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.
Poorly sourced, seems to be a "hub" article for information about supranational unions that happen to coincide with continents (which are a relative concept anyway). A Google search reveals very few reliable sources for the term "continental union". Qzekrom💬theythem16:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep: Used within journalism, e.g.
Reuters. Used in scholarly sources, e.g.
article from the Brooklyn Journal of International Law and the aforementioned article. Most interestingly, the term was also used widely during early proposals for a
North American Union as early as 1861 (when
Stephen A. Douglas wrote his article about union with Cuba, Mexico, and Central American states that was only published posthumously) with the following sources that could certainly be used to flesh out a history section both in this article and in the NAU article:
Douglas, Stephen A. (1889). Cutts, James Madison (ed.). An American continental commercial union or alliance. Washington, D.C.: T. McGill & co., printers. (
Cornell Library link)
Continental Union Club (1891). Canada's future! : political union with the U.S. desirable : a plain argument for the consideration of thoughtful Canadians.
ISBN0665034326.(
Cornell Library link)
Continental Union Association of Ontario (1893). Continental union; a short study of its economic side. Toronto: Hunter, Rose. (
Cornell Library link)
Even if the article itself might not have the breadth and depth of the usage of the term/concept, the term/concept itself is very much notable. —
MarkH21 (
talk)
08:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep: Agreed with SportingFlyer and MarkH21 above, the article's concept has merit and sources use this terminology convention, but the article could do with more work / improvement. -
Wiz9999 (
talk)
00:19, 1 April 2019 (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.
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.
Poorly sourced, seems to be a "hub" article for information about supranational unions that happen to coincide with continents (which are a relative concept anyway). A Google search reveals very few reliable sources for the term "continental union". Qzekrom💬theythem16:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep: Used within journalism, e.g.
Reuters. Used in scholarly sources, e.g.
article from the Brooklyn Journal of International Law and the aforementioned article. Most interestingly, the term was also used widely during early proposals for a
North American Union as early as 1861 (when
Stephen A. Douglas wrote his article about union with Cuba, Mexico, and Central American states that was only published posthumously) with the following sources that could certainly be used to flesh out a history section both in this article and in the NAU article:
Douglas, Stephen A. (1889). Cutts, James Madison (ed.). An American continental commercial union or alliance. Washington, D.C.: T. McGill & co., printers. (
Cornell Library link)
Continental Union Club (1891). Canada's future! : political union with the U.S. desirable : a plain argument for the consideration of thoughtful Canadians.
ISBN0665034326.(
Cornell Library link)
Continental Union Association of Ontario (1893). Continental union; a short study of its economic side. Toronto: Hunter, Rose. (
Cornell Library link)
Even if the article itself might not have the breadth and depth of the usage of the term/concept, the term/concept itself is very much notable. —
MarkH21 (
talk)
08:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep: Agreed with SportingFlyer and MarkH21 above, the article's concept has merit and sources use this terminology convention, but the article could do with more work / improvement. -
Wiz9999 (
talk)
00:19, 1 April 2019 (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.