Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cascadia (independence movement)

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. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cascadia (independence movement)

Couldn't find reliable independent non-trivial sources to establish notability/verification for this movement. It doesn't look like any third parties have picked up on this independence movement- it's just a few minor political organizations. The only non-organizational sources provided are not related to Cascadian independence- one refers to a different secessionist movement, and another is from a brewery. Wafulz 23:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm surprised there's no references available - it seems to ring a bell to me. MarkBul 00:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It probably sounds familiar because it's turned up in a couple of novels - Titan and The Handmaid's Tale are the two that spring to mind. Don't recall it being called "Cascadia" in either, though. And why would a "Republic of the Pacific" not include CA, anyway? — iridescent (talk to me!) 02:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The concept was discussed extensively in the popular 1981 nonfiction book The Nine Nations of North America, in the context of the novel Ecotopia. --Mathew5000 03:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The region's often called Cascadia up this way, but there's no real independence movement that is happening now. I find lots of news articles talking about Cascadia, but the claims in here don't seem to really be supportable. Delete unless some good sources come together. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My delete is based on this article being focused on a virtually nonexistent independence movement, for the record; Cascadia is a reasonably documented concept, but the idea of an independence movement is what I'm saying is not documented. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search on Google for "Cascadia (free OR independent OR independence OR autonomy)" yielded over one million hits. Of those, the first several that were not wikipedia mirrors are: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. You could possibly use the argument that the documentation of the movement is specious and unencyclopedic, but there is certainly an abundance of documentation. Whether the movement is real or bogus, it is certainly well documented. Compare Emperor Norton. samwaltz 04:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but can any of those be referred to as independent reliable sources discussing the independence movement discussed in the article? I was more looking for news articles, etc. I'm obviously thinking wrong on this one, though. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Cascadia Free State blockade at Warner Creek is related to the independence movement, in terms of having the same sort of folks likely to be interested in both, but CFS was really only the WC area. Those articles do show how "Cascadia" can refer to the bioregion, but can't be used to reference an article about independence movement. Katr67 16:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the information above, if it is integrated. DGG (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and get more sources. I had heard a reference to Cascadia in the 90's, when I was looking into the Conch Republic, etc.; however, I'm afraid I can't track down the reference. There have to be more out there. samwaltz 19:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename. I'd suggest moving the article to Cascadia (bioregion) (currently a redirect to Pacific Northwest), and rewriting, as Cascadia as a concept is bigger than just the independence movement. If you follow the talk at Pacific Northwest, you will see that even the concept of what PacNW encompasses is controversial, so I think it's a bad idea to integrate the Cascadia material into the PacNW article. The independence movement material could be shortened and made a section of the bioregion article. If you follow the history and talk page of the Cascadia disambiguation page, you will see that the resulting arrangement of pages is a sort of compromise solution to an unwieldy page. As far as the movement itself, it does seem to be alive, but since it is considered a "fringe" concept, it has gained little mainstream media coverage. See also the article's talk page for some mentions I found of the idea of Cascadian secession (as well as the idea, as used by economists, of Cascadia as a global trading region) in the media--most are trivial, but it has been covered in the press. If I have time I'll see about using them in the article. Katr67 06:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This I could deal with; there's actual documentation of the bioregion concept, as compared to personal websites. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:39, 4 September 2007 (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.