Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North America (Americas)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 delete. Despite the massive amount of argumentless keep votes (which hold no weight as AFD is not a ballot), the concern of the nomination (verifiability) was not addressed. This article is a POV fork, and no relevant, reliable sources or any other material were presented that could make this not a POV fork. --Coredesat 03:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North America (Americas)

[edit]
North America (Americas) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Point-of-view fork of North America (which is well sourced), confusing the topic. As well, the sources listed don't generally support the content: the English Encarta reference[1] indicates that North America is a continent which is also comprised of Greenland, Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, and Bermuda and then goes on to indicate that it sometimes includes the region of Central America and the West Indies; the Spanish version[2] may indicate it is instead a subcontinent with the same constituents. The Crystal reference[3] indicates too that it is a continent that also includes the West Indies. (Throughout, Canada, the United States, and Mexico are included.) Article content (even if one believes that there are other continental models) may be added or carried over to North America, where the creation of this article was neither discussed nor consensually agreed to, but I do not believe there is anything not already at North America or cannot be. Corticopia 10:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: POV FORK page states that:
"POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus."
This is not POV forking about North America, since the article was not created based in a disagreement in that article. As a fact, the article North America has no debate going on. This article was created to provide a link for the Template:Regions of the world that had a link to North America (as a continent). North America (continent) and North America as a region/subcontinent are two different concepts. North America as a region/subcontinent is a valid term used in Latin America, parts of Europe (including Italy, Germany, Portugal, Spain) and Asia, under the single American continent geographical model.
This page should not be deleted because it deserves an article on its own, just as Middle America (Americas), another region of NORTH AMERICA has its own. Middle America/North America are also regions within the Americas and both in the North American continent.
About the sources, this is a new article (just 2 days old) and I was working on it, it was not completed yet. I have added more sources now, as the AfD tag indicates I can improve the article. If this was the case for nomination, then you should have asked for more sources, not nominate it for AfD. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 18:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above and below: of course it's a fork (regardless of recent additions), and the decision to nominate it well considered and not at all hasty. Nor was this article based on a consensus, since the North America article (as you put it) has 'no debate going on' -- so it isn't based on any agreements, either. While definitions of this and that may vary, I did not agree to the creation of this article. I defer to other comments herein. Corticopia 18:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat, this article was not created because of a disagreement with the current article North America, so it is not POV forking according to its definition, nor it was based in "personal views" since the souces provided clearly indicate the existence of North America as a region. There is a WP policy called Be bold, so I created this article based in that and most importantly, to provide a link in the Template:Regions of the world that had no link to North America as a region, but a link to North America as a continent. This has nothing to do with the article North America.AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 13:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With your phrase "I did not agree to the creation of this article", you want to give the feeling/impression that we were having a disagreement about North America, which is false and very low from you. We never had a disagreement about this theme. In fact, when we were discussing "Middle America (Americas)" and I conceded, we both agreed that there are several geographical models applied to the Americas.AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 18:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion -- what else would you call this but a disagreement? Read the very content you added about forking above. There may be other models, but that doesn't mean creating a fork is at all a way to deal with the topic. I may believe that North America is part of the American continent (particularly if you heed the Olympics), but North America should be updated instead. Middle America is well-sourced (hell, pull out a dictionary) and different. I will not respond to other notions in your prior comment. Corticopia 18:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As well, AC's recent source additions do not validate the article. In the Broadband reference (emphasis mine), for example, it notes "considerable variation [in networks] between the three major countries comprising North America: Canada, Mexico, and the USA." Read: major (in population, area, economy), while not discussing the minor ones that are also part of the continent. Corticopia 18:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When NA is defined as a region, it sometimes includes St. Pierre and Bermuda, as clearly indicated in this article. However, it is very important to note that the title of the study mention REGIONAL and it only comprises US, Can and Mex, proving that NA is also a region. However, there are more important references listed! AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 19:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This proves nothing: the title notes both 'regional' and 'country' and, as above, the content notes the continent. And you still have not reputably sourced when it IS defined specifically as a region -- if it is as you say, it shouldn't be difficult to cite. And this can still be incorporated into the bona fide article Again, straw man arguments don't justify this fork. Corticopia 19:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as nominator. Corticopia 10:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnecessary duplication of the North America article. 23skidoo 12:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is enough evidence about the existing North American region/subcontinent in the geographic model that divides the Americas in North, Central, Caribbean and South. In the same way the article Middle America (meaning Mexico, CA and the Caribbean, parts of the North American contient) is based in the model Northern, Middle and South (and strongly supported by Corticopia). Corticopia's nomination seems to me like the real POV forking, in what I would call a campaing against this model, please see Talk:Mexico, Americas (terminology), Middle America. Also, the Template:Regions of the world lacked an article about the North American region, instead it wrongly had a link to North America, a continent. There is a particular Template:Continents of the world. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 14:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Other than being a veiled ad hominem argument, there is a key difference -- the content regarding the sub/regions of Northern America (which is not merely a UN construct; see article) and Middle America are well sourced, while that of the 'region' of North America isn't. This doesn't deny other continental models, but no sources have been provided that clearly delineate what the model upon which the nominated article is based. Corticopia 13:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: so basicly I think you were hasty by nominating this article for deletion, since, according to you, it only "lacks references" but this doesn't "deny other continental models" (North America as a region is part of a model). Perhaps a tag about the "lack" of sources would have been enough. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 14:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: not at all hasty -- it is a fork and should be deleted, and/or redirected to North America where the information (based on reputable sources) should live. Corticopia 14:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ugh - this is such a difficult issue. I actually suggested to Corticopia this might be a WP:POVFORK, and I'm still not entirely convinced either way. In a lot of ways, it seems like it, but it's not impossible to argue it's not, and I have not convinced myself which is true.
