Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leader of the Free World

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 Free World. There's consensus that this should not be a separate article, but not what to do with it. On that basis, I'm redirecting it for now; any useful material can be merged from the history or the redirect target changed on the basis of editorial consensus. Sandstein 06:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leader of the Free World

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

This is a pro-american page created on the basis of a newspaper. It has no importance and is actually a nuisance to be kept on wikipedia.: The reference has no link to anything in the article. I request immediate deletion. You cannot self categorise the leader of the free world to a country. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is no more than a defintion. As everyone is suggesting, WP is not a dictionary.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The references has no link to the article.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 02:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's true that the US president is called this, or especially was before the fall of the Soviet Union when the world was divided in the Communist and Free Worlds, even though there were varying degrees of freedom in the Free World and not total unfreedom in the Communist. Anyway this should be a section in President of the United States, not its own article, by "WP is not a dictionary." Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed!DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge - it does not seem like it's enough for its own article, but certainly worth a mention in WP. Students will be looking for this phrase used by the parental units. Bearian (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether, students will use it or not, as Kitfoxxe suggested, this can be in the President of the US page, its not worth mentioning as a separate page. As this is a biased POV.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just a definition of a term. WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. Page serves no purpose.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I propose deletion.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge while not notable in itself, I think it is both a valid subject and a valid search term. --Muhandes (talk) 12:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not mind to tell me how is it valid? Just because a group of people assumed it does not make it a legal or a valid or mathematical which can all be valid statements. Please give me a single prrof for this.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're using the wrong definition of "valid." He isn't talking about the mathematical or logical "valid," but the acceptable/relevant definition. See definitions 2 and 3 over at wiktionary:valid. Also, I don't understand why you are objecting to his proposal of "merge," since that's exactly what you are proposing in your reply to Bearian. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not talked about merge at all in my comments to bearian. I have simply said this article is not worth to be a single page in wikipedia. Your acceptable "valid" would seem your own POV, differing from mine. And without a single reference, these articles do not need to be in wikipedia.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 02:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not using the exact legal term, by valid I meant that it is valid encyclopedic material, i.e. something that can appear in an encyclopedia somewhere. That's not a POV matter - I base this on the prevalence of the term and on the abundance of reliable sources. Just click on that "news" link above to see a few dozen of them. President of the United States and Free World both seem like valid targets (and valid just means possible in this case). --Muhandes (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds are you saying those two terms seem like valid targets? the world is a not a puppet of USA nor is it being leaded by the USA.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The validity is based, of course, on the abundance of reliable sources saying so. I think you are missing the point here. There is no doubt that the term was used to describe the US the the President of the US, and little else. I think this fact merits a mention, even if only as an historical fact. That does not necessary mean I think the US/President are the leaders of the free world. Personally I may think the free world is the worship of god, and that god is the leader of the free world. But the term was historically used for describing something, and this is notable enough. --Muhandes (talk) 09:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter if you think its notable enough nor does it matter whatever your personal opinions are. Just because you cite a single american published book does not mean anything. I can find you a lot of articles that are saying china is the leader of the world now so do we create an article defining 'the leader of the world' now? NO! Again, please know that "WP is not a dictionary." Your arguments are not provable neither are your references. No one should try to mis-conceptualize the world with this articleDBhuwanSurfer (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per others. Encyclopedic content which should be preserved, useful location for a redirect, but no indication that it is an encyclopedic subject in itself. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reference has no link to anything in the article.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 02:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Free World. Although the page cites only one primary source, its concept is at least minimally notable and of social and historical (ergo encyclopedic) note. It is more than a dictionary definition; it is a (stubby) discussion of American Cold War rhetoric. The page itself is not pro-American; the concept it discusses is pro-American propaganda and an element of American exceptionalism. Cnilep (talk) 00:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reference has no link to anything in the article.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 02:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~or Redirect (to President of the United States?)~~ - Not really an article, but rather a definition, and violation of WP:NOR.--JayJasper (talk) 05:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly why the article should be deleted.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A redirect to Free World would only delay the inevitable, because that article is also terrible, and a redirect to President of the United States would be inappropriate. I'm surprised that I can't find material on the history of this term, but without such material, the article should not exist. (As a side note, LOTFW sometimes refers to the president and sometimes to the USA.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. I withdraw my earlier suggestion for a redirect. There does not appear to an appropriate place to which it can redirected. Deletion appears to be the only sensible move.--JayJasper (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW a 30 second google books search yielded a source for that, which I added, and I'm sure many more can be found. --Muhandes (talk) 09:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreed. A single book cannot be referenced as such! There is no article that is agreed by all which says President of the United States is the leader of anything other than the country itself. This article is pro-american in every sense.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I came across that book in my five-minute Google Books search, but it's a) less about the term than one would hope, b) insofar as it is about the term, more about "Free World" than "leader of," and c) using the term to refer to the USA, not the President. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some of the points above are valid, and it is clear that the article in its present state is inadequately sourced. But, as noted, it took me all of 5 minutes to find multiple books where the term is discussed at length. this one, for example. If one were to take a crack at re-writing this article, perhaps more focused on the country as the titular "leader", then this could be a viable article. Not enough to keep, as yet, but it is sourceable. Issues of bias raised by the nominator can be remedied through editing, and it is clear that the article has more basis than a single newspaper article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, not enough to keep. And I have to add this article is highly misleading. Also, the page creator has not been involved in the discussion or the edits for a long time now.I still suggest delete.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The map is not the terrain. American Exceptionalism is a controversial Point Of View, and the use of the term "leader of the free world" to mean the US or its head of state probably shows bias. But discussion of the term can be neutral and unbiased. As an analogy, I don't like athlete's foot, but I have no dislike for the encyclopedia page about it. In fact, I find the discussion of prevention and treatment downright useful. Cnilep (talk) 03:44, 28 October 2011 (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.