Deletion of Comparison of Australian and New Zealand governments

Comment: As wonderful as these articles are (or may be) they are riginal research. An encyclopedia's job is to give information not make comparisons. There are other venues for that. WP would not have articles comparing French food to Italian food, J.R.R. Tolkien to Rudyard Kipling, the Ford Mustang to the Chevy Camaro, etc.  That's the job of other venues, especially magazines and blogs
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Orphan (WP:O)

Comment: and unbundle for a relist if required. All three pages are on encyclopaedic topics but with major issues in the execution. However, the sourcing differs between them as does the content. Simply not suitable for a bundled nomination. I would add that Comparison of Canadian and United States governments is well-referenced. No indication that  has been followed. No attempt has been made to clean up nor has consideration been given to merging as a section in the relevant 'relations' article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: because they violate  and . A neat idea, perhaps, but not what we're here for. Also very much a slippery slope: Comparison of Malawi and Ecuador, Comparison of Calcutta and Tipperary, etc. That the differences between these pairs are interesting and have attracted scholarly mention is true, but these are far more logically discussed at Culture of Canada, Canadian identity, Politics of New Zealand, and a slew of other articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:OR)