The real problem here is that America Central is not part of Nortamerica while Central America is part of North America and this a very subtle nuance of translations that gets missed by editors not paying attention to the details. So there's a lot of fighting going on across a few geography articles. Plus, for some reason there's a few Latin American editors who really like Manifest Destiny so they go across articles changing the Americas to America and insisting they're American. Which pisses off that hoser crowd that's actually proud of our national identity eh? So emotions are high and there's one or two shit disturbers about.
Ultimately, encyclopaedias are bad sources. But not unusable ones.
So what we have here is a fork from a very similar but not quite identical article. Does this deserve a split? I have no idea.\
I hate the title - it sucks the sweat off monkeys' balls. But that's not an issue for AfD.
Despite being intimately involved in a lot of the relevent disputes and articles, I'm restricting myself for now to no vote, even though AfD is not a vote. I'd rather have disinterested observers give their opinions - I think I may not see the forest from the trees. WilyD 14:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I honestly think what makes this not a POV fork is that the article was not created to split North America or because of a disagreement with other editors in the article North America. It was created to explain North America as part of another geographic model that consider it a region/subcontinent. Finally, I created the article when I saw the Template:Regions of the world lacked a link to North America as a region. Other regions where there, such as Middle America, the Caribbean, Central America and South America (that doesn't seem to have the same problem as NA). AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 15:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The is absolutely no reason to have two articles on North America. siafu 15:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, puzzling POV fork that serves no useful purpose. Krimpet 15:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge whatever is useful in the article and put it on North America. Alex, just relax and calm down. Sure, there are plenty of websites that backup your claim, but it would not worthwhile to just duplicate an article then add your sources in. What I would suggest is maybe put in a small blurb in North America about this difference of view and why it is so, making a whole article out of it isn't the way to go. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge appropriate content into the North America article. I don't think this debate is as clear-cut as it might appear at first glance - my initial reaction was to say to delete this as unecessary duplication of information, but that is not the case. I understand the issue of there being a geographical entity, the continent North America, and then a distinct geopolitical entity, the region North America (particularly in the context of Latin American politics). However I think the existence of a seperate article lends a lot of confusion to the issue, and it would best be served by some discussion in the main article rather than creating an inherently POV fork. Arkyan 16:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There can be no confussion, that is what I also created the article North America (disambiguation). AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 16:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can you outright dismiss concerns regarding confusion? The article itself states Using this geographical model ... with absolutely no attempt to explain which geographical model "this" refers to. The overwhelming consensus in the world is that the term North America refers to a continent as described in the North America article. The issue of there existing an alternative, minority definiton of the term warrants inclusion in the North America article, but not a standalone entry of its own. Arkyan 16:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you check the interwikis of North America, you can see the world using North America as a whole continent AND/OR using North America as a region which includes just Canada, United States, Mexico, Greenland, Bermuda and St. Pierre and Miquelon. JC 2 March 2007, 10:16 (PST)
Comment: And in recent edits to the 'Regions of the World' template, the link to the continent was previously replaced with the one to the region/fork (while retaining South America), as if the continent is not a region in and of itself. If this isn't proof positive of forking/POV-pushing, I don't know what is. Corticopia 18:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: South America is a continent (two continent model) and a subcontinent/region of America (single continent model). South America doesn't need to have 2 separate articles as North America does (continent and region), because in both geographical models, South America comprises the SAME area. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 18:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no need for separate articles, and the creation of a fork signals either an inability to incorporate content in that article and compromise and, since there has been no recent discussion on that talk page (as you say), an attempt to confuse and conflate the issue. Again, it's a fork, plain and simple -- right intent, wrong method. And that's it. Corticopia 18:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They are evidences in English to support the existence of the North American region/subcontinent. JC 2 March 2007, 10:08 (PST)
    • Then by all means present them. That aside, even if there are "evidences", this does not provide any justification for forking the article-- it is information that can and should be included in the main article on North America. siafu 20:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.--Umedard Talk 05:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One thing is NA as a continent and another very different is NA as a region, Wikipedia already has the first article I mentioned but it doesn't have the second one, therefore it is not a duplicate, instead it is a whole different article about a whole different thing, one is about the Continent and the other is about the Region. AlexCovarruvias, has given consistent evidence supporting the existence of such region and the integration and interaction between Mex, Can and US. Supaman89 20:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well first of all the continent and the region are not "a whole different thing." The differences are minimal can w/o a problem be mentioned in the North America article. Signaturebrendel 19:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - while I still feel that this article should be merged into North America per my previous comments, I have to say that IF the consensus on this does end up going toward a keep, I would suggest a move to either North America (region) (preferable) or North America (subcontinent) (acceptible) as being more consistent with the spirit of disambiguation than the current title. Again, let me reiterate that I am NOT endorsing this article for inclusion - I feel the information is best handled in the main NA article - but should it be kept it really needs a new name. Arkyan 20:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC) edit Apparently North America (region) redirects to this article - the other way around makes more sense. Arkyan 20:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Ricardo