Talk:Stereotypes of Canadians: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Conversion to redirect: Yes, and–? Your point?
 
Line 14: Line 14:
::Yes, that's linked at the top of the page. Six editors have worked on the article (not counting bots, vandals and those reverting, and yourself) against the eight delete votes, and presumably wouldn't have put in the effort if they didn't think it was worth keeping at the time. The article was a bit of a mess, but that's nothing special, that's what maintenance tags are for (as you added in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stereotypes_of_Canadians&diff=prev&oldid=1146380247 this edit], presumably thinking then that deletion was not warranted). The linked discussion was not particularly well summarized, but the reasons seem to be about implementation rather than notability. Assuming that the one-day-old article that was deleted was not identical to this article, those reasons may not have applied.
::Yes, that's linked at the top of the page. Six editors have worked on the article (not counting bots, vandals and those reverting, and yourself) against the eight delete votes, and presumably wouldn't have put in the effort if they didn't think it was worth keeping at the time. The article was a bit of a mess, but that's nothing special, that's what maintenance tags are for (as you added in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stereotypes_of_Canadians&diff=prev&oldid=1146380247 this edit], presumably thinking then that deletion was not warranted). The linked discussion was not particularly well summarized, but the reasons seem to be about implementation rather than notability. Assuming that the one-day-old article that was deleted was not identical to this article, those reasons may not have applied.
::In any case, this probably works in my favour since I won't have to worry about a 5× expansion when I recreate the article for DYK. –  [[User:Reidgreg|Reidgreg]] ([[User talk:Reidgreg|talk]]) 12:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
::In any case, this probably works in my favour since I won't have to worry about a 5× expansion when I recreate the article for DYK. –  [[User:Reidgreg|Reidgreg]] ([[User talk:Reidgreg|talk]]) 12:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
:::The deleted article was much more extensive than the few poorly sourced sentences that were here. We have some sort of academic sourcing. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 11:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 11:25, 26 April 2024

Conversion to redirect[edit]

@Moxy: Hey there! In this edit you converted the article Stereotypes of Canadians into a redirect. While the content and layout was not the greatest, I feel that there is potential for an article here. I'm an author of a few articles which take a humorous approach to the subject (Canadian Idiot, The Canadian Conspiracy, Being Canadian – all to DYK). The problem is writing a serious, broad, encyclopedic treatment of it.

I'm working on other articles and don't have time for this one right now, just felt like voicing my concerns and support for an article here. BTW, would Canadian identity be a better redirect target than Culture of Canada? – Reidgreg (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of Canadians. Moxy🍁 22:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's linked at the top of the page. Six editors have worked on the article (not counting bots, vandals and those reverting, and yourself) against the eight delete votes, and presumably wouldn't have put in the effort if they didn't think it was worth keeping at the time. The article was a bit of a mess, but that's nothing special, that's what maintenance tags are for (as you added in this edit, presumably thinking then that deletion was not warranted). The linked discussion was not particularly well summarized, but the reasons seem to be about implementation rather than notability. Assuming that the one-day-old article that was deleted was not identical to this article, those reasons may not have applied.
In any case, this probably works in my favour since I won't have to worry about a 5× expansion when I recreate the article for DYK. –  Reidgreg (talk) 12:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The deleted article was much more extensive than the few poorly sourced sentences that were here. We have some sort of academic sourcing. Moxy🍁 11:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]