Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pembina Territory

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 redirect to Treaty of 1818. There seems to be a consensus not to have an article, going with a redirect because they're cheap and it is a plausible search term. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pembina Territory (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)

9-year old unreferenced article, tagged as unreferenced since 2006; no such territory was ever created. Kablammo (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. In the 1870s there was a short-lived attempt in the US Congress to create a territory by this name, but it went nowhere. There is no evidence for the assertion that a Pembina Territory was ever created, much less before 1830, as the article asserts. Kablammo (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was a Pembina County of Minnesota Territory, which appears to be the same area mentioned in the article. That was not a formal territory, but a subdivision of Minnesota Territory, which was organized in 1849. In 1858 Minnesota became a state, but without former territorial lands west of the Red River, and therefore without the western half of Pembina County. But in any case, the article is wrong, as no Pembina Territory existed. Kablammo (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Compendium of History and Biography of Central and Northern Minnesota and The province and the states. It was a placeholder name used within a US Senate Committee. It was never an official placename. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Chris Troutman's comment above. Treaty of 1818 delineates this land, but doesn't say anything about it being called Pembina Territory. There was a Pembina County in Minnesota Territory and later in the state of Minnesota, but the county boundaries don't match anyway. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- The fact that two editors can say something about the basis of the article from a name used by a denate committee suggests to me that this ought to be in WP somwhere, but I do noit think it deserves an article. How about redirecting to Treaty of 1818 and adding to that something about the senate committee. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that sounds like it would work. A redirect to Treaty of 1818 would be appropriate. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposal to create a separate territory for this region was in 1872, I believe. So I don't think a redirect would work. The elusive Pembina Territory never existed. An article on Pembina County (Minnesota Territory) may be appropriate, but it does not yet exist. Kablammo (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Links to maps showing Pembina County in Minnesota Territory: Colton Map of Minnesota Territory (1855), Wikipedia Territorial Map (Pembina County is unlabled county in upper left).

• Relisted to allow time for the adequate redirect venue to be discussed. Sam Walton (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Treaty of 1818. It's seems that the formal proposal came later but that can be made clear in the article. In the end, we're talking about a line or two and a reasonably unlikely search term. But I agree we should have something and unless someone can suggest a better redirect target, it should do the job for now. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Treaty of 1818. I agree with Peterkingiron, Elkman and Stalwart111 that a redirect is appropriate. I also agree that the fact that the particular name was not used until after the treaty is not a problem, and can be dealt with in that article's text. Pembina County (Minnesota Territory) is not really appropriate as a target article because of the huge disparity in territory, and relatively loose connection, especially as compared to the Treaty of 1818. --Bejnar (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am having a hard time imagining that anyone looking for the elusive Pembina Territory could find anything useful in the Treaty article, or that a discussion of Pembina x would be germane to the article on the treaty. Kablammo (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP: Hello all, I just found this and I would appreciate it if it was not deleted. I agree career stubs might be better merged if not expanded but sometimes it just escapes attention. The name was around for years. Because it was not officially (as referenced above) referred to by the name used does not mean it was not called that. I expanded the article with references that I hope will reflect significance.

Comments: The area that is being referred to as Pembina Territory did exist but not "officially". The American Revolution or the American Civil War were considered rebellions so I guess it is a matter of which perspective is observed. I think the region is historically significant and much of the area specific history is more narrowly defined. If my contributions are deemed sufficient then I suggest the Afd be withdrawn or concluded as keep. After this we can determine if a RM is needed for a name change. I think Pembina Region, like West River (South Dakota) and East River (South Dakota) would probably be more appropriate. Per my edits those two "regions" were the subject of territorial consideration. Otr500 (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Otr, I think that is a good solution. I question whether we should use the upper case for the geographic entity; i.e., it should be "Pembina region", not "Pembina Region", etc. I doubt that "Pembina Department" of "Pembina District ever existed outside of mention in one letter, which uses the lower case for "department" and "district": the district or department called Pembina.[1] "Pembina Territory" is arguable as there was a proposal for such an entity so named, but personally I still would not captitalize "territory" as that proposal never was adopted. 17:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello 17:11, I think "region" would be fine. It wouldn't be capitalized unless part of a proper name anyway. I kept running across names, Pembina Valley Region, that makes up a part of the Pembina region, Black Dirt Region, Calumet Region, and other namings like Columbia Basin, as opposed to Amazon basin. I saw it here and forgot it was a title. Duh! In the "Territory of Pembina" section I stated "the region of Pembina". Otr500 (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2014 (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.