Ramírez 21:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - This page is being spammed at es.wiki: list example. (I do not know your policies, maybe this message is unsuitable here). Chabacano 22:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the page hasn't been spammed, El_bart089, was simply asking to users in the Spanish wikipedia, to give their opinion into this discussion. Supaman89 22:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the above cited example example very clearly asks the user in question to come to this debate and vote keep so long as they have an English language wiki account and edit history. It says nothing at all about asking for an opinion - it's a request for a specific vote. If that's not WP:CANVASSING, I don't know what is. Arkyan 22:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per Arkyan ... and, of course, the account was created today in what is arguably an attempt to stack the poll. An uninvolved administrator needs to get involved here. Corticopia 22:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, a little bit of investigating shows that Supaman89 and El_bart089 are the same person. Arkyan 22:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You wish. I only asked some of my fellow editors of Wikipedia for their support in this case if they also happen to be active colaborators in this project. I have the same username in all the projects I colaborate with. I don't know who that other user is. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 00:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, now I know who that other user is, Supaman. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 00:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree that North America is a subcontinent of America, the same as Central and South America. In my opinion, the word Americas is kind of confusing and does not reflect what everyone knows about the existence of only five continents in the world (without considering Antartica). History facts reveal the discovery of one sole continent, America. Besides, that happened in La Espaniola, Dominican Republic. We have also been informed of a most archaic term for America; the West Indies (or Indias Occidentales in Spanish). This applies to everyone and most importantly, everywhere. Cultural differences, however, have contributed to the separation of the continent once known as America. For instance, when most of southern United States was under Spanish and Mexican power and control, America still remained being the common usage among the people of this present area. We also make differences between Latin and Anglo-Saxon America, but, we must keep in mind that those terms comprehend a cultural ending, not geographical. Americas, in this sense, refers only to those regions of America that are separated by different types of things, such as language, economic development, culture, traditions, races, and society. In conclusion, I agree that North America should not be mistaken for a continent, when history, and geography do not do so. The same happens when we separate Europe into Western and Eastern Europe, which does not mean that they ought to be considered as two separate continents, for the same reasons explained above. Nevertheless, my advice is to correct the already existent article, by putting subcontinemt instead of continent, and delete the present one or, ultimately, join both articles and make one out of them. --Gustave - May I help you? 23:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC) PS: I'll copy and paste this message in North America article.[reply]
  • Comment - Corticopia, are you insinuating that AlexCovarruvias and I are the same person?, I just created El_bart089 account, because I didn't have one in the Spanish wikipedia, and I needed to talk to Spanish-speaking users to explained the situation, and ask them to support me if they felt like doing so, so this discussion wouldn't be influenced only by English-speaking users' point of view.
Anyhow, I'll repeat what I said in my previous comment:
"One thing is NA as a continent and another very different is NA as a region, Wikipedia already has the first article that I mentioned but it doesn't have the second one, therefore it is not a duplicate, instead it is a whole different article about a whole different thing, one is about the Continent and the other is about the Region. AlexCovarruvias, has given consistent evidence supporting the existence of such region and the integration and interaction between Mex, Can and US. Supaman89 23:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Editors can make whatever conclusion they wish, particularly in light of the explicit canvassing of 'keep' votes elsewhere. Administrators will be notified; otherwise, I defer to my prior comments: once a fork ...Corticopia 00:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - contains no useful material that could not be merged into North America, and appears to simply advance one POV in an academic argument. Also, the WP:CANVASS violations are really offensive, and degrade the Encyclopedia. Anyone engaging in such practices should be ashamed. --Haemo 00:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Frank --> (Opinión) 00:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with contingencies: it should be renamed "North America (Region)", and North America should be renamed "North America (Continent)". It should also be re-written because it's really confusing as it is now. If these conditions can't be met, then I vote delete. --MPD T / C 01:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MPD01605, though if said conditions are not met, merge as a separate section in NA. JackSparrow Ninja 01:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, simple POV fork. --tjstrf talk 01:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Look people is as simple as this, we all know that there is a North American Region as well as a North American Continent, Wikipedia already has an article about the Continent, but it still needs an article about the region, so I don't really see why some users think we should delete it, some of them assume that it is just a duplicate, but as I explained before it's not, it's a whole different thing, it's like proposing to delete the Western Europe article, just because some Europeans think that is irrelevant to create a article about that Region. Supaman89 02:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the article is not clear enough on what you're talking about. If it were, it wouldn't be up for deletion. It's very confusing, and took me about ten minutes to figure out what the difference is. It's also poorly titled, as I stated a few lines above. It makes it seem as if you're referring to the North America in the Americas as opposed to the North America in Eurasia. The problem is that the article is very short, and needs to be beefed up. It makes sense that there are two main regions of North America: Central America and Mexico-north. So an article on North America (Region) is expected. Unfortunately, you can't put a lot of information in NA(A) that isn't already in NA, as that would make it seem more of a fork. Unlike Central America or Western Europe, which all have significant regional histories and specific qualities, NA(A) doesn't have anything that isn't already added into NA or the country articles. If there is something that truly makes NA(A) stand out from North America, add it to the article and prove me wrong. --MPD T / C 02:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually, it may not be so simple. As proof-positive of the agenda behind this article, let's not forget that there is a strong argument for a 'region' of the Americas entitled North America that includes just Canada and the United States (akin to Anglo-America or Northern America) -- as opposed to Latin America -- which are bound by history, language, culture, economy, military, etc. Even if I were to believe that (and a number of sources do indicate that), though, such notions should be added to North America -- actually, they already are. Corticopia 06:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: maybe we should keep this article...User:Envidia --
