Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cartographic aggression

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. John254 04:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Cartographic aggression

Cartographic aggression (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rarely used neologism. Article only exists to push an agenda. --Pjacobi (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - the current state of the article is terrible and a lot of it seems to be a coatrack article for the author(s) opinions about various international disputes. But there does seem to be a degree of usage of this term in reliable geographical sources, so I suspect there is the potential for a viable article on this topic if it was sourced and written properly. I don't see much of a problem with deleting the current version, but the topic may well be worthy of inclusion.~ mazca ^{t | c} 15:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep; A NY Times letter to the editor by a professor of political geography at the University of South Florida[1], an article in the Guardian [2], and a book published by the Oxford University Press [3] all use this term. Even if the article as is fails WP:NPOV, it's a notable event, with several undeniable examples and several examples that are notably controversial, and the name used for it seems well enough established.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I found five mentions in the mainstream British press, the earliest 1998. All of them were in the context of India and the earliest explicitly attributes the origin of the phrase to India; however sometimes it's India accused of perpetrating it, sometimes they are claiming to be the victim of it. Needs good sources. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep [Google book search] indicates that it is used among political scientists, if not cartographers, and it's not a neologism (unless "it's new to you"). This seems to be the accepted term for the act of including disputed territory as one's own property on a map. Nominator is right, however, that this has some POV problems that need to be fixed. Mandsford (talk) 23:59, 19 July 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.