Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of similarities between Canada and New Zealand

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 of the debate was No Consensus -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of similarities between Canada and New Zealand

[edit]

A well-written article on a completely unencyclopedic topic, which also sets a terrible precedent which could in the extreme lead to the creation of 40,000-odd possible "List of similarities between (a country) and (another country)" articles. Many contributors to the article have already expressed a feeling that it's unencyclopedic and/or rather pointless, as its Talk page shows. Delete. - Mustafaa 00:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - well meaning but impossible list. A better approach would be to make lists of countries sharing X prominent feature (e.g List of Commonwealth Members by name, List of countries with resource-based economies, List of English-speaking countries. -- 8^D gab 01:23, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pointless original research. If this sets a precedent, we can expect List of similarities between Bhutan and Equatorial Guinea to show up any day now. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 01:37, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Original research! ---Isaac R 01:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep A useful comparison of settler-colonial societies. If kept, I'd like see it become part of a series. However, it might need to be renamed, especially given it is not actually a 'list'. Also, the article needs an overhaul to make it more of an encyclopædic entry - at present, it is more trivia.--Cyberjunkie 01:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete--original research and not an encyclopedic topic. Meelar (talk) 02:28, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep A fun article, like Heavy metal umlaut Samboy 02:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unencyclopeic original research--nixie 02:31, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, mostly speculation; particularly when it starts talking about the relative conservatism of various countries, also quite inaccurate. Slac speak up! 04:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. android↔talk 04:35, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; rename and touch up necessary. Very much like Canadian and American politics compared and Politics of Australia and Canada compared, both of which are definitely keepers; we just need a naming convention... Samaritan 04:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Spinboy 04:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The article is very informative. This article is important, because both nations share a similar history. An article on the similarities between Canada and Nepal would not warrant an article for the same reason. Well written informative articles should be kept. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Similarities and differences between socialist countires are always interesting. Klonimus 05:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Extremely Weak Keep ...what next, a comparison between Mars and the moon? Even though I'm a half-Canadian New Zealander, I'm not defending this article! While this is a VERY interesting article, sure, you could compare any two countries and see huge similarities/differences. So I guess deletion is the best way... but I'm not sure... Master Thief Garrett 05:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Very useful, informative and interesting. The "this sets a precedent" claim is a furphy. --Centauri 05:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    But if someone was inspired to add, say, Pitsburgh vs. Ontario, we'd have to have to have another such heartfelt "ethical" debate. Master Thief Garrett 05:51, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    No, becuase Pittsburgh is a city and Ontario is a province. We are speaking of two countries, and not just any two countries, but two primarily english speaking former british colonies. -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Those were two names off the top of my head, and yes I see they don't line up(!) but my point still stands. Anyone with pride in their country/city and admiration for another country/city could *potentially* choose to come here and compare the two. Or maybe not. Master Thief Garrett 06:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Out of all the countries in the world, I would say New Zeland is in the top 5 most similar countries to Canada. -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    nonono, you misunderstand me. Try to forget about Canada for a minute, comparing (whatevercountry1) with (verysimilarcountry2) is not necessarily the goal of Wikipedia, and may inspire and spawn for other, weaker, 1&2 comparison articles. Master Thief Garrett 06:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That is not the point of this VFD vote. This vote is about this specific article, not about any others. Yes, it will create a precedent, but they can live or die by their merits as well as precendents. Burgundavia 00:58, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per sɪzlæk --Angr/comhrá 06:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Interesting and useful. May not be the sort of thing you'd find in Encyclopedia Britannica, but this ain't Encyclopedia Britannica; this is the sort of article which makes Wikipedia what it is. As to Master Thief Garrett's comments, Canada and New Zealand are two places that are very frequently compared, and as such this article makes a lot more sense that an article about places that aren't (such as Ontario and Pittsburgh). Grutness|hello? 06:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
