Deletion of Proposed United States purchase of Greenland

Comment: At first blush, this looks like , as WilliamJE says. But really, even ignoring the current claim, the 1867 and 1946 proposals are sufficient to make this notable. They are interesting, worthy of historical study, well-documented, and covered in multiple reliable sources. In short, it's a great candidate for an article. We'll need to be careful that it isn't used to coat-rack in Trump ridicule, but that's an entirely different question. The fact that it's only coming to light as a ''result'' of the Trump thing does not disqualify it from being as a notable and article-worthy subject
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: The article details internal proposals of 1868 and 2019, and an external proposal of 1946. A series of events spanning a time period of 150 years and covered by sources dated over a period of 30 years (the earliest direct source in the article is a 1991 report by the Associated Press https://www.apnews.com/9d4a8021c3650800fdf6dd5903f68972, the most recent is a 2019 report by BBC News https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49367792) are not, by any logical reading, covered by .{{xt|"THere is no proposal per reporting. Just Donald Trump asking his aides into looking for some."}} The most recent proposal, by Trump, is three sentences of a six paragraph article. This is like deleting Royal Family of the United Kingdom because Archie Mountbatten-Windsor happens to be mentioned in it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)