  • Redirect There's really nothing there. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Not to deleted but to combined with the first article with the same name North America. --Joseph Solis in Australia 06:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, relevant information should be on North America. CenozoicEra 06:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 15:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing here that can't be adequately covered in North America and other articles. The duplication will cause needless confusion in an already confusing area. At the very least, the article should be renamed to something like North America (region). older ≠ wiser 15:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since this article was considered for deletion, the author AlexCovarruvias couldn't finish it, he was still working on it, and I'm gonna say it once again, the North American Region has nothing to do with the North American Continent, just as Western Europe has nothing to do with the rest of Europe, they're different articles, or would you support the idea of merging Western Europe into the Europe Article?? or even worst to delete it?. Supaman89 17:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEPthis article has correct information User:Envidia, 20:12, 3 March 2007.
    • Yes it has some correct info in it but is not needed by itself. All the "correct information" here can be mentioned in the North America article. Signaturebrendel 19:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment User:Envidia also commented to [maybe] 'keep' this article a few lines above. Corticopia 22:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're really pathetic, first you move Envidia's VOTE (Why? only you know...) and now you try to invalidate it. Or what is the purpose of your comment? One thing was Envidia's comment (maybe he didn't decide his vote yet) and then another thing is his vote. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 23:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Because, amidst all of this text and users who excessively comment, it may be difficult for an editor or admin to discern Envidia's 'Comment' from their vote lines below. And 'flattery' will get you absolutely nowhere, and will not be indulged. Keep up the good work. Corticopia 23:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The question is, do you know what flattery is? Because you're the one that always use personal attacks/profanity as stated here. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 14:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No comment regarding continued ad hominem arguments/edits. Corticopia 14:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Supaman89's comment. I also agree with the renamings proposed by MPD01605. 24.107.194.216 19:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: anonymous IP, started editing on 26 January 2007. Corticopia 22:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No vote. Due to the canvassing of !voters for this AFD on external sites, I have semiprotected this discussion. If you are an editor with a very new account then you may voice your opinion on the talk page of this discussion. Neil (not Proto ►) 21:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Of course we have to rename the article, but just because it is wrong-named, doesn't mean that we have to delete it, I'm also aware that there are a couple of mistakes in the article, but they can't be fixed cuz it's protected, anyhow, coming back to the same example that just mentioned in my previous comment, do you think we should select the Western Europe Article, for deletion, or merge it within the Europe article?? or is it that some users just don't like the idea of having a North American Region in Wikipedia?, and about me, bringing user to from the Spanish Wikipedia to collaborate in this discussion, I already explained that was because I don't want it to be influenced only by English-speaking users. Supaman89 23:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, the article can still be edited and enhanced by registered users. Corticopia 23:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, any confusion between continent, region, whatever can be handled on North America. If we want an article on the geological continent, we have that. But this article isn't about that dichotomy, I just wanted to point that out. I see no reason why this exists. At the very least, the name is atrocious. --Golbez 00:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I disagree that this is a POV fork, but anything in this article should be discussed in North America -- we don't need two articles on topic -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 01:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article and North America (disambiguation) as they are indeed forks. This article duplicates information already found on other pages (see North_America#Usage_of_the_term, Americas (terminology), and Americas#Usage,) and seems to provide no new information. Some people consider the Americas to be one continent, and some consider them to be two, and the North America article talks about both points of view. How many articles do we need on this subject? Confiteordeo 01:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article is clearly about the "North America" region and not about the entire continent. It is rather well sourced as well. Cavenba 02:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, is there a difference. The maps on the this article indicate that it is talking about the same geo-political concept as the North America article. Second, even if this article was to talk about a "sub-region" or alternative definition of North America, such ought to be mentioned in the North America article. Signaturebrendel 19:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is nothing here that could not be included at North America. If it stays, the name has to be changed, and somebody should explain why a topic with so much overlap is necessary. - Cafemusique 02:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per above and what is the point of having this article? There is a North America article and really no need for this one. Signaturebrendel 07:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: there is a difference between a place's geography (countries, continental plates, etc.) and its social sciences aspect. i.e. what makes it a region such as interconnected economies, histories, cultures, etc. by virtue of its geography, not the physical geography itself. I agree with the notion that it should be renamed as 'North America (region)'. At a very minimum, it should be merged, but I favour 'keep'. It is a little light on information right now, but as already noted in another comment, the article is quite new. Let it evolve a bit more while keeping an eye on it to make sure there is no unreasonable overlap with the geography oriented article that already exists.

