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. Improvement is always welcome. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American entry into Canada by land[edit]

American entry into Canada by land (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This reads more like a travel guide rather than an encyclopedia article. It's more appropriate on WikiVoyage than on Wikipedia. Techman224^Talk 07:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's got 35 references. It does need a trim though.104.163.153.162 (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The mere number of references an article has is not an inclusion criterion in and of itself — an article that cites just one reference can be kept if that reference properly verifies passage of a must-include SNG such as being president of a country, and an article that cites 100 references can be deleted if they're all blogs. As necessary as sourcing is, it's just part of the overall keepability equation, not the be-all and end-all in and of itself. The problem here is that this isn't so much an encyclopedia article about crossing the border as a how-to guide to crossing the border: but how-to guides are covered by WP:NOTHOWTO as a thing Wikipedia isn't for. Nominator is entirely correct that something like this would belong on Wikivoyage, not here. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you are discounting my "number of references" mention. It has no blogs. There's actually no issue here with the quality of sources, which are largely government publications. The issue seems to be whether it belongs here or on Wikivoyage.104.163.153.162 (talk) 06:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Because the number of references here was the entirety of your argument as to why this should be kept. It wasn't just a passing mention that was irrelevant to the actual substance of your argument — it was in and of itself the entire substance of your argument.

(2) I didn't say the sources here were blogs, I raised blogs as an example of the kind of "sources" that can be used to pad out the number of footnotes and thus an example of the reason why the number of footnotes is not a keep argument in and of itself.

(3) The quality of the sources isn't the issue. The issue is that the content they're supporting is a WP:NOTHOWTO violation rather than an encyclopedia article. At any rate, government sources are primary sources for the purposes of writing about a topic directly related to that same government — they're adequate for simple verification of facts, but not in and of themselves demonstrative of notability as they don't represent independent analysis by unaffiliated media sources. Justin Trudeau, for example, is notable because he has media coverage, not because he has a self-written primary source profile on the website of the government he's a part of. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is a notable article with an average of 8000 readers per month. The article uses references and provides immense value to travelers. It is among the top web search results for driving into Canada. Moreover, the argument made by the proposed deleter was already discussed in the first AfD and was dismissed. Being that the Canada–United States border is over 5000 miles long, travel across it is very notable; we're not talking about a random tiny border crossing. Perhaps the nominator can improve the article instead by adding more historical and general context. --Acyclic (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Providing value to travellers" is the job of Wikivoyage, not Wikipedia. The job of Wikipedia is to publish and maintain encyclopedia articles, not "how to" pieces. Bearcat (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I expect the readership will drop a hundred fold if the article were on Wikivoyage instead. The article's value would effectively be lost. Moreover, being that Wikivoyage is loose with referencing, the article's content will in time lose verifiability too, turning into a free-for-all. --Acyclic (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's job also isn't to keep stuff that falls under what Wikipedia is not just because its readership might drop if it was moved to where it actually belongs. A Wikivoyage page on this would still turn up in a Google search, so anybody who's looking for this information would still find it there too. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is very common dilemma existing through the project. What is better: to have this rather poor quality page, or no page at all. I prefer the former because (a) it does not disinform the reader, but provides helpful information and links, (b) it can be fixed if anyone cares, (c) this is not an outright advertisement or other case for speedy deletion. Deleting something informative simply because no one cares is not the best solution. My very best wishes (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "no article at all" is preferable to "a poor-quality article that isn't compliant with our standards for Wikipedia content". Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How poor - that's the question. I think this page is a lot more informative than pages about individual buildings - see Category:Buildings and structures in Illinois by county. My very best wishes (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's policy is that it's not our role to be a how-to guide. Wikipedia's policy is not that certain specific how-to articles can be exempted from that just because somebody thinks it's more informative than an article about a building — for one thing, buildings and "how to cross the border" are topics where the informative value of their respective articles can't really be measured against each other at all, because they're not equivalent or even comparable topics. And for another, we also have a rule about the value of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments in deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see street addresses of restaurants on the page. Indeed, many parts of the page are written in a "how to" style, but I think this should be fixed if anyone cares, rather than deleting the entire page. My very best wishes (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, why are you addressing the lack of street addresses of restaurants in response to me, as if I'd ever said anything about street addresses of restaurants? And secondly, if we "fixed" the how-to content here, then what on earth would be left that's appropriately encyclopedic? Bearcat (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It does provide useful sourced information on a legitimate subject. The style and sourcing can be improved, but they are not even remotely so bad to warrant deletion. This is not really a "how-to-travel" guide, even though it includes a lot of info helpful for a traveler. This is just one of pages that belong to Category:Expedited border crossing schemes and Category:Canada–United States border. There is nothing wrong with having pages on these subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:IAR relative to around 8k of page views per month. Deletion of this article would not serve Wikipedia's WP:READERs functionally. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• strongest possible delete Yes, people look at this article— and they shouldn't. They should be reading the primary sources on the US and Canadian official websites, where the information will be accurate and up-to-date and presumably not subject to passing vandals and ignoramuses. Look, this is one big ball of WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NOTTRAVEL. It doesn't matter how well-cited it is; it needs to be deleted. Mangoe (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is already an article on the US-Canada border, I fail to see a reason for this one. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:B98F:4F80:7AF7:9426 (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The simple reason for the existence of this article is that governments on both sides of the border are sometimes unreasonable and oppressive when it comes to letting innocent people through. They can reject people for silly reasons or for suspicion alone, also subjecting them to unreasonable searches. The purpose of this article is to stand up to this occasional governmental oppression. The article has been serving its purpose for practically ten years now. You won't understand until it applies to you. Crossing the US-Canada border is a big deal in itself. --Acyclic (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per NorthAmerica1000. Davey2116 (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The way the page reads is not a reason to bring the matter here because AfD is not cleanup. The topic is notable because there are numerous books about it including the following. Andrew D. (talk) 12:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. Crossing the Line
2. Crossing the 49th Parallel
3. Crossing the Border
4. Trucking Guide to Border Crossing
5. The Border Guide
6. Permeable Border
7. Crossing Borders
8. Border, Border, Wide and Far, how We Wonder what You are
9. Law Enforcement at the Border Between the U.S. and Canada
10. Pacific Connections

• Keepor Merge There are useful pieces of information and the topic is notable. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2018 (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.