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. ( non-admin closure) — fortuna velut luna 09:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Northern Mexico (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

it seems that this page was missed from wikipedia:articles for deletion/Northwestern Mexico. same issues (i.e: wp:o, wp:rs, wp:n, wp:madeup) from the series apply here. 68.151.25.115 ( talk) 16:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I completed the nomination for the IP, and agree with their rationale and the precedent. ansh 666 07:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC) reply
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 25. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC) reply

• Regardless of vital notability question, WP:ORPHAN is not a rationale for deletion. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. As nom mentions this is one of a number of Mexican regions that were entirely concocted by a wikipedia editor some time ago. They had no basis in actual Mexican political divisions. As blatant OR they cannot be independently sourced. The other articles were AfD'd and were rightfully deleted. This one should be too. -- Lockley ( talk) 19:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Actually, this was not created by the same editor who created the other deleted pages but was created six years later by a different editor. And unlike the others, I think this is actually a valid designation used by multiple reliable sources [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] That there is no such political subdivision is not relevant if an informal geographic subdivision exists (cf. Northwestern United States, Southwestern United States etc.) Regards So Why 12:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment. As with the others, this regional definition is not supported by sources. The sources you've listed (thank you btw) are not consistent about where the boundaries are, which is an important thing to know about a region. Trying to "harmonize" those sources for consistency would cross over into OR. So I still think it's unverifiable. I have no emotional commitment, though, and I appreciate your view. -- Lockley ( talk) 18:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC) reply

I disagree. "Northern Mexico" might not be used consistently but it is used as a regional subdivision by a large number of sources. If sources disagree what parts it is composed of, the article should mention it but that does not mean it is OR. See the Southwestern United States article I mentioned above for example. It, too, contains info that some parts may or may not be included in that area, depending on the source. And this article already mentions that "Northern Mexico" is defined differently depending on source. Most sources seem to agree though that this area encompasses the states that border the US to the north, cf. [7]. Others include the states mentioned in the article, like [8]. So it seems that this is a concept that is widely used, just not consistently. But documenting the inconsistencies is fine as long as we don't try to fix them ourselves. To that end, I reworded the article a bit and added some sources. Please have another look. Regards So Why 20:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC) reply

then why were the other articles deleted? Eastern Mexico, Western Mexico, Southern Mexico, didnt those have sources? 68.151.25.115 ( talk) 05:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Read the AFD mentioned above, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwestern Mexico. I won't weigh in further since I closed that AFD. Regards So Why 06:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC) reply

which doesnt address my question. a google search turns up just as many sources on these 3. im unconvinced... 68.151.25.115 ( talk) 09:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC) reply

additionally [9] was a deleted redirect. it seems User:SoWhy hasnt done the research thoroughly. 68.151.25.115 ( talk) 09:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Term is clearly used by numerous reliable sources. The fact that there's no one consistent definition is irrelevant to the deletion and can be discussed. Some sources consider Virginia part of the Southern United States, others don't, and a few consider the whole state except Northern Virginia to be a part of The South. And there are a couple other borderline states too. Nonetheless, the region is clearly notable and all this is discussed in the article. It should be the same here. If the other terms are in common use too, which judging by the comments in the AfD they aren't, maybe they shouldn't have been deleted either. Smartyllama ( talk) 16:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep as per SoWhy's reasons.-- NoGhost ( talk) 21:00, 9 July 2017 (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.