Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proposed United States purchase of Greenland


 * 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 speedy keep as there seems to be no support for the proposal. Snow is normal in this place. (non-admin closure) Andrew D. (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed United States purchase of Greenland

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is misleading. THere is no proposal per reporting. Just Donald Trump asking his aides into looking for some. WP:NOTNEWS certainly applies. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep The article details internal proposals of 1868 and 2019, and an external proposal of 1946. A series of events spanning a time period of 150 years and covered by sources dated over a period of 30 years (the earliest direct source in the article is a 1991 report by the Associated Press, the most recent is a 2019 report by BBC News ) are not, by any logical reading, covered by WP:NOTNEWS."THere is no proposal per reporting. Just Donald Trump asking his aides into looking for some." The most recent proposal, by Trump, is three sentences of a six paragraph article. This is like deleting Royal Family of the United Kingdom because Archie Mountbatten-Windsor happens to be mentioned in it. Chetsford (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment You have a section called 2019 proposal. That is totally misleading. THE WSJ says no such thing. What we have here is an example of WP:COATRACK. A misleading notion attached to some prior history....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * First, I don't have any sections at all; Wikipedia articles are created, maintained, and owned by the Wikipedia community. Second, the section is called "Reported 2019 proposal". Third, deletion is not cleanup. Chetsford (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep the article is clearly about several proposed purchases, both of which appear to be notable Seasider91 (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The US has made and expressed interest in acquisition, more than once. It is widely reported there is currently interest in acquiring. Claiming that is misleading and needs to be deleted is disingenuous. If the US is to acquire the territory, your minor whining quibble trying to censor an article that mentions it on wiki, won't stop the us from making itself better, if such an acquisition improves the situation for the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.164.12.107 (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No one here is "whining". The nom filed an AfD on legitimate, policy-based grounds and it can be discussed without making accusations against each other. Chetsford (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * changed to 'quibble' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.164.12.107 (talk • contribs)


 * Keep multiple attempts have been made to purchase it, and they clearly meets the GNG. + as stated by Chetsford, deletion is not cleanup: if a section is misleading, and you have reliable sources on your side go and fix it then.  OxonAlex    - talk  18:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:GEOSCOPE. This proposal has received widespread international coverage. See —SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) 20:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The 'deletion is not cleanup' articles are persuasive - this is clearly a notable topic, WP:TNT does not seem to apply, and concerns about the current content can be addressed by editing not deletion. Girth Summit  (blether)  20:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. At first blush, this looks like WP:COATRACK, as WilliamJE says. But really, even ignoring the current claim, the 1867 and 1946 proposals are sufficient to make this notable. They are interesting, worthy of historical study, well-documented, and covered in multiple reliable sources. In short, it's a great candidate for an article. We'll need to be careful that it isn't used to coat-rack in Trump ridicule, but that's an entirely different question. The fact that it's only coming to light as a result of the Trump thing does not disqualify it from being as a notable and article-worthy subject. TJRC (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Luckily, then, this isn't news. And the only thing that is coming to light here is that Wikipedia didn't have any of it, not even as a result of the great tussle over bilateral relations articles years ago.  History books have this.  Indeed, they have it far better than the newspapers being cited here, do.  I recommend the history books, as Gustav Rasmussen's response to the U.S. via its ambassador, which most definitely is known, is in them.  &#9786;  As is a lot more besides.  This does not even mention Henrik Kauffmann yet. Uncle G (talk) 02:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename to a more sophisticated, timeless, scholarly, title (even a plural would be an improvement, as there have been more than one proposals). We should not necessarily create articles, nor name them, based on the White House's latest eructation and inevitable frenzied news spike that follows. Trump will inevitably tweet something next week that will cause a thousand newspapers to rabidly print iterations of the same story to get those precious mouse clicks, and Wikipedia will inevitably lurch to keep up with the drivel. Let's keep a broad picture in view. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sage counsel. Chetsford (talk) 05:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep There is nothing news-like about the 1867 or 1946 proposals to purchase the territory. The sources regarding the former proposal date from 2015 and 1940. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 08:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep though possibly re-title per Animalparty. That this isn't a one-off Trump obsession, but something the U.S. has seriously pursued before, surely makes this articleworthy. Trivialist (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep There is a long history of American attempts to aquire Greenland going back over 150 years. It has never fired the american mind as Cuba and a few such places, but it might soon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.