Theshowmecanuck 16:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • The sociological aspects of North America can without a problem be mentioned in the North America article. Also the "social science aspect" of life in North America are covered in many articles, as there is no unified North American culture. Again, there is no need for a seperate article. Signaturebrendel 18:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can answer the question about this being a POV FORK. There was no dispute on the page North America, but this does clearly stem from a dispute on the page Central America, on which there was heavy dispute between AlexCovarrubias and Corticopia on the subject of what is considered Central America, balancing popular perceptions, geographical definitions, and political constructs. In a way, that debate has spilled out into this. I have to say that this page, although perhaps unintentionally so, functions as a POV Fork, as it is based on general disagreements about the handling of pages on multinational regions with complex definitions. I think it's clear that North America is one concept, one idea, one article, with multiple definitions that must be resolved within a single article. To do otherwise would be confusing and a disservice to anyone trying to use either article for research. Who, after all, thinks of North America in two separate ways? Who says, "no, I meant North America the continent, not the region." It's one thing to be thorough, but it's another to overcomplicate a subject to the point of confusing readers. Feeeshboy 16:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:You're wrong. The debate in Central America was not the inclusion of Mexico in the region (we know that physiographically/geollogically a southeastern portion of Mexico is in CA), but the inclusion of all the definitions in a very NPOV wording. That debate ended days (if not weeks) ago, and the result was the inclusion of all the terms in the usage section. I only created this page to provide a link in the Template:Regions of the world, in which "North America" linked to the continent, instead of the region. That's all. This page should not be deleted because it deserves an article on its own, just as Middle America (Americas), another region of NORTH AMERICA has its own. Middle America/North America are also regions within the Americas and both in the North American continent.AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 17:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, I think he's nailed it. All things are not equal: please note that Middle America (Americas) -- with a number of reputable citations to specific definitions about the region that it is a region -- rarely includes Colombia and Venezuela too. As well, it is not to be confused with Mesoamerica (generally, culture region within 'MA') or Middle America (region, constituency) in the US separate of the others -- all of which are not generally synonymous. Anyhow, these are dealt with elsewhere (e.g., Americas (terminology) etc.) too. This article implies that the there is a fundamental difference between the continent and the 'region' that may already be addressed or can be expanded upon in the North America article (e.g., usage section, etc.), if needed. This article promotes the very confusion it may be intended to clarify. Corticopia 17:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per nom. -- Jeff3000 16:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I agree with User:Arkyan. Anything like this could be covered in the North America article until there is sufficient evidence and support from other Wikipedia users to create an article like this again, if at all, with a name like North American (region) or something similar. Disinclination 18:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; confusion: how many "Americas" articles are there? It's getting really confusing for me to know what the difference between any of them are, and the naming is horrendous. North America is a continent, but in that there is Central America, of which there is also Middle America which is the same place, then there's North America which doesn't include Central America, and then there's the United States and Canada which are also North America, and within the United States there is also a Middle America? Is there a Northern North America, too? Is it Canada, Greenland, and SteP&M? I'm changing my vote (see right below) --MPD T / C 20:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Too many articles covering too many things separating too many other articles into a big confusing mess. All of this should be in a central location (e.g. North America) so that any confusion can be hashed out. Central America is fine as it is. Western Europe is fine as it is. But both North America (Americas) and Middle America (Americas) should be merged into North America (and/or South America, whatever). --MPD T / C 20:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a duplicate article.--Jersey Devil 21:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How many times do I have to explain that it is not a duplicate, let's keep things simple, there's a continent called North America, that same continent is sub-divided into different regions, (Central, Northern, Middle, etc.) each of those regions have articles on their own, so why is it that the North American Region shouldn't have his own article as well??, some users say that we should merge it, then do you think we should merge all the other regions that I mentioned before within the North America article?? --Supaman89 22:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Language matters. The other regions of North America have different names. It would be one thing to have an article called Northern North America, if people used that term, but no one does. The difference between North America (as a region consisting of the US, Canada, and Mexico) and Central America/Middle America is that the latter two aren't also the names of something else. What you're saying is that there should be a page for North America, as defined as a region of North America. Wouldn't it just be easier for there to be one page that states that "North America" is a term used to mean both a continent and a region consisting of the vast majority of that continent? If there is in total too much content for one page, then I could see a case for separate pages, but it would be easy to merge in all of the unique content of this article. Feeeshboy 22:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Let me tell you why, because when you go to the Regions of the world template, you see that there are 3 options for the Americas, one is North, one is Central and the last one is South, so when you go to central or south, everything’s fine, but when you choose North, it sends you to the continent, not to the region, because we don't have an article for the North American Region... well, I mean, now we do, but we won't if we delete it. Supaman89 23:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Your reasoning makes sense, but I don't think we should be creating articles purely on the basis of a scheme created by other articles. If you reach North America (the continent article) when you clicked on a link to a region, the