okayyyy... what about Australia and New Zealand? And Canada and the US? And NZ and the UK? And so on. If we have one, people will think they ought to write about others as well. In that sense it may well be a precedent... Now while Aus/NZ, US/Can, NZ/UK could potentially lead to VERY interesting articles, it is the load of other weaker comparisons that will follow that are best avoided... right? Well, maybe not, but that's why it's up for debate here. Master Thief Garrett 06:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
NZ is far more often compared to Canada than to Australia by people living in or visiting New Zealand. Grutness|hello? 07:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. No credible thrid party references. Zzyzx11 | Talk 07:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Totally unenthusastic keep, only because I don't know where to draw the line...obviously comparing the U.S. and Canada is a valid topic, and obviously comparing Bhutan and Equatorial Guinea wouldn't be. This one seems to fall in a kind of gray area. They are far apart, but have a high degree of cultural similarity. I wouldn't shed a tear if it's deleted, though. Everyking 07:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Feels like original research. --Carnildo 08:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm a little reluctant, because it's not uninteresting, but it's just not an encyclopædia article (and the original research aspect rules it out still further for Wikipedia). If it's kept, I'd like to start List of similarities between Ireland and Cyprus, List of similarities between India and Israel, and List of similarities between Wales and France (I have reasons for all of these). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You make a good point. While all those ones you've listed, and more, would be quite fascinating to read, they would have the *possibility* of reeking of POV. And at what point does Wikipedia end and 1001WorldwideSimilaritiesYouDidntKnow.com begin? Master Thief Garrett 09:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP Thoughtful donation of time and effort must be respected. If there were 40,000 articles of comparisons of this quality I would not have a problem. Lotsofissues 10:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP as per Cyberjunkie and Samaritan--PolkaDot 11:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Only other edit is to their User page. Niteowlneils 17:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, quality articles should not be deleted just to prevent the creation of other articles. Kappa 11:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Well I wrote a paragraph about relations and was thinking about adding something on genetic ties and families. Vanman2010
Author of unwikified Commonwealth Federation, which gets less than 1k hits when filtering out unrelated combinations of the words. Niteowlneils 17:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Earl Andrew. —Markaci 2005-04-23 T 14:58 Z
  • Keep and add the references. Deleters have nothing to say but original research? It isn't. Meggar 16:27, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Samaritan and Earl Andrew. —UTSRelativity 16:57, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research, transient, subjective, and inherently POV. Doesn't even seem to be accurate--claims NZ is a 'resource' based economy, yet according to the CIA Worldfactbook, 67.8% of the NZ economy is 'services' and only 4.8% agriculture. Canada about the same: 68.6% and 2.2%. Niteowlneils 17:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What's next [[List of similarities between George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein]] (ideologues, environmentally unfriendly, etc.)? [[List of similarities between Seattle and Chicago]] (largest cities of their states, but not the state capitol, major port cities, cities with rail mass transit, etc.)? Take any two subjects and if you try hard enuf you can find similarities. Niteowlneils 17:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Service industries dominate domestically, as they do in most Western-nations. Notice though, that resources are the largest export by proportion and also that they gross they most. It is the same for Australia, while a griculture consitute only 3 per cent of the economy it is, after resources, the highest grossing export sector.
  • Comment - I was in both countries and except for same past, there are not too many similarities, probably they are found only by New Zealanders for some reason (e.g. the reason of comparing themselves to way larger country). Most of listed similarities are generic, e.g. the one about highest tower in continent, and similar ones on different feats would apply to other country pairs (e.g. Brazil and Egypt would share similarity of having mouths of longest river in their continent). Cultural comparement between French and Maori is also very broad, cause Maori are indigenous locals and French are other colonists, Maoris are all over New Zealand while French are more concentrated, Maori language is rarely used in writting and such while French is used in Quebec and such. In other words, such similarities as noted here, could be found between any two given countries, even Bhutan and Equatorial Guinea probably, except for the fact of being colony of same state and same language being used as (one of) officials. Maybe it would be better to create page like Comparement of former British colonies or Comparement of former British "white" colonies instead. And, continuing to show similarity between Brazil and Egypt, I will also say that in both countries people mostly lives along the coast or along the major rivers, interior of both countries is sparcely inhabitted except along rivers, both countries makes up the most speakers in the world of their official languages (most Portuguese speakers in Brazil and most Arabic speakers in Egypt), both countries has largest cities of those language speakers also (Cairo and Sao Paulo) and so on... And if I'd be making an article, I'd think of way more comparements not any worse than those in this article; the only real, not generic comparement is one about common past and language DeirYassin 18:31, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me, that Canada is a country many New Zelanders like to compare themselves with. A lot of this article is just rehashed information I have received from talking to New Zealanders in the past. This is why I believe this is not original research. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV original research. Gazpacho 19:35, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV, original research. RickK 22:08, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV, original research and very unencyclopedic. And by the way, the charge of original research is valid. Wikipedia:No original research discusses this in full. I never have figured out why Wikipedians often treat original research and notability as "people just being picky" when articles are proposed for deletions. They are valid delete reasons for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Encyclopedias are not supposed to have original research...period. --Woohookitty 23:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Many Wikipedians seem to sympathise when an article is clearly someone's labour of love... but just because they worked hard on it does not grant it the right to be on WP. And, yes, original research is a no-no. Not even famous published professors are entitled to add their own original research here, but must wait until others read their papers/books and write about it in their stead. Wikipedia:No original research covers it in no uncertain terms! Clear enough I think. Master Thief Garrett 00:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I believe that this is not original research, and that it is reporting on general knowledge of the New Zealand public. If the author of the article can admit that this is original research, than by all means delete this. It is in my opinion however that it is not. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:08, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • As per Earl Andrew's comment above, I wish to point out that just because certain information was not well-documented in written materials does not mean that it does not exist. I do not believe the act of committing such information to text qualifies as original research. If the subject matter is inherently non-neutral then make the article one about the group with the POV or merge with a suitable article.  Flag of Scarborough, ON, Canada  UTSRelativity (Talk)  03:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Sure, the facts are all common knowledge. But "original research" doesn't have to be based on newly-discovered facts. It's what you do with the facts that matters. For example, the article points out hockey is popular in Canada, and rugby is popular in New Zealand. Nothing new or exciting there. But then he goes on to point out that both sports are contact sports notable for their aggressive play and violent byplay. That is an original insight -- and thus out of place in an encyclopedia article. ---Isaac R 03:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • How do you know that the user originated that particular theory? The jury is still out on that one, and it is my humble opinion that the author did not just make that one up. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • How do you know he didn't? There are no sources cited for this particular item. (In fact, there are practically no sources at all.) android↔talk 03:38, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Just because an article dosnt contribute much, it still contributes. The information conatined here is not fictional so why get rid of it? It serves to illustrate some pretty nift similarities and if anything I've learnt a few things or two myself about New Zealand. Wikipedia is supposed to be a massive collaboration of information, just because it focuses on a very dedicated subjuct does not mean it should be deleted. Keep this article. -- diskadia 21:32 GMT april 23 2005
