Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flyover country

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 No Consensus to delete. While the concerns that this is a dictionary definition that lacks sufficient sources to be expanded beyond one is reasonable, the counter that such sources do, in fact, exist is also reasonable. A merge may be reasonable if reliable sources link this term to the Great Plains exclusively, but further discussion should probably take place on the article talk page. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flyover country[edit]

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

Dicdef, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - dicdef, if ever there was! Eddie.willers (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per nom JayJay^{Talk to me} 23:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom also. The "see also" articles have much more neutral tones than this thing ever will. Nate • (chatter) 04:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'd suggest transwiki'ing, but that would require sources, so delete. Feel free to ping my talk page it WP:RSs are added. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]
Keep. Lack of sources is a reason to add sources, not a reason to delete. Clicking the "find sources" links above shows that there are plenty of sources to be found if someone has the time and energy to look for them and add them. And while the article is a stub, it is by no stretch of the imagination a "dicdef", much less an unexpandable one. Angr (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm the original author. I created the article partly as a response to the very bi-coastal nature of news and entertainment in the U.S, and it's related to topics of media bias. I'd hoped what I wrote would be a good starting point for greater discussion, though it's disappointing that the article hasn't gained enough attention to be expanded significantly. Looking through the history, there have been cases where some content has been added, only to be removed later (rather than cleaned up and incorporated). Perhaps there should be a "bi-coastal" article, or there may be another topic where this could be merged. —Mulad (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have heard this term used for at least 15 years. the article needs to be better written, and needs references, but is a valid Wikipedia article.Debbie W. 03:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a topic, it is covered in detail with this entry in the Encyclopedia of the Great Plains which shows the topic is appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. -- Whpq (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Great Plains as a synonym, per the excellent source found by Whpq. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Although I !voted keep, I'm not adverse to a merge to Great Plains. -- Whpq (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2012 (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.