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. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 08:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continental union (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)

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 💬 ^they_them 16:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A notable geographic/political sciencey term. See scholarly sources such as [1] SportingFlyer T·C 20:44, 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. ISBN 0665034326.(Cornell Library link)
  • Continental Union Association of Ontario (1893). Continental union; a short study of its economic side. Toronto: Hunter, Rose. (Cornell Library link)
  • Glen, Francis Wayland (1893). Continental union versus reciprocity. ISBN 066501466X. (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]
• Keep clearly passes WP:GEOGRAPHY with litle more work needed, as with [User:Wiz9999]] said this article needs more with and improvements. Sheldybett (talk) 07:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note @Sheldybett: Although I agree that it should be kept, I wouldn’t say that continental union is a geographical feature if you’re using WP:NGEOGRAPHY (note the N). — MarkH21 (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per WP:GNG, WP:ORG.--PATH SLOPU 13:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note @Path slopu: Although I agree that it should be kept, I wouldn’t say that continental union is a single organization. — MarkH21 (talk) 17:30, 4 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.