continent page should definitely explain the use of the term as both a region and a continent, but I'm fine with that explanation, rather than an article that says "North America is a region of the continent North America." Feeeshboy 23:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, there are now eight major regions in the 'region' template pertaining to the Americas (all not mutually exclusive, and appropriate since it's plural): North America, South America, Middle America, Central America, Northern America ('northern' North America), Anglo-America, Latin America, and the Caribbean. There is a useful article (well) at Americas (terminology), with definitions and maps to clarify. As well, I compel anyone to produce a definition (from a common compendium like an encyclopedia, for example) of North America as a region -- you likely won't find one because they invariably refer to it as a continent or maybe a subcontinent. Corticopia 02:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Puh-lease; so there's more than one view as to what constitutes North America. Fine, I can buy lots of arguments as plausible. Put them all in one article ferevvin's sake. Note: the same could be true for Europe/Asia (or are these really 2 continents) etc. We cannot have multiple articles of each continent pushing its own view as to what's in or what's out. Carlossuarez46 00:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No one is saying that we're gonna have "multiple articles of each continent", basically, the problem here seems to be that both articles have the same name "North America", despite of the fact that they're totally different things; there are lots of places that have the same name, throughout the world (i.e. London, EN. and London, CA), but it doesn't mean that we're gonna merge them together just because they have the same name right?
This article wasn't created on the basis of the other article (regions of the world), that was just an example, we all know that there's a region called North America, and I think it deserves an article on its own, just as Middle or Central America, had their own, the only difference here is that this region shares it's name with the continent it is located on, but that's why there is the "disambiguation" Example. Supaman89 01:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a fork, period/full stop. Alternate/differing views of what is covered by the phrase "North America" belong in one place, at (wait for it) North America. --Calton | Talk 09:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete: I don’t think that there should be a North America (Region) article because I don't Think that there should be and article about Countries That Have Green In Their Flags. There should not be articles about arbitrary regions that incluse arbitrary countries with no similarities. And Mexico have little to do with US, beside its borders. There was an old division of the American continent that was thought in Brazilian schools with North America as Canada, Mexico and US. But nobody see this division been used anymore. The problem that I saw here is that people think that North America is the parallel to Latin America. The most correct way to divide America is the cultural division and should be Latin America (countries with Latin traditions or more specific iberic traditions) and Anglo-Saxonic America (countries with British traditions). The other way to split America is (or better saying, used to be) South America (with everything below Panama), North America (Canada, US and Mexico), Central America (with everything between Panama, including, and Mexico, excluding) and Caribbean (with every isle in the Mexico Gulf that does not belong to another country). The current concept of North America (as a synonym to Anglo-Saxonic America) came to simplify the term and with a discordance of Canada, that would prefer that it was called, Franco-Anglo-Saxonic America (and making this tradition interesting because France is also a Latin country), and making things even harder. So to make things easier to say, they call the Angle-Saxonic America, North America. The fact is that nowadays the world recognize two Americas, Latin America, including all countries of Spanish or Portuguese traditions (know to be a poorer America), and North America, that include Canada and US (marked by well developed countries). Truth is that Mexico have more to do with their Latin countries than with US. The entire Nafta concept is pointless in this discussion since it was created to flood Mexico with American products, increase the American influence in Mexico (collaterally sinking Mexico in deeper poverty) and have no cultural support. I think there could be a topic on the North America article about the old (geographic) division, like in a history topic, but creating a new article about it, is an overshot for a term that is no longer used. I think that there might be a national interest in Mexico to be seen closer to US, but political issues should not reflect in the Wikipedia content, by giving more importance to a subject than it should. Alvaroludolf 12:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue, of course, is that in English (the language, not the culture) when you divide the Americas by geography, you get North America and South America, and when you divide it by culture, you get Latin America and North America ... herein lies the problem... WilyD 15:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you read the references in this article. The argument that America as a single continent "was" a model not currently in use is false. It is currently still being taught (Latin America, some parts of Europe and Asia). Also there are several ways of dividing the Americas, geographic terms, geophysical terms, geopolitical terms and cultural terms. North America as a region/subcontinent is part of the single American continent, a valid and current term. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 15:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I live in Brazil. No geographical division here are thought on geography classes (beside a quick note on the history of america, maybe), people on the streets might still talk about the old way but the press, new books and quality materials all talk about latin america because it makes more sense to divide Ameria this way. I still think that the old geographical division are in use in Mexico only to force a detachment to the rest of the Latin America. But this is my POV. Alvaroludolf 17:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant to North America. Merge any content not present in the latter.--Húsönd 15:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit break 1

[edit]
  • Keep, as per various editors, SqueakBox 16:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are lots of different ways of dividing America, each one is used for different purposes, the 3 most common ones are:

Linguistically:

Continentally:

Regionally:

All of the above have their own article, I don't see why the North American Region shouldn't have his own as well. Supaman89 02:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment let me again point out that North America is the only thing you've listed as two separate things that have the same name.
