Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro-American


 * 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   redirect to somewhere; the target of the redirect is an editorial matter. Consensus is that this should not be a separate article per WP:NOTDICDEF.  Sandstein  20:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Pro-American

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Violates WP:NOTDICDEF, WP:NOR and WP:V. Nudve (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Dicdef, and unsourced. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  15:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Nationalism in the United States, as it was originally intended. SashaNein (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect -- I'm not one for pointing Pearsons (is that a Babelfish translation?) but this is hardly encylopedic, and Juliancolton says, it's a dictionary definition (evidently about Pearsons). Doug Weller (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Redirecting to Nationalism in the United States would be problematic, since the term is often attributed to non-Americans. I think deletion would be preferable. -- Nudve (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * just silently turn it back into a redirect why is an AfD necessary for something like this? dab (𒁳) 17:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect but not to nationalism in the US. I think the term is probably used more outside of the US. --Cameron (T|C) 17:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the original context of the creation of the redirect was "Conservapedia takes a conservative, pro-American point of view". I was looking for the best place to redirect that link to. If there are other candidates, turn it from a redirect into a disambiguation page. Still no case for AfD. I note "pro-American" has been replaced by "Americentric" since. A similar unreferenced dictdef stub that needs to be redirected. --dab (𒁳) 20:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why I think redirecting should be avoided. If an article states that Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, for example, was pro-American, it would be absurd to imply that he was an American nationalist or an Americentric. -- Nudve (talk) 03:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * well, was he "pro-American"? If it turns out that the term is widely used in this sense, the page should disambiguate. It clearly should be either a redirect or a disambiguation page. It should be a disambiguation page if and only if there are two possible candidate articles for redirection. dab (𒁳) 15:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: It is a widely used term. If search for "pro-America', a google search shows 140,000 ghits, google scholar shows 444 ghits , google books shows 703 ghits. "Pro-American" returns much more ghits. The article is poorly written, it needs referencing and improvement, not deletion.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; it's a dictionary definition. You might get something more out of a pro-Americanism article, but no one has produced any evidence that such a point of view exists.  The argument, above, that it should be kept because it has lots of GHits is silly because it's a common adjective &mdash; indeed, that's one of the reasons for deleting it, and showing that a common adjective is (indeed) common does not lend it any more credibility as an encyclopedia article. --Haemo (talk) 10:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Turn back into redirect and list at RfD The current article is clearly inappropriate, and this is the wrong venue for discussing redirects. Taemyr (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2008 (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.