Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demonization of United States

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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demonization of United States

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

Intrinsically POV title and unnecessary POV split from Anti-Americanism. Over the top highly POV piece of non-encyclopedic original research which relies on synthesis of sources. Also a WP:COATRACK created to make a political WP:POINT as part of some propaganda war. Demonization is not even a neutral term. Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator was also the article creator. Safiel (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is correct. I nominated this article for deletion based on the opinion of multiple other editors. I am uncertain if they are right, but I hope that getting opinion from more editors will result with consensus grounded in wikipedia policies. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unnecessary fork from anti-americanism without useful content that can be merged into that article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Strong Keep - However, a review of the article has to occur to assure that it is not original research. The article may just need some work.. I would like it to remain so it can be worked on. The work itself will reveal whether or not it will rise to the necessary standard. --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lfrankbalm: Can you clarify how the topic is distinct from that of anti-Americanism? --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-The article is framed as a "propaganda tactic or strategy" and it is a visible dynamic in China and elsewhere. The first paragraph of Anti-Americanism contrasts sharply whereby anti-Americanism is not a consistent phenomenon whereas this dynamic is a consistent matter of state policy. --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not seeing why it would fork from anti-Americanism. There's already an article about the propaganda technique Demonizing the enemy, so this would be an article about a particular application of that technique -- which is then clearly redundant to Anti-Americanism. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a fork of Anti-Americanism. Carrite (talk) 07:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not all paranoid delusions are notable fringe theories. Bearian (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - same reasons as [1]. Volunteer Marek 02:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge & redirect to Anti-Americanism; falls within the scope of the article Anti-Americanism. No need for an additional article, especially one with a non-neutral title.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there's anything in the article that's both well-sourced and absent from Anti-Americanism, it should be recycled. Leaving a redirect is unnecessary. Iaritmioawp (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge I find the title loaded – a clear point of view before you start reading, and the succeeding copy seems to mix and match US and the West as if they are one and the same. I also feel there is synthesis at play here. I agree that it should be examined to pick out suitable references that might be used in other articles, such as Anti-Americanism. Libby norman (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2014 (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.