Furthermore, let me point out that this discussion has gone on too long and the entire premise is silly. Feeeshboy 02:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, South America is in fact listed twice as well. --theDúnadan 19:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And to my knowledge, there is only one article for South America. Feeeshboy 00:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The concept here has been distinguished from the other use of "North America". I think there may be an element of cultural perspective at work here, although I can't say for sure. The article can be improved by providing sources that discuss the concept directly instead of serve as examples of sites using the concept. I am certain such citations exist. I think AlexC is capable and motivated to continue to improve this article. Edivorce 03:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a text book Merge. This is well done, but belongs in the main article about the continent. Just Heditor review 19:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep I agree with Alex,this article is not a POV, this article is just showing another meaning of "North America". Mexxxicano 21:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I think all this matter is fault of political attributions that began centuries ago. And the responsible are the USA calling themselves "Americans" or "North Americans". However, their own division of North America caused the addition of northern countries to it and therefore causing an economic change as that of South America. Also I agree with Lancini87.--Fluence 00:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no offence to the editors, but the article does in part read like a fork. For instance, "single continent model is taught in almost every non-english-speaking nation", which is unsourced and conflicts with the continent article. More to the point, I'm not convinced the existing North America could not be structured to cover the varying usages of the term, or exactly what unique content could eventually be added to justify a separate article. - David Oberst 00:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whether North America is a continent or half of a continent, an article already exists on the topic Alcuin 01:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why is people here always trying to erasse other's work?? This page has enough value to be kept Lefairh 19:17 pm, 8 March 2007
  • Merge I find it usefull. And... I see a bit of heat in some of the comments written so far. We should be discussing here with facts and proven issues, not opinions. The thing is this: The Spanish speakers (or as t has become custom to call us: "latinos") have always been told that geographically, Mexico is part of North America. (Please... look at a map). No only us Spanish speakers in Latin America, but non Spanish speakers in Europe, Asian... Wow... now that I think about it, its probably just the USA (and possibly Canada) the only countries stating that Mexico isn't part of North America geographically speaking! We as Mexicans (I am a Mexican) do not eagerly await to detach ourselves from Latin America. The thing is... Latin America is a linguistic division, not a geographical division. Get it? We aren't talking about races, religion, ways of living, or languages... we are talking about geography! Therefore, by looking at a map, you might see that if you cut in half the entire continent of America, you might see that Mexico ends up in the same half as the USA and Canada. As wikipedians it is our duty to discuss matters not from points of view, but from stated facts. Really. We ought to stand higher than this. I say: use what's relevant and usefull from both articles and make a really good article about North America (including the fact that most of the world thinks Mexico is part of it). --Valdezlopez 02:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Valdez Lopez[reply]
  • Comment Who says that Mexico is not part of North America? So far as I know, schools in the US teach that it is. Also, comments like those by Fluence really illustrate what a POV fork this article can be if left separate. Feeeshboy 03:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Geographically, nobody. But what's called Anglo-America here is often called North America in casual speech. WilyD 14:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: You're right, that's why in the disambiguation page that I created for North America (disambiguation), I included the usage of the term "North America" meaning Can+US. As I repeatedly say, I did not create this article based in a disagreement, this is not a POV forking. Jesus, please read the definition of POV Forking in Wikipedia policies! AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 15:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment AC, please remember that you persistently/previously removed cited information in the 'North America' article which directly supported the NA=Canada+US assertion, and (despite references) IMO have only thrown it into this article as an aside. The introduction still reads like a subjective assessment of what the 'region' of North America is: i.e., what is there to support the 'traditional' definition as including just the countries listed, and not just the two? And there's no reason, Jesus, why this information shouldn't reside in North America (or be enhanced, since it is already there) instead of in what remains a fork. Corticopia 15:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: Again, you're using your vague language in order to confuse what really happened. I did not erase information about NA meaning the US+Can (as in denying such a region exists). Such a reference has always been there since the article was created. The real problem was that YOU included irrelevant information about Central and South America, in the section "Usage of NA". So, I shortened your reference because, again, it included information that was not about the usage of the term "North America", but about Central America and South America, information that logically didn't belong there [4]. Finally, that information about C and S America was deleted, because of the debate in the talk page [5]. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 15:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment Through vagaries and obfuscation, your first (without comment) removed this information and then you removed the citation information, after claiming to have checked it ... like it wasn't valid even without the citation. It was later pruned to suit your perspective. How is including usage information about the Americas irrelevant? And you further demonstrate in why this article is a fork, since you are either unwilling or unable to embrace these various points of view where they belong: North America. That's all. Corticopia 15:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment: Again, trying to give the false impression. I was not the only one saying that Fowler's was not enough reference to beat the multiple others, [6]. Your edits were not made to clarify the use of North America (meaning US+Can), because that information was already there and sourced, by the way, with a reference to Fowler's. Your edits only included irrelevant information about Central America and South America, in a "Usage of NORTH AMERICA" subarticle. And most importantly, this article was not created as a result of that "debate" nor the result of another "disagreement" as you falsely try to give the impression of. This article was created to provide a link to North America as a region in the Template:Regions of the world, just as the other regions have separate articles Northern America, Middle America, etc. by the way, both regions of North America. