Deletion of Premiership of Stephen Harper

Comment: or '''redirect''' (facts that are actually notable can be rescued from the history of the article) Puff pieces with lots of unnecessary detail (a political application of ?). Gossip, putting together primary sources to make blow-by-blow accounts
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:TRIVIA)

Comment: These are absolutely notable topics. The problems here are not so insurmountable as to prevent cleanup and compliance with the requirements of . If the articles were new, and no NPOV version existed, I'd say delete and start fresh - but here we have more than four years of history to work with. If the entire recent history is unsuitable, fine - revert back to a good clean version and work forward. But deletion is overkill
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: per Nyttend and MickMacNee. As noted above, it is standard coverage to have articles on the policies and tenures of national leaders and their administrations/ministries/governments. The SPAM and Canadian election law complaints are completely ludicrous, and the tone of many of the delete !voters is wholly inappropriate and smacks of a dislike for Harper rather than any valid editorial judgment. An election is coming up, so therefore we should have ''less'' coverage of what the officials running for office did or wanted/tried to do when they were in power? That's utter rubbish. If these articles are POV or "soapboxes," obviously that is to be cured through normal editing, though it seems like at least some of that criticism comes from the simple fact of reporting what the stated policy of the Harper government is/was rather than these articles presenting a one-sided evaluation in favor of those policies' effectiveness. When I look at Environmental policy of the Harper government, for example, I see that Harper and the Conservatives were critical of, and eventually abandoned, the Kyoto Accord; there are statements attributed to Harper re: the Accord which are not treated as correct or better policies than the Opposition's, but simply presented as what he said and what the government subsequently did, in a manner that seems fairly neutral to me, not a "puff piece." One of the worst arguments above (and one of the worst that I have ever seen in an AFD) is that these are "directories of tory/Harper policy". I don't know what a "policy directory" is supposed to be exactly (apparently a really tortured attempt to appeal to ), but why the hell wouldn't we want an article describing what a government or political party's policies are? Particularly where it's from a major developed country whose government and laws are the subject of significant coverage and commentary. Re: the "Harper government branding" complaint, that is at best an argument for retitling the articles, if it is in fact incorrect for a Canadian government to be labeled by its presiding prime minister in the same way that we would say the Obama administration, but I haven't seen any alternate proposals for what these should be called. But I don't see any challenge to what seems to me the obvious fact that policies will change from one government/administration/ministry/whatever to another, which is why it makes sense to have separate articles like this
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR)

Comment: we do not delete sourced, non-neutral articles - we fix them according to .  also doesn't justify a delete - this would preclude articles on these subjects from being created for any government.  Finally, it's not up to us to speculate if an article can exist "legally" - contact the http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Contact_us Wikimedia Foundation if you have concerns
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST)