Deletion of Stereotypes of Canadians

Comment: Agree that this is essentially . The sources are weak, and with https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/16/hockey-weed-and-taxes-canadian-stereotypes-debunked, we don't need the article at all
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (:WP:IINFO)

Comment: Definitely not |encyclopedic and seems to have been written with quality like that of an elementary school English paper
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTEVERYTHING)

Comment: per nomination. A |strong aroma of |manhandling permeates the premises but |we are not here to present or denounce stereotypes. Subjects are judged on their encyclopaedic merits and their notability. If the subject becomes notable enough in the future it can get a Wikipedia article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COAT||WP:OR||WP:ADVOCACY)

Comment: and I don't see that there is any material that should be merged to  Anti-Canadianism. Unfocused (the taxes and the drugs sections don't even belong in this article, for example) and really poorly sourced. Even if someone can  make a case that  this is a  notable topic I would suggest that this is a case for 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)