Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smart Border Declaration

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. Cirt (talk) 09:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Border Declaration

Non-notable "declaration". Part of the ongoing North American Union conspiracy theory. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. It is confirmed by references on Canadian and United States government websites, and there has been extensive coverage on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border on border-crossing and other border-related issues. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eastmain. The article still needs a lot of cleaning up, though. Themfromspace (talk) 09:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete I read that whole article and I don't know what it said. There was some weird POV pushing, but I'm thinking an encyclopedia article should at least explain the subject? Delete or fix. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - err, obviously a COI on the offered sources - but something subject to official publications by two national governments are inherently worthwhile. Wily D 12:29, 12 November 2008 (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.