Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Empire


 * 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 19:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

American Empire

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is NPOV POV, bloated, non-encyclopedic... the list goes on. MichiganCharms 18:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Those aren't reasons for deletion, they're reasons for cleanup. I tagged it with cleanup, npov, etc. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 19:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Nomination does not state valid reasons for deleting the article, other than NPOV, which is in fact a goal and not a defect. It is POV that we seek to avoid. Controversial topics as not inevitably POV. The topic of American imperialism was widely debated in the 1890's and early 20th century in the US, with Mark Twain (not yet referenced in the article) opposing it and some national leaders endorsing it. There are numerous references. The editing process can steer this controversial topic away from the shoals of POV anti- or pro-Americanism by citing reliable sources and deleting any which fail WP:A. Edison 19:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I obviously meant to say POV instead of NPOV... I've changed it. And in regards to the imperialism stuff, I wholeheartedly agree. But this article doesn't even pretend to be about that and my attempt to merge what is about that, the only encyclopedic part of the article, with Overseas expansion of the United States failed. -MichiganCharms 20:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as above, those aren't valid reasons to delete. Under this guy's logic we should delete Anti-Americanism and Nationalism in the United States.  T Rex  | talk  20:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: My issue isn't in the articles point of view so much. The whole thing is not encyclopedic and it reads like a dissertation citing theories given by certain scholars. Wikipedia cannot have an article for every single political theory in existence. And the theory of these three types of Empire are just not worthy of being in. -MichiganCharms 20:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Not encyclopedic" is hardly a valid argument, as stated in WP:UNENCYC. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 20:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep as per TenPound, Dinosaur and Edison. This is well researched, and I would encourage you edit it rather than destroying it.  If you see flaws with the reasoning, put up the counterpoint.  We cannot delete every article about every single political theory we don't happen to agree with.  Mandsford 20:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Major article, even if less than perfect, as Wikipedia articles tend to be. Greg Grahame 21:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. This is really more of an essay than an article, especially given the POV concerns. Cheers, DWaterson 23:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Satisfy WP:V and definitely a notable expression.JForget 23:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, for the past year, this article is based on the book by a historian Stuart Craig Miller who wrote Benevolent Assimulation, which talked about the invasion of the Philippines, and discussed the three attitudes towards american empire. The article has tons of well researched references and sources.  How can an article be NPOV when it covers four different attitudes on American empire? When it quotes dozens of liberals and conservatives? 207.193.31.53 03:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is really more of an essay on the subject not an encyclopaedia article. As such it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Cedars 08:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to something like Current Political Theories on American Empire or something like that. It is easily confused with overseas expansion of the United States.   Comment There is also the Soviet Empire to look at as well.
 * Strong keep. This subject has been debated by many scholars and is a central theme concerning power in international relations. It definitely deserves its own article.--m3taphysical 20:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Green check.png|20px]] Speedy Keep Contrary to the nominator's perspective, this article is very netural. It never simply takes any party's statements as fact, but rather is a good encyclopedic article that presents a balanced history of arguments for and against a supposed "American empire". VanTucky  (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Would anyone argue with a name change then? I mean the article deals with the theories of one, the tangible American Empire is on Overseas expansion of the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichiganCharms (talk • contribs)
 * I'm firmly against that rename. This article is about a distinctly different topic than the above article. VanTucky  (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Which article are you talking about? It seems to me that Overseas expansion of the United States could be expanded to include economic and military expansion post WWII, and not only mean geographic.  And a renamed Current Political Theories on American Empire could address the theoretical underpinnings/meanings of said expansion.  As it is, a non specialist or someone who has not thought deeply about one or the other would easily be confused.  