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 no consensus. JamieS93 01:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northern United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article violates WP:NOR and WP:NOTOPINION and does not appear to be salvageable or recognized as a region appropriate for treatment on WP other than at most an amalgamation of already covered smaller regions. Hoppingalong (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No: This is a distinct region in American history and politics and notable enough for an article paralleling Southern United States. --JWB (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unlike the articles Northeastern United States and Midwestern United States, this has zero sources. I suppose that the Census Bureau could combine the two to describe a region of 113,479,422 people. I just haven't seen that they've done it. It parallels Southern United States up until the section called "Notes", I guess. Mandsford (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Article may indeed need to be completely re-written, but the subject is certainly suitable for wikipedia. Britannica's equivalent article could be used as a model for improvement. Kmusser (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: In recognition of JWB's and Kmusser's comments, I have significantly shortened the article to mostly remove the essay-like, personal opinion problems. I'm still not convinced that it is a definable region that has a coherent meaning and that would be able to resist the sort of personal opinion material that has plagued it since its creation. I would still delete. Hoppingalong (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge - The Britannica article defines the North's meaning quite coherently. I don't think risk of POV-pushing is a good reason to delete. We could merge to Union (American Civil War) though, since the term is kinda anachronistic. --Explodicle (T/C) 23:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think Explodicle's idea to merge the article into the Union (American Civil War) article is interesting. This certainly makes sense for the phrase "The North." I've edited the disambiguation page for The North to reflect the idea. But I think that Explodicle's comment also highlights the near impossibility in defining this idea in a verifiable way that would allow for consensus. If it is only an anachronism, then redirecting the page and being done with it makes sense. But it appears some people also think the phrase applies to a geographic area today, in which case redirecting the phrase to an historical concept doesn't work as well. Hoppingalong (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I agree that it's anachronistic, but don't think that necessarily changes it's notability. List of regions of the United States contains plenty of historical regions, and "The North" and "The South" were the main cultural divisions of the country for much of it's history. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge but am not sure Union (American Civil War) is a good target as the region pre-dates the war - what would be ideal is if we had a Regions of the United States article to merge it to instead of just the list, sadly I don't have the time to write such a thing though. Kmusser (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not enough information present to even merge with Union (American Civil War). The current sources do not assert notability as a distinct region of the United States. Narthring (talk • contribs) 04:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Encyclopaedia Britannica has an article name "the North", which means Northern United States.--RekishiEJ (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the Encyclopaedia Britannica article titled "the North (region, United States)" seems to carry so much weight with some editors (with its focus on historical uses of the term), would one way to go be to do the following? Move the page to The North (United States) and then make it a diambiguation page noting that "The North" can be an anachranism referring to the Union (American Civil War) but can also possibly refer to one or more of the U.S. Census Bureau-designated Regions or the states making up those regions, other than and generally in comparison to the South. Hoppingalong (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but fix. This is a complementary article to Southern United States which is still relevant and rather well-known. Explain that "The North" is seen as a contrast to the South at the time and use a map to indicate what reliable sources show would be included. Explain how the idea of the North used to be quite relevant but has largely become meaningless for various reasons whereas the South continues to be seem as somewhat homogenous. A good article is here but we can't, as nom states, invent ideas of what is currently meant - keep to the historical references and why the concept was used and when it generally went out of use. -- Banjeboi 21:42, 30 October 2009 (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.