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. joe decker ^talk 05:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Northern (genre)

[edit]

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

Aside from the one reference, I could only find a couple of other passing mentions of this so-called genre.[1][2] Clarityfiend (talk) 06:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 08:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 08:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as article creator). My original source was Scarlet Riders, which was in the references for a time but appears to have been removed at some point. I've put it back in again. I do not have my copy available at the moment, so I cannot add inline citations nor quote from it right now. I am sure I have had other sources as well, which I will try to find again (this was an early article for me and I'm afraid I didn't properly cite things as I should have done). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've added a few references to the article (but I won't have access to my earlier sources for some time). I've found a few basic sources that simply mention the existence of the genre:
- International Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities. Routledge. 2007. ISBN 9781134317066. ...from the dozens of early Hollywood Mountie films or 'Northerns'...
- Rutherford, Paul (1993). "Made in America". In Flaherty, David H.; Manning, Frank E. (eds.). The Beaver Bites Back?: American Popular Culture in Canada. McGill-Queen's Press. p. 267. ISBN 9780773511194. The chief American agency was Hollywood, which during the 1920s marketed a large number of 'northerns,' portraying Canada as a great, often snowy wilderness...
On top of which, there are some sources I've found but can't read in their entirety:
- MacLulich, Thomas Donald (1988), Between Europe and America: The Canadian Tradition in Fiction (Google Books snippet view)
- Drew, Bernard Alger (1990), Lawmen in Scarlet: An Annotated Guide to Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Print and Performance (Google Books snippet view)
- Strange, Carolyn; Loo, Tina Merrill (2004), True Crime, True North: The Golden Age of Canadian Pulp Magazines (Google Books snippet view)
- Baker, Richard G. (24 Jun 2015). "'Nothing But Hill and Hollow': The Canadian Border as American Frontier in the Hollywood Northern". Comparative American Studies. 13 (1–2).
Combined, I hope this is enough to at least confirm that this article refers to a documented genre (and hence suitable for future expansion rather than deletion). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Matthew Solomon and Esther Adams also use the term extensively, but the references seem to be thin on the ground. Newimpartial (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does anyone else agree with AdamBMorgan?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has enough references to be kept. Zhangj1079 (Saluton!) 13:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A heavily researched, detailed analysis and compilation of books, poetry, photographs, films, radio and TV series, etc with 9 extensive inline cites, 7 titles under "Further reading", 8 extensive "External links" and 6 picture files (there are numerous picture files on this subject in Wikimedia Commons) qualifies, without a doubt, as a helpful entry for users, and Wikipedia would be diminished through its potential loss. I cannot find a single other article within Wikipedia which compiles such a thorough dissection of this subject and researchers on the topic would be bereft of a valuable source. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 18:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After much improvement after the nomination by AdamBMorgan, the article more than meets WP:HEY for a notable topic and well-structured article. --Mark viking (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this does seem like a recognizable "thing", and it does have sources. On the other had, there are only nine sources and it does seem like an academic essay trying to establish the existence of the genre. Needs more refs. 96.127.242.251 (talk) 07:54, 13 October 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.