Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norwegian Antarctic 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 keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian Antarctic Territory

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

There is no such thing as the "Norwegian Antarctic Territory". The article has no sources, and I have never come across any sources that make mention of the "Norwegian Antarctic Territory". Instead, Norway has three separate dependencies located in the Antarctic and Sub-Antarctic. A Google search turns up either derivatives of Wikipedia or the term used as a description (such as "the Norwegian Antarctic territory of Dronning Maud Land"). An overall discussion of Norwegian dependencies can be done at List of possessions of Norway. As further evidence it can be noted that there is no article on this "territory" on either of the Norwegian Wikipedias. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 00:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 00:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be a matter of terminology, some English-language sources modelling their usage on British Antarctic Territory. For example this comes right up on search. And here's a book doing the same and here's a borderline usage. (And I note that Swedish Wikipedia uses the same term.) Obviously there's a political issue complicating matters, since there is disagreement about the validity of this and other Antarctic claims. But the article seems to be redundant, better turned into a redirect to a section of the Antarctic Claims article. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article serves a useful purpose in bringing together in one place the three Norwegian territories and could easily be expanded. The fact that the title "Norwegian Antarctic Territory" is not official is irrelevant; neither is "Argentine Antarctica", but to avoid confusion the article could be renamed as "Norwegian Antarctic Territories" (which, while no more official, is more accurate descriptively) or "Norwegian Antarctica". Jimmy Pitt talk 11:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would agree that it might be a useful place to tie together the three "Norwegian" territories in the Antarctic, even if we don't need much more than a disambiguation page. One of the first google results I got was [1] which conveniently lists the three territories on the right. I'm not sure that List of possessions of Norway is a better place to put these things, as that is mostly an unstructured article about territories conquered by Norwegians a very long time ago in the Northern hemisphere. bobrayner (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it ties things together, we can't circumvent WP:OR. If the "Norwegian Antarctic Territory" is not a truly established term elsewhere, it cannot be an article here. Geschichte (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename per above comment. The problem is that "Norwegian Antarctic Territory" sounds too official. Norwegian Antarctic territory (without the capitalisation of the last word) would be better. But it certainly represents a well-defined area. St Anselm (talk) 05:40, 28 September 2010 (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.