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. That is, at any rate do not delete; any outstanding issues can be fixed editorially via merging and moving if this is still deemed necessary.  Sandstein  06:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

British America[edit]

British America (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 constitutes a content fork from British North America (or vice versa) Colonial history of the United States, Thirteen Colonies, and/or British colonization of the Americas. It has been tagged as unsourced since November 2007. I had redirected to Colonial history of the United States (where Colonial America redirects), but this was reverted. The British America article even notes that Colonial America is another term for it (though that, too, is unsourced). There are no sources to indicate why this is a topic distinct from and notable apart from British North America British colonization of the Americas. As a list, this is also redundant to several others. I would agree with a redirect as an alternative to deletion. Novaseminary (talk) 03:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

British America
1607–1783
History 
• Established
1607
• Disestablished
1783
Preceded by		 Succeeded by
New Netherland
New France
Spanish Florida
British North America
United States
Spanish Florida
British West Indies
  • Comment I would be fine with converting it to a list that meets WP:SAL, but I am not sure how to get it there, and it would need to be retitled. Otherwise, in its current state, I do not see how it is meant to be different than British colonization of the Americas. Are there any sources that support the use of this as a term covering the British colonies from 1607 – 1783 as claimed in the infobox? If so, that would go along way toward convincing me it is not a content fork. So would a more clear lead paragraph so that readers have a better sense of how this term is distinct from others. Novaseminary (talk) 04:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After the Treaty of Paris (1783) (part of the Peace of Paris (1783)) the Thirteen Colonies split and as seen to the right we have new names see also New Netherland. Note: I believe is the second time this has been nominated.Moxy (talk) 04:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has not be nominated before (at least under this article title). If it had been, that discussion would be here. It appears "British America" (as its own distinct term) might be OR, too. Another editor pointed out the exact same thing I did regarding gBook searches (though they beat me to it) on the British North America talk page here. Without RSs that make the distinctions these articles seem to be trying to make, one or both fails WP:N, don't they? Using an infobox, while perhaps useful as an illustration, doesn't establish notability (or non-CFORK-ness) like RSs would. Novaseminary (talk) 05:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
you are more then welcome to continue with this nomination. See also Talk:British America Moxy (talk) 11:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The two books that you added here in this AfD and then removed with this edit support my point. Perhaps that is why you removed them? They use the term "British America" in the same way the WP articles define "British North America", not consistent with the definition used here on British America. So the only RSs yet produced actually seem to support the assertion that "British America" and "British North America" are used interchangeably. And there still have been no RSs put forward that actually make this distinction and support the inclusion of this article separately. Novaseminary (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to Colonial history of the United States is certainly and absolutley not correct. There were there were more than thirteen British colonies and territories in North America as at 1776: Acadia, Newfoundland Colony, Quebec, Grenada, Rupert's Land, etc. Searches of British North America will generally lead British North America Act, 1867. All Canadians will know this as the BNA Act. Follow this link and you will see the importance to Canada. I have more objections to the removal of this article. But for now, these will have to suffice. Argolin (talk) 05:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • My thinking on this has evolved as it has become more clear what the problem might be and perhaps why there are no sources. why not redirect to British North America or vice versa? Unless there are sources to support the assertion that they are different, all we have are the sources mentioned above indicating they are the same. Novaseminary (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found a few books: [1], [2], [3], a film held by National Archives of Canada [4]. CBC Television coproduced with Télévision de Radio-Canada a hugely popular documentary series Canada: A People's History; here's the link to the CBC site [5].
The name "British America" is valid per the above and these: [6], [7], [8]. As for the lack of sources for so long, I believe other projects need to be added via the discussion page. It will allow projects signed up to WolterBot to be aware of the article's lack of sources and hopefully do something about it.
Novaseminary do I need to explain further why a redirect to British North America would be inappropriate? Argolin (talk) 06:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be fine with redirecting British North America to this article. But where in the sources you linked do the sources make a distiction between the two? I can't find it. Do any RSs support a distinction? If not, there should only be one article. I do not care which title holds the article and which holds the redirect. Novaseminary (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After much reading (and noticing its Canadians that support this terminology - including in the old talks) - I see what the problem is - in the USA there seems to be no distinction between this two time periods (as there is simply before and after the revolution). I am not sure y? In Canada as seen at (Former colonies and territories in Canada and here) i guess because of Rupert's Land, Nova Scotia etc... we use this distinction (usually called Colonial America and loosely as here called British America in Canada) but cant here because of the preexisting article that is just on the USA. However calling it "British America" before the Acts of Union 1707 is also wrong as it was the Kingdom of England and Kingdom of Scotland before the act...so not sure how we can solve this if "Colonial America" is only about the USA. Again we run into problems because of American dominates of terms. Perhaps we could move and merge (with redire3cts) British America and British North America into an article called List of British possessions and colonies like with List of French possessions and colonies..........so in this long winded way i agree with "Novaseminary" that the term is not widely used outside Canada and thus may need to be reworded so that its inline with history outside just Canada. Moxy (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like the way to go. It certainly addresses my concern. And the intro to the list can explain this all, and still be completely consistent with the MOS for leads of stand-alone lists (WP:LSC). Novaseminary (talk) 02:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not redirect this article to British North America. I have added a hatnote :For the Canadian Constitution, see British North America Act, 1867. The books as referenced above are all from the Library and Archives Canada. So yes, they will mostly focus on Canada and the US: but not exclusively. I plan on citing the article with: Nellis, Eric Guest (2010). An empire of regions : a brief history of colonial British America. Toronto : University of Toronto Press. ISBN 9781442601390.. In so far as only Canadians defending this article, I have to disagree. The other colonies listed on the article page are not aware of this Afd as noted above.
Oh Moxy you rock! I completly forgot about the Acts of Union 1707 (thus creating the UK). I don't believe the term "British" (in this case British America) is too problematic. On the death of Queen Elizabeth I, the Kingdom went to James I of England aka James VI King of Scotland (as she hated the Grey family: the only other English decendants of the Tudor line). James I tried to bring about a union (of His Kingdoms) during His reign (24 July 1567 – 27 March 1625). The English Parliament was too xenophobic and rejected the idea. However, He was able to establish the Union of the Crowns providing us the term "British" see: Britishness.
I have to completly agree with Moxy in that the US is selectively blind to everything before 1776. Most Canadians know that Newfoundland in 1583 and New France in 1534 is many years before Plymoth rock. A re-write of history is not cool. Moxy, can you correct the picture shown in the article? Quebec was never forced to accept Anglicism. After the Battle of the Plains of Abraham per the Royal Proclamation of 1763 (it's not listed in this Class=Start article), all Catholics Quebec's governor Pierre de Rigaud, the Marquis de Vaudreuil negotiated a conditional surrender allowing all Catholics to keep their faith along with the non-expulsion of the Clergy. [9] These civil rights were finally codified in the Quebec Act. This was a major irritant of some (ie. 13 of them) of the other British Colonies. Argolin (talk) 10:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure I follow. In light of what Moxy and I have put forth, do you think any policies or guidelines support your position, or is it based on your personal preference or something else? Novaseminary (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2011 (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.
More