Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwest Territorial Imperative
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 was keep. postdlf (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Northwest Territorial Imperative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG Transcendence (talk) 06:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Coverage in books are a little on the brief side, but there a quite a few of them covering this concept. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] are just some I found. -- Whpq (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've looked through these sources. They don't seem to be about the topic "Northwest Territorial Imperative", but rather just mention it. Per WP:GNG, ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail". If I'm mistaken in my characterization of these sources, please point out which one describes the "Northwest Territorial Imperative" in detail. Transcendence (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- [8] covers the concept in pp112-114. But the the other shorter items aren't brief mentions. The inidividual items are small, but the coverage comes from a wide variety of sources. The above is just a sample of what could be found as I simply stopped looking. -- Whpq (talk) 10:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined toward Keep. There are a couple of sources in the Google News archives (one in English, one in Spanish I haven't yet delved into) that look promising. I'll look up old Oregonian stories later today too and see what I can find. -Pete (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep: there are academic journal articles that focus on this topic. -Pete (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2013 (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.