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. bd2412 T 02:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rural poverty in Canada

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Looks like an original research. Also, I didnt find any other "Rural poverty" articles. All countries have "Poverty in country" articles. In case of Canada, Poverty in Canada exists. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but do NOT restore to rural poverty, it dominated that article and I moved it because I was hesitant to delete such a lot of referenced material, and absolutely there are not other articles on rural poverty in... The rural poverty article also had amuch smaller section on Bangladesh which I saw no reason to separate form the main article. It could also be merged into Poverty in Canada ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article seems like it implemented original research to me as well, phrases like "This suggests" which assume or infer something are used frequently which is a red flag. I don't however think that this being the only "Rural poverty in a country" article negates any worthiness to continue existing, after all, it could be the first of many other articles detailing rural poverty in a country.Grapefruit17 (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - the sources are there, the citations just need to be filled - "Burns, Bruce, Marlin" refers to a Government of Canada report [1] and "Wilson, MacDonald" refers to a Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives report [2] - the Poverty in Canada article does not mention rural poverty, so this is a notable topic worthy of a stand-alone article - needs some improvement, but definitely a worthwhile article that meets the reliable secondary sources notability requirement - the article is significant to Canada as most of the major cities are close to the US border leaving large rural areas to the north with limited access to goods and services - (ps: I have no vested interest here, no affiliation with the article creators, no undeclared COI) - Epinoia (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need the sources proposed by Epinoia to be evaluated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article appears to be well-referenced. The delete argument appears to be WP:WAX - it doesn't matter that other countries don't have a "Rural poverty in...." article. The WP:OR issues identified are style-related, and not actually original research. FOARP (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Other things don't exist" is not a reason to delete. Canada has a relatively small population over a large area, unlike most other countries, leading to larger rural areas largely populated by First Nations tribes, some of which are largely cut off from other areas because they are so rural and at some times of the year, inaccessible. There are kids who have to go to school via web because of where they live, yet they don't have reliable internet because of poverty and because they are so far from major settlements. I'm not even Canadian and I've read about this. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This reads like a school essay.... If kept it needs to be rewritten from top to bottom. Trillfendi (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article's a mess, so I wouldn't strongly oppose deleting or draftifying it per WP:TNT. That said, deletion is not cleanup and it seems like this could be its own article, so if it can be fixed up in a reasonable amount of time keep. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well-referenced and does meet WP:GNG. Syndicater (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2019 (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.