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 New AfD. All of the other "Open access in COUNTRY" articles are being bundled into a mass AFD. Will re-link. (non-admin closure) DrStrauss talk 13:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Open access in Canada

[edit]

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

Poorly written essay about a potentially valid article subject, which cites no valid reliable sourcing to properly support the topic. This is copy-pasted from an open-content work, so WP:COPYVIO isn't an issue, but the lack of a copyvio problem doesn't in and of itself exempt the article from still having to be written in an encyclopedic manner and referenced to legitimate sources. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better, but in its current form this is bad enough to need a dose of WP:TNT. Bearcat (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was on the fence when I saw this a month ago in new page patrol (there were articles along these lines in significantly worse states, so it seemed worthwhile to pick my battles), but I do agree with the nomination here. The "better" approach with this sort of thing would surely be to start on a regional level (which has been done, and in a much more usable way) and then "spin out" articles on Canada et al when the content justifies it. Drive-by copypasted articles are never the solution. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:23, 8 July 2017 (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.