If you are going to have one article on "fact" and another on "theory" the titles of said articles should be more clear. I am not sure if this debate belongs here or somewhere else, though. XinJeisan 00:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, you'll find a lot of the references to US or American Empire link back to Overseas Expansion of the United States and there's no telling how many people find this article while looking for that one. -MichiganCharms 03:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename and cleanup The article may be a little clouded in academia, but it just needs some trimming and reworking so it's more accessible to the layman. Overseas expansion of the United States seems to cover the history of this topic while this covers scholarly debate more... What about summarizing material from the two and other articles, maybe with some added coverage of popular opinion on the term? I can't find an article that brings all these things regarding this area together, so the need for such an article is there. Kennard2 07:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nominator did not provide rationale for deletion, and others have not either. Interesting how this article is set up, essentially as an overview of the meaning, if any, of the phrase "American Empire."  If Wikipedia is still around in 150 years or so, I'd wager that this article will look much more like the article British Empire--i.e. it will treat American Empire as an established fact and give a historical overview--with various interpretations obviously--of that empire's rise and decline.  Certainly in 150 years an article with this title will exist though.  The article is extremely well sourced and actually does a rather good job with NPOV.  An argument could be made for changing it to Current Political Theories on American Empire or something similar, but I don't think that's necessary and it will be more interesting to see how this article evolves over time given the current title.  Clean it up in places, keep it as NPOV as possible of course, but definitely keep.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 08:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete article is a non-encyclopedic anti-American piece of shit .   Black Harry  •  Go Red Sox  19:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong words, good use of swearing. However neither "non-encyclopedic" nor "anti-American" nor "piece of shit" are valid rationales for deletion.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 19:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "This may come as a surprise to you, but I, Black Harry, hereby retire permanently from editing at Wikipedia" LOL, this was 4 days ago. What a joke. 68.90.165.161 22:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting claim, but then again, that's not really an argument is it? Calgary 12:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep This article needs to stay for completeness and to prove that wikipedia is not a US-centric entity. I would point out that the reason it is so bloated is because of the authors fear of deletion hence the topic addressing issues irrelevant to the point of American Imperialism e.g. the dictionary definition of ImperialismHenry Fenby-Taylor 19:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep was an important part of history at one time.-- Sef rin gle Talk 21:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - It can be POV but non-encyclopedic? Come on! -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  06:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Term is notable and widely used, article addresses it for the most part from a neutral standpoint, even if the subject of the article is POV. Could use some cleaup, but I see no grounds for deletion. Calgary 12:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The problem with the article is reflected in this debate. The concept of empire has been a part of the US political debate from at least the Federalist Papers to the war in Iraq, for example Robert Kaplan's Imperial Grunts.  There seems to be a sense from some editors that if you support keeping this article or deleting this article that somehow you are taking some sort of vauge stance.  The article, in fact, should have a section on why US political debate is hesitant to talk about Empire in an open way.  There are many theories pro and anti about american empire.  The article should not be about proving that the US is an empire as opposed to discussing various pro- and anti- of both the concept of American Empire and that the US is an empire at all.  The article is badly flawed -- I still believe it should be renamed -- but people interested in the subject need to have a much broader view of the topic in order to make it encyclopedic. XinJeisan 15:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Written like an overlong essay and lots of weasel words. But the reasons in the nom are illegitimate ones for deletion. Clean-up required. Recommend users Request for Comment. Canuckle 17:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep That this is a legitimate topic is beyond debate. Professor Niall Ferguson of Harvard University recently published a bestselling book on the subject. Golfcam 19:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - appears to be well researched, but definitely needs a good editing job to make it neutral and more encyclopedic in tone. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Nominator has not stated a basis for deletion, and this screams of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. CraigMonroe 21:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and semi-protected status. User:Ultramarine should be dissuaded from adding poorly written, off-topic POV. --MBHiii 01:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Legitimate concept. --MichaelLinnear 02:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but... as it currently stands it's an essay, not an article. It doesn't have to go into so much analytical depth.  The subject matter should be dealt with more concisely and the reader referred to references and further reading.  At the moment I wonder whether it exists for the benefit of the reader or the writers.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:37, 15 July 2007 (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.