    • People keep responding to unencylopedic as if it were a putdown. It just means that the material isn't appropriate for a reference book. That includes all original research, no matter how good it is. In fact, the better it is, the less encyclopedic it is. If it were 1684, and I were writing an encyclopedia, and some dude named Isaac Newton (no relation to me) were to bang on my door and say, "I know how gravity works! Any two bodies attract proportionally to their mass and inversely to their distance! Let me prove it to you..." I'd cut him off, and tell him to go publish elsewhere. It wouldn't matter how convincing he was. Encylopedias don't decide what's smart and stupid, they just catalog the facts that are widely accepted. ---Isaac R 03:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • From my understanding (from reading Wikipedia:original research), as long as Mr. Newton does not write the article, you are safe, as you are reporting on someone elses work. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment: Yes I think you could quote him, but it wouldn't be wikipedia:verifiable unless he published it somewhere instead of telling face-to-face. Kappa 04:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • No, it's ok if you're just reading Sir Isaac's mail. (Though I understand he didn't like people to do that.) But then the best you can say is, "Sir Isaac's new theory of gravitation asserts that..." You can't throw out the Law of Gravitation as accepted fact until it is, well, accepted. ---Isaac R 04:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I was aware of many of these similarities before finding this article, and it was great to see them put together. It is encyclopedic, and is broader than the 'original reserch' criteria which some folks above are claiming. Good stuff. Radagast 04:38, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV, original research. Megan1967 06:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • A comment re original research: A few years ago, I read a serious source – I believe it was a transcript of a New Zealander's speech to an academic or political function – discussing just these things. Samaritan 14:07, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. It would be possible to create such an article comapring practically everything on the planet to each other. This is just a random set of facts about two places juxtaposed. If I were a new user and this were one of the first articles I saw on the site, I would have serious doubts about the project. Indrian 19:15, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Serious doubts? Heck yes, that's exactly what I was thinking about this place back in around 2002/2003 when I first visited, and I never visited again 'til now... certainly poor articles are not necessarily a representation of the whole, but the goal is to have each and every page aspire to be the most perfect article ever, and I don't know that this fulfills that. As I said before, at what point does Wikipedia end and 1001WorldwideSimilaritiesYouDidntKnow.com begin? Master Thief Garrett 23:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Now hold on a minute, what's wrong with having page articles that compare several things together? The information contained in such articles are non-fictional, and can be made to sound very encyclopedic. Here we have a perfectly good article, that can be improved further, because you don't want pages that compare things to each other? I suggest keeping this and improving it. - Diskadia 01:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. What about all the many differences between the two countries: Canada is one of the largest countries by area in the world; New Zealand is among the smaller nations. New Zealand is an island many hundreds of miles from its cited "neighbour" Australia; Canada shares an enormous border with its cited neighbor, the USA. And on and on. None of these differences are given and you could, in fact, create an article about the similarities between any two countries in the world ("Coca-Cola is sold in both Nigeria and Sweden") while ignoring all the differences and, like this article, it'd be non-enyclopedic and inherently POV. Moncrief 02:13, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a well written article that shares many tidbits of information. There are numerous other pages like this, to remove this would mean you would have to remove all the other well written similarity pages. You want to junk this because it focuses on a subject that would otherwise not be covered by an encyclopedia? This is wikipedia, not encarta. Articles like this should be welcomed here! - Diskadia 06:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per apples and oranges. Radiant_* 10:46, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • If this article survives the VfD, I think I'll write a List of similarities between apples and oranges just to demonstrate what a horrible precendent has been set. "Apples and oranges have both been bred for mass marketing purposes..." ---Isaac R 16:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Now that would be original research. Thanks for letting me know, I'll be the first to put that on VfD. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Forgive me for quoting you back at yourself, but how would you know that my statements were original? ---Isaac R 22:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Because unlike this topic, people have not compared apples and oranges other than to use the analogy to illustrate how things are unrelated. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • That you know of. If I can't make assumptions about where this guy got his comparisons about two countries, you can't make assumption about where I got my comparisons about two fruit. Cliché notwithstanding, there are bound to be dozens of observations people have made on the subject.---Isaac R 23:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • WP:POINT, and I thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. — Flag of Scarborough, ON, Canada  UTSRelativity (Talk)  22:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry you consider my comment disruptive -- but I don't think that's a fair label. It's a straightforward Reductio ad absurdum argument. ---Isaac R 22:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • I didn't find your comment disruptive. I was merely stating that following through with your "suggested action plan" might be considered disruptive. I did not even think that you would really go through with it. I found the placement of your comment under a "apples, oranges" vote to be funny; that is all. — Flag of Scarborough, ON, Canada  UTSRelativity (Talk)  22:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • Sorry, shouldn't be so touchy ---Isaac R 23:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Interesting and encyclopedic comparison. ElBenevolente 16:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not encyclopedic. 