Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ojinaga Cut

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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ojinaga Cut

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

While working on a rewrite of territorial evolution of the United States, I decided to include every infinitesimal change to the country. Thus, I've been scouring the minutes of the International Boundary and Water Commission for exchanges between the U.S. and Mexico. And while I have found various references to bancos (land that became separate from their origin because of movements of the river) in the Presidio-Ojinaga region, I have found zero reference to an "Ojinaga Cut" or the specific numbers mentioned in this article. It has gone unsourced for over five years, and I am unable to find any sourcing either of the numbers or of the term "Ojinaga Cut" anywhere except Wikipedia mirrors. It may be real, but we have zero sourcing saying such, and it should be deleted until or unless proper sourcing is discovered. --Golbez (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep It's not utterly unsourced, and what I see is consonant with online references such as this from the TSHA. I also see the exact phrase used in congressional minutes. I'm not quite sure that the name itself is valid, given that the article on the Boundary Treaty of 1970 indicates that there were two different alterations in the vicinity of Ojinaga; it's possible that a merge into the treaty article is better outcome. Mangoe (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Except it is unsourced. There are literally no sources in the article, and haven't been for 5+ years. It appears that everything in the article may have come from the TSHA, but that still doesn't answer the question of if this was different from the other Ojinaga bancos. And yes, looking at Google Books I see the phrase used in Congressional minutes but it's only a snippet view so I can't tell which exact changes it's referring to. If you have access to them, can you please give us the context? Maybe that could resolve this. --Golbez (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - After some gaming of Google Books it looks like it simply mentions "Ojinaga Cut and Horcon Cut" without further definition or context. So we're left with the issue that the "Ojinaga Cut" appears to be referenced with this size and name in exactly one place on the entire Internet, outside of Wikipedia? I will go through and add up the sizes of the Ojinaga bancos to see if they correspond. --Golbez (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, so yes, the figures add up. Minute 257 of the IBWC specifies 1606.19 (not 1607) acres were transferred from the U.S. to Mexico, and 252.00 acres were transferred from Mexico to the U.S. This jives with the article. However, the usage of "Ojinaga Cut" is still not established enough to warrant its own article, though, existing in, so far as we can tell, two places; I think the best solution now is to merge this into another article, with probably United_States_territorial_acquisitions#Mexican_boundary being the best option at present. --Golbez (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:12, 16 April 2015 (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.