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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American entry into Canada by land[edit]

Very well sourced, but violates WP:NOTGUIDE. Reads like a Department of State publication (in fact, I think some of the text was lifted directly off the DOS website). Encyclopedic content largely duplicates information in US-Canada border and Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative and the remainder probably belongs on (or is already at) Wikitravel. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 15:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The primary purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide a reference for people to consult. Given that the rules for travel between the United States and Canada are going to change on June 1, the topic is most certainly appropriate. The matter of laws applicable to border crossing is always encyclopedic; if the objecdtion is that this sounds too much like a "how to", then it rewritten to sound less like a guide. Mandsford (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is an interesting topic. It's certainly something I have thought about (as a topic in and of itself) and have spoken with others specifically about. Since it's well sourced, I think it should be kept. I do think it's good to be concerned about WP:NOTGUIDE...if you are concerned that this reads too much like a guide, I would recommend editing to make it more encyclopedic in tone, style, and content. For example, one glaring omission is any sort of discussion of history--and I am SURE this is well-sourced. Cazort (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From my own past browsing, this topic has plenty of available references that extensively discuss it in-depth. The current article is very dry though. There are towns that straddle the border with the line running down the middle of a street and there are plenty of checkpoints with only a camera. There was an incident where someone went around an unmanned crossing point to go to church on Sunday as they always had and were charged with a criminal offense. There is also a part of the U.S. on a peninsula so that the only way to get to the U.S. by land is through Canada. I would also like to see a similar topic on Canadian entry to the U.S. by land as well as U.S. entry to Mexico by land and vice versa. Another approach would be to combine the land entry articles U.S to Canada + Canada to U.S. etc. Drawn Some (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is true that the article can be improved upon by adding more general information, but I believe that its current version is certainly not worthy of deletion. As far as I know, there is nothing wrong with using text from U.S. State Department websites, since as I understand, all of that info is in the public domain. Moreover, this text is integrated with text from several other sources. This article is more specific than the articles on US-Canada border and Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative - those cover broader topics. --IO Device (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My issue wasn't with the use of Dept. of State text, that's public domain as a US Federal Government publication. My issue was with the tone and moreso the redundancy, but some good points have been brought up for keeping it. I'm going to see what I can do with the tone over the next few days (I'm graduating on Sunday so I'm not sure how much time I'll have until then). - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 20:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be the first of the Wikipedians to offer congratulations to User:2 on his or her graduation -- and to anyone else among the many friends whom I have met here and who are also reaching a milestone this month. That's a lot of work, and although the returns may not be immediate, all that work will prove to have been well worth it. Mandsford (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very, very much! :) - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 04:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC) (Thom)[reply]

While this does run afoul of WP:NOTGUIDE as written, with a bit of revision and probably a title change it does have the potential to be a valid article about a genuinely encyclopedic topic. Keep with cleanup, I guess. Bearcat (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to WikiBooks travel guide. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would not object to this article being copied to another wiki...but I would rather see the topic kept here--if people think it reads too much like a guide, I would prefer them to edit it to change the style and tone and perhaps introduce or restructure content, to make it more encyclopedic, rather than deleting it. Cazort (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP. The title and lead raises most of the WP:NOTGUIDE concerns I think. As to the article content, why not merge part of it to Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the almost all of it to Canada–United States border? ZabMilenko 11:38, 21 May 2009 (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.