page as it has clearly been the product of quite a bit of work and is generally of good quality. But fundamentally I cannot see how the article concept can be consistent with WP:NOR as it is clearly an original synthesis. NOR states: Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. I raised this on the talk page and tagged the article a fortnight ago but no one has even replied. I note that a previous deletion review on a similar article also resulted in delete: here There are a series of other similar article too, and if this results in deletion then I will want to list the remainder of the series as well.AndrewRT(Talk) 00:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:OR. Not a single reference on the topic. Clarityfiend 01:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Any article of this type is very likely going to be OR, per the above example pulled from WP:OR. The only reference requires registration, which isn't any good. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since there are no sources to show notability of the topic. Law & Disorder 03:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)e[reply]
• Keep How is it any different from Canadian_and_American_economies_compared? 99.231.89.235 04:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can see it isn't any different. If this article is deleted and the precedent is set, I'll be nominating that one (and others) straight away AndrewRT(Talk) 21:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because, 99.231.89.235, that article is referenced and this one is not. If "X compared to Y" is a concept that exists in the scholarly press as a frequent comparison, than it is probably not original research. HOWEVER, not every random comparison does exist in the scholarly press. There is little evidence that Australian and Canadian politics are the subjects of frequent discussion in reliable sources, and thus this article represents a novel synthesis of ideas, which by definition, is original research. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0048-5950(197422)4%3A3%3C100%3ACAAPIC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23
  • http://politicsblog.ctv.ca/blog/_archives/2007/10/17/3297026.html
  • Federation and National Identity in Canada and Australia: A Comparative Perspective

Journal article by John Kane, Haig Patapan; Melbourne Journal of Politics, 2000

• • http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0773516670 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.89.235 (talk) 04:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and attempt to find sources. Is that not the proper procedure: tag as lacking sources and go from there? --G2bambino 14:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Not being Canadian or Australian, I don't know whether there is that same feeling of kinship as there is between the U.S. and Canada. I've never been aware of one, but if there is, then perhaps the article can be sourced. However, comparing and contrasting the political history of two nations would need more than what's provided so far. Mandsford 15:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but find sources. This is not a case of A + B = C, but of A + B = A + B. In words, there is no new position "C" advanced, just a comparison given between A and B. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't necessarily agree that we are trying to advance a new position here, I think the similarity is something that can be backed up by reliable sources. A quick google finds this example, "Describing Australia and Canada as 'linked by a shared past and by a common set of values,' the editors emphasize the two countries' imperial and Commonwealth connections, their role as middle powers on the international scene, and their early efforts to sort out relations with fading (UK) and rising (US) world hegemons." It's just a matter of finding enough reliable sources. THE KING 17:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Comparative politics is a legitimate encyclopedia topic. Sources are not impossible to find. --Padraic 19:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've found the following previous AfD comments which sum up the logic for my nomination AndrewRT(Talk) 22:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ido and Novial compared:

"Wikipedia cannot make a comparison between two things. No matter how well referenced each of the things compared it, it will still be original research. All we can do is report comparisons made by other scholars. We report research, we don't do it. That's a fine but important line." - User:Doc_glasgow

• Comment I hope this isn't taken as prejudicing the debate here, but I've taken the arguments here and put together a proposed guideline / essay at Wikipedia:Comparison Articles and Original Research. Please feel free to comment and propose amendments there. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that this article is unquestionably OR, but that particular comparison was closed as no consensus. DGG (talk) 04:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Weak delete given lack of referencing. If references were to be found containing comparisons between politics in Australia and Canada, I would support keeping. Capitalistroadster 00:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep there are historic similarities between the two countries (British colonial history, federation) and it wouldn't be that difficult to come up with references. However, the two countries don't have the close socio-economic and cultural relationship with each other that Australia does with New Zealand —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quiensabe (talk • contribs) 01:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A reasonably well written junior high school level essay, though without any real references except a non-authoritative website. But it's unambiguously OR in the classic sense of an original synthesis. This is totally unsupportable. A tabular factual comparison might be supportable if referenced, but this isnt that sort of article. e.g. "Many isolated Aboriginal communities in both Canada and Australia are characterised by near complete unemployment, multigenerational welfare dependence, domestic and social violence, drug and alcohol abuse including petrol sniffing or methamphetamine use, high crime rates and depression." DGG (talk) 03:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster 00:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep struck through prior vote. 99.231.89.235 has, in his links above, given some excellent, VERY reliable sources that establish that this article does not represent a novel synthesis of ideas. The article needs a serious clean-up to remove original research and to make sure that it is well reference, but in my mind the TOPIC of the article clearly exists in the academic press as such, which was my main objection. This seems keepable at this point. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep *Risk* of NOR but with proper sourcing this article will be fine - the subject is notable, as long as it doesn't start wandering into WP:SYN issues. Orderinchaos 13:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This article is unreferenced and appears to be "original research". More fundamentally, though, encyclopedias don't do "compare and contrast" articles; they give information on primary topics, from which lore anyone can then make any comparisons they wish. To the extent that an article such as this one merely summarises the information elsewhere, it is redundant. To the extent that it does more than that, it strays into "original research". But even where some acknowleged expert has published such a comparison, making such comparisons is not an encyclopedia's role. -- Lonewolf BC 21:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• When you say 'encyclopedias don't do "compare and contrast" articles;' which encyclopedias are you talking about? I don't think you're talking about wikipedia. United Kingdom and United States military ranks compared, Esperanto and Ido compared, Chernobyl compared to other radioactivity releases, Canadian and American politics compared, Canadian and American economies compared, Comparison between cricket and baseball, Islamic and Jewish dietary laws compared, etc. THE KING 23:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If the article is kept it may motivate people to create all imaginable combinations "Politics of X and Y compared". While the current text may be valid and useful it is not what one would expect in an encyclopedia. Pavel Vozenilek 18:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This information would be valuable in the relevant political articles, and possibly even an article on constitutional monarchies or something. Leaves the door open to comparisons between every country on earth. Twenty Years 10:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - despite at first appearing to consist of original research, this article does contain much verifiable information. Needs a major clean-up and perhaps a name change to Comparison of Australian and Canadian Politics. Think outside the box 15:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per think outside the box. JRG 00:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though I voted keep above, it should be noted that thinking outside the box is forbidden at Wikipedia. However, per the reliable sources provided above, this article is WELL WITHIN THE BOX.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Scratch that. I am an idiot. Nothing to see here folks. Carry on... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - this is no different to Candadian and American economies compared. I would be saying 'delete' if it was something like 'Zimbabwe and Australian politics', etc. because they are of different political systems. But Canada and Australia have very similar political systems and I believe this article should not be deleted. Auroranorth (sign) 02:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just as important an article as any other article on the comparison between two countries. It needs some work, but definitely should not be deleted. Biofoundationsoflanguage 19:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you cite other articles than compare countries political systems. Twenty Years 16:07, 4 November 2007 (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.