Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dakotas (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Wizardman 03:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The Dakotas
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete per same concept as The Carolinas...there's no need for an article on a "collective term". There is nothing said here which couldn't/shouldn't be/isn't said in the individual North Dakota and South Dakota articles. In addition, I am of the opinion that "the Dakotas" comprise a region. That would be like saying that California and Oregon constitute a region, or Tennessee and Georgia. They don't. They're part of larger regions (the Pacific West and the South, respectively), as the Dakotas are part of the Midwest. There is nothing unique to North and South Dakota which sets them apart from the rest of the Midwest/Interior North/other defined regions. To arbitrarily make up new regions would be original research, which isn't allowed here. Also, there is nothing made by the combination of North and South Dakota which isn't the exact sum of its parts -- in other words, there's nothing unique about them as a pair which shouldn't be/isn't covered by the individual North Dakota and South Dakota articles. The only thing the two states share is half a name, and that doesn't justify an article; again, it's both arbitrary, and original research.Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per my reasoning below. Unless anyone can point out some fundamental differences between the two, I'm recommend regarding this discussion and the Carolinas discussion below as the same.  (This article has far less in it, but the principles remain the same.)  Anturiaethwr (talk) 03:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The fndamental differences are that "the dakotas" is an actual phrase in common usage. Google turns up 1480000 restults for the carolinas, which I have never heard used, and 3830000 for the dakotas. The term is used a lot-- Phoenix -  wiki  15:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per my reasoning on The Carolinas, per Articles for deletion/The Dakotas, and per Dakota Territory.  Corvus cornix  talk  03:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - your reasoning at Articles for deletion/The Carolinas is flawed. You point out the Dakota Territory article...that's the right article for this topic, not this "the Dakotas" one. Again -- there is nothing said in this article which isn't covered in the North Dakota, South Dakota, and Dakota Territory articles. The previous AFD of this topic is flawed too -- just because there was a consensus reached in the past doesn't mean we can't/shouldn't reach a different one now, nor does it mean that they weren't wrong. Consensus changes. Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

*Make redirect to Dakota Territory; this seems like a decent search term, but there isn't anything in the article worth being separated from Dakota Territory. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.-- RyRy5  Got something to say?   05:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Change that since I found a better soultion- delete to move The Dakotas (disambiguation) here. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Definitly keep. Supposing I didn't know what "the dakotas" reffered to? The phrase is in common usage, and is used a lot when talking about native americans such as the sioux, najavo etc. We should have an article about it if it's in common usage.-- Phoenix -  wiki  15:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wow, people loved this article the first time around, and I still can't figure out why. I think that on the page The Dakotas (disambiguation), the line that currently directs to this article should instead say "The Dakotas" may refer to "North Dakota" and South Dakota".  The article has no more content now that when it started (there was a period when someone altered it to be about the 1960s group headed by Billy Kramer.   The whole thing is original research, premised on someone's notion that residents of North Dakota and South Dakota actually think that the two states should be thought of as one.   North Dakota struggles to get tourists, while South Dakota gets plenty of visitors for Mount Rushmore and Spearfish, and from what I can tell, there's more resentment than cameraderie there. Mandsford (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree on the change to the current disambig page; that's exactly what I was thinking. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Dakotas has quite a few incoming links to it; see Special:WhatLinksHere/The Dakotas. If this article is deleted, those links will need to be addressed.  I'm tempted to say that the presence of those links implies that the article should be kept, but it might be possible to replace "The Dakotas" with North and South Dakota.  (Seeing it linked that way doesn't look right, though.)  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Commonly used term per. Spiesr (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep (1) 282 incoming links in the article space! (2) Commonly used term. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Phoenix-wiki, Spiesr, and Michael Hardy, along with around 400,000 hits that Google turns up. This term is often used (probably at least every other day) by the national media, usually when giving national weather forecasts. It is a commonly-used grouping of the two states, and therefore useful in describing exactly what is meant by the term. There are a lot of people who honestly think that this is one state, which is one of the differences with the California and Oregon example used in the nom. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I bet those are probably some of the same people who think New Mexico isn't part of the United States, but a part of Mexico instead. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - I reside in Eastern Canada (a similarly named region) and even I have heard of the term. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  11:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I can justify this term as being used often by radio/television stations in the border area between North and South to describe their region, along with weather forecasts (many from the National Weather Service) which commonly refer to "The Dakotas" as a region where the big weather systems sweep in to affect the eastern portion of the country. I understand the whole regionality argument, but they did claim statehood in the same way and have a shared history, and the use of the term is perfectly consistent with regional names. We also shouldn't begrude smaller divisions of larger regions to have their own regional descriptors.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added a boatload of citations to prove notability. This is a commonly used, commonly accepted reference for this region that is used historically, currently, locally, nationally and internationally as a reference point. • Freechild   'sup?   05:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. While the article certainly could use some fleshing out, the fact is that the Dakotas have a shared history that probably needs to be told here. Sure, sure, much of it can be covered at Dakota Territory, but even post-statehood they are often thought of and referred to as a unit. I think that this is a little different than the Carolinas, which historically were never united (were they?  actually, I'm just saying that off the top of my head), but more importantly, the Carolinas have little shared culturally, demographically, or politically.  It's hard to imagine two states from the deep American South that have less in common.  I think that the motion to delete this article is not without merit—this is worth discussing—I just fall on the side for "keep".  Just my 2¢. Unschool (talk) 07:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Self-correction (minor). Okay, I was wrong about the Carolinas not being united, but it's still hardly the same thing.
 * The Province of Carolina included not only North Carolina and South Carolina, but also Georgia. It was a very broad territory, drawn on a map by Englishmen with pretty much no English on the scene.  It had no time before separation to develop a unified cultural identity.
 * The Carolinas were separated and existed separately for more than 50 years before Yorktown and thus statehood. Contrarily, the Dakotas were united literally until the very moment of statehood.


 * Keep but remove stub tags. The article should be retained essentially as a disambiguation page.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2008 (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.