Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U-S-A! cheer


 * 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. MuZemike 23:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

U-S-A! cheer

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete poorly sourced, citations to an editorial that mentions the chant in passing, a youtube video and other poor sources. The article does nothing to establish the importance of this cheer or document it in any encyclopedic way. More a random collection of references to this cheer than a real article. Bonewah (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep Notable, needs improvement and more sources, but there is no deadline. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hers fold  (t/a/c) 22:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Please do not delete this article. It may have its faults, but clearly and succinctly explains the origin of the cheer (with links to articles related to the Olympic games of that year) and a highly accurate exemplification of when it seems to be currently used in modern popular culture (i.e. the Simpsons and Springer example). Indeed, it was a context similar to this that prompted me to search for this article in the first place. Deleting it, or incorporating it as a subsection in a detailed and full account of the Olympics in which it occurred would be to minimize and distort the fact that the cheer now exists as a separate and unique entity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.146.58.212 (talk • contribs) — 112.146.58.212 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Weak keep and regular-strength improve. this article about freed Kuwaiti hostages suggests that the chant is known and used throughout the world (unless it developed spontaneously elsewhere), and this one discusses using the chant to drown out protestors. I think there's the germ of a decent article here, though I admit there's also a real chance of it veering into an essay.Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Coverage is sufficient.  Needs work. =) -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 23:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable New seeker (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Needs cleanup, not deletion. B.Rossow talk contr 14:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I think I might not be so inclined to delete this if the sources weren't so utterly awful. Bonewah (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article is pretty bad, but it does contain real content (I did learn something from it). Its problems can be resolved through normal editing. Gruntler (talk) 08:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. There seems to be original research here. "Found pride vicariously through the players" has no source. I watched the you tube video and did not hear any USA chant, nor did the announcers make any comment about it. There is no source for the assertion that the "chant became a fixture of the remaining games." The article then makes the unsourced statement that it has been "spontaneously chanted" at events and attempts to prove this statement by giving several examples. As far as the examples given, delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Not a good article, but it does seem to be a notable subject. The origin at the '80 Winter Olympics is verified by this NYT article: and this book, Miracle on Ice: It was chanted by WTC rescuers when Bush visited, by sports fans when the US invaded Afghanistan in 2001,, by Kuwaiti hostages who were freed after the Gulf War:, by the crowd when Bush pitched at the Yankee's stadium in October 2001:, and by Americans watching Rambo in movie theatres: It's iconic. It was also used at McCain rallies to drown out protesters:. Also see this analysis of pro-Gulf War protests: "All over the country, whenever there was a pro-war demonstration, crowds chanted "USA USA!" The lack of specific content in the chant in favor of empty patriotism contrasted with the anti-war chants and slogans that always had a specific content". Martha Nussbaum made a similar analysis: "I went to [a baseball game] at Chicago's Comiskey Park, the first game played there after September 11 - and a game against the Yankees, so there was a heightened awareness of the situation of New York and its people. Things began well, with a moving ceremony commemorating the firefighters who had lost their lives, and honoring local firefighters who had gone to New York afterwards to help out. There was even a lot of cheering when the Yankees took the field, a highly unusual transcendence of local attachments. But as the game went on and the beer flowed, one heard, increasingly, the chant "U-S-A. U-S-A," a chant left over from the Olympic hockey match in which the U. S. defeated Russia. This chant seemed to express a wish for America to defeat, abase, humiliate its enemies. Indeed, it soon became a general way of expressing the desire to crush one's enemies, whoever they were. When the umpire made a bad call that went against the Sox, the same group in the stands turned to him, chanting "U-S-A." In other words, anyone who crosses us is evil, and should be crushed." Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:55, 26 September 2009 (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.