80.203.115.12 00:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • keep it because its unusual and encyclopedic too Yuckfoo 00:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Very interesting and it does seem encyclopedic -CunningLinguist 03:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is an infinite number of things that can be compared, and there are always similarities between countries. --Kelby 03:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. While the countries have things in common, there are also discrepancies. Besides, it isn't really a list. Capitalistroadster 03:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • DeleteHaving lived in both countries I can attest to accuracy of the article. However the examples of similarity quoted are all very trivial and do not make a convincing case. ping 07:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Is original research. If any admin disagrees wtih me, discredit this vote Frenchman113 16:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Now write me an article on the similaries between US nad Canada. SYSS Mouse 18:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE As per apples and oranges reference. If we kept these types of articles up, we would inter-slice everything from how hockey and football are the same/different to how Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter are same/different. There are other websites for this stuff, this is just opinionated, non-factual, and ever-changing stuff that is impossible to keep up, moderate, or verify. JHMM13 01:14, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Claims that this article sets a precedent for any manner of a comparison are nonsense. Comparisons between any two countries require a justifiable basis to warrant inclusion. This article is justifiable, albeit in dire need of (referenced) academic discussion. Settler-colonial societies are often compared in historical and political contexts. Australia, New Zealand, the U.S., Canada, Latin America and even Israel are contrasted with one another in treatise on societal development. I recommend that the article be kept, renamed to "Canada and New Zealand compared" or refocussed to "Politics of Canada and New Zealand compared", and expanded with references to the many available sources.--Cyberjunkie 07:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The comparison between two countries should not be considered encyclopedic if they are chosen by chance (otherwise for very related countries). However, I would support e.g. the article "Political and economic relations between Canada and New Zealand." --Eleassar777 22:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, extrapolation. silsor 00:35, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Might be interesting, might be informative, but it's not encyclopedic. CryptoDerk 00:36, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is interesting, useful, quite well-written, and original research. JRM · Talk 00:36, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
  • Keep there is enough interesting information on this page to be useful. Burgundavia 00:37, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The external links establish the fact there is a dialog (maybe tenuous) about the "similarities between Canada and New Zealand." I doubt this is the best possible treatment of the subject, but it seems like an edge case to me, and in principle I'd prefer to keep those. Demi T/C 00:46, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
  • ”'Delete”'. What is next List of similarities between Abraham Lincoln's and JFK's assasinations. Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:47, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • You'd be surprised at the similarities between the two assasinations. For one Lincon was killed in the Kennedy theatre, and Kennedy was killed in a Lincon car, or was that the point you were trying to make? - Diskadia 07:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • No I assume his point is that you can find comparisons between almost anything. To add to what you gave, don't forget that JFK's killer apparently ran from a warehouse (well, a storeroom, same thing) to a theatre, and Booth ran from a theatre to a warehouse. See, it works! There's a great article right there! POV, speculation, and probably of debatable accuracy since it's based on chain-email hearsay, but that is a similar thing to this one. Master Thief Garrett 10:29, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        "See, it works! There's a great article right there!" There sure is. Lincoln-Kennedy coincidences. JRM · Talk 10:47, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
        • There's an important difference: The Kennedy-Lincoln list has been around for 40+ years, and is an important bit of folklore. There pretty much has to be an article on it, though perhaps the article shouldn't repeat the entire list. The Canada-New Zealand list has never appeared anywhere except Wikipedia. ---Isaac R 04:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”'Delete”'. Don't discuss it, DELETE it! This is an encyclopedia only - isn't it? RossNixon 10:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • If, as has been stated below, this discussion is still open, then I vote to delete. This might be an interesting exercise but it's not an encyclopedic one. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Voting is now closed. There was no consensus, this article will be kept. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:57, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_similarities_between_Canada_and_New_Zealand&oldid=1144085211"