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 15:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Comment The more you comment, the more you are demonstrating why this article is unnecessary. Notions about the usage of the term 'America' (and those constituents of the Americas/North America), obviously, are directly relevant since they go to the heart of this entire discussion/'dispute', which have resulted in this fork. That doesn't allow nor justify the creation of a fork. Corticopia 16:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The more I read this article, the more I find that it is a contradiction in terms. In one sense, it argues that North America is a region consisting of the US, Canada, and Mexico. In another sense, it suggests that some people consider Mexico not to be part of the region. This definition I find dubious and in need of a source. Furthermore, if the US and Canada are to be described as a region, then Anglo-America suffices for this purpose. Finally, in a third and even more confusing sense than the others, this article contends that North America is a region that includes Greenland and Bermuda. I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks of either of those when discussing North America as a region. They're much more in line with the idea of NA as a continent (they sit on the NA tectonic plate). Greenland and Bermuda seem to have been trotted out to justify the article itself, somewhat reminiscent of the coalition of the willing ("You forgot Poland!"). So aside from POV problems, this article is flawed in its failure to clear up the distinction between NA as a region and as a continent. If this article can state that there are multiple ways of looking at North America, why can't the original North America article be tailored to do so? Feeeshboy 16:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue, of course is that when Canada and America are described as a region, North America is the term used, in real life. Realistically, North America the continent is well defined, except around the fringes (for example, whether it includes all of Panada, or just until the canal). North America (the cultural region) really is more poorly defined, so you should expect any article that is free from original research to reflect this confusion. North America the cultural region includes:
  1. America (always)
  2. Canada (almost always)
  3. Bermuda (Rarely explicitly, but usually)
  4. St. Pierre and Mickey (As Bermuda)
  5. Greenland (As Bermuda)
  6. Mexico (less commonly, but still sometimes)
  7. Possibly other places with decreasing likelihood.
You simply can't avoid that you're trying to deal with a poorly defined subject, so your article has to reflect this. The only other option is to engage in a bunch of original research, which is right out. WilyD 16:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:What you are forgetting is that this article is not about the "cultural" region of North America, but about the geographical region/subcontinent of North America. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 16:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's plainly a problem, given that no such thing exists. WilyD 16:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The article info North America and Delete the disambiguation page. All that's needed is a section in North America that states that definitions of the term vary depending on whether its in a geological or a geopolitcal context. Caknuck 16:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistically:

Continentally:

Regionally:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Supaman89 (talk • contribs)

Merge, rename, redirect, disambiguate. Wow. I came across this just randomly checking AfDs. I had no idea there were [insert number here] different concepts of North America. Which, to me, means that an entire article should exist simply to disambiguate these. Perhaps North America (and not North America (disambiguation) itself should be such a disambig page. The lead would state that NA may refer to x under schema q, y under schema r, and z under schema s, and go on to briefly explain schemas q, r, and s. In any case, however, the title North America (Americas) makes absolutely no sense to me, an outsider. I'd never type that into a search box. OscarTheCat3 22:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To 'disambiguate' the various regions/meanings, there is Americas (terminology). Corticopia 22:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Americas (terminology) is an article about the different concepts (geographic, cultural, geopolitical, linguistic) or terms used to divide and study the Americas. I agree with Oscar that we need an article specifically about North America. Also I see that a lot of people complain about the name of the article. Let me say that I chose this name based in Middle America (Americas), in order to preserve similar names for all the regions of the Americas. However, I could be changed, of course. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 22:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that Middle America (Americas) (the mid-region in the Americas) was chosen in preference to Middle America (region) since MA is also a region/constituency in the US Middle America (United States), but nothing is set in stone (compare with Australia, Australia (continent)). Corticopia 23:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for me is a good article. --Battroid 01:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Look at the article for Anglo-America. It succinctly states that the term is used in two different contexts a) Canada and the United States and b) all of the predominantly English-speaking nations. As far as the differing definitions of "North America" and "Central America", Americas (terminology) handles that relatively well. As it stands, North America (Americas) is a needless article because it duplicates information already found at Americas (terminology) and North America. As for the merits of the article, I have serious problems with a WP article whose first cited references are WP articles from other languages.
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/North_America_(Americas)&oldid=1138169026"