Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/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 keep. Davewild (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Free World

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

This article is too big and is claiming a lot of facts based on a single reference. If more references cannot be added within 7 days, this page should be deleted. This whole article seems to be clearly Original Research WP:OR and this is not allowed in wikipedia. The start of the article gives a sense that this article is a definition of the term 'free world' but WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. With some strong claims about what nations were included in the free world, this article provides no references that the country were really included as such. There is also a section 'usage in the former communist bloc, which makes extraordinary claims without a single reference. In fact, all of the sections are super flawed. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but prune. This revision looks like a good revision to start over with. It gets rid of the POV-essay sections of the article, reduces it to the common (US) usage of the term, which has a reference (yes, just one). WP:DICDEF doesn't really apply here - certainly not to the long current version, but even the pared-down version is much more of a fledgling encyclopedia article than a dictionary definition. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 14:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreed. To prune, will only delay the inevitable. The very first sentence of even your suggested version has heavily exaggerated claim based on zero references.Sorry, not convinced.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The version also includes country like India and Taiwan as part of the free world?Greece, Chile and Brazil?- On what grounds or references. Superfluous- no reference! I am just pointing out that revision or cut of the article will only delay the inevitability of the deletion of the article. It is just totally not convincing as an international perspective how you can categories a single nation as a leader of the free world.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What exaggerated claims are you talking about? I suppose you can quibble about Greece, but the others seem (from my memories of my history texts) to be solidly part of it. I think your last comment reveals the issue here, though - by having an article, we aren't saying that any country is the "leader of the free world" or even that certain countries should be part of the "free world." What we're doing is documenting what the people who use the term mean when they use it.

I looked through a few Google sources (including some history ones), but they all assumed the definition of "free world" and didn't bother to define it (though one PBS source did contrast it with the Iron Curtain). I suspect the best simple definition would come from a high school history text and the best history of the term from a scholarly work on the subject; unfortunately I don't have either on hand. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 14:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot even find a dictionary meaning of this world, why are you trying to make Wikipedia a dictionary for this term? What do you mean what exaggerated claims I am talking about? I am asking you straight on what grounds can those countries be considered free world? Just provide me a single reference please. As I am repeatedly saying, this article can be reidentified as anything as this can mean anything to anyone. But we do not put such biased WP:POV on wikipedia. FYI, Chile, Brazil were ruled by socialists, revolutionary parties after the world war II. Also, India was under colonisation of UK until 1947 which was after the war. What do we really mean by free world here ? The world that is free or the free world of the world? But hey that is a sentence not a wikipedia article. The article clearly has to be deleted- no option. And yes, the article is clearly saying that USA was the leader of the free world. A single author using the term should not be interpreted as 'people' using the term. There are no references to back that people used that term then or even now.DBhuwanSurfer (talk)

Keep and improve, on the basis that the topic is defined and discussed in reliable sources (i.e. [1][2][3][4]). Turning this into a quality article will take some work, but it's definitely possible. And now I have that Neil Young song stuck in my head. Thanks a lot. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is going to take a lot of work to turn into a good article, but the notability and importance of the term is surely beyond dispute and it is not beyond rescue. As the article seeks to point out it is not something capable of simple definition as though it were a geographical expression or defined a particular form of government. And whether the nominator likes it or not, it was not surprising that the Soviet Union for one resented the attempt in the US to claim the concept and the implication that other citizens were unfree - the contrast between individual freedom and collective interest was at the heart of the ideological divide. When a US president used the term Free World (as they frequently did) their audience implicitly knew what they were talking about and the very intangibility is the reason why an article rather than a dictionary definition is needed. Sourcing is difficult because it isn't likely to be done by Google search; it involves trawling through thousands of books and articles for discussion of the phrase as well as good examples of use. Articles on the Cold War and Iron Curtain already exist in WP but I do not think that they deal sufficiently with the political philosophical concepts behind the idea of the Free World. --AJHingston (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The current state of the article is indeed "super flawed", but deletion is not for clean-up. Potential sources exist, even if few are cited at present. DICDEF does not apply, as even in its current state the article goes far beyond just a definition, and there is potential for historical, political, and sociological discussion of the topic. Editors and the closing admin should also note the recent discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leader of the Free World. Cnilep (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, though I suppose I should clarify that my "prune" comment above was not to suggest that deletion was for clean-up, but to demonstrate that the article is salvageable. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Miskwito (talk) 05:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But needs to be delimitated to US Cold War concept, and focused on that topic. But AfD is, as stated above, not the venue for cleanup. --Soman (talk) 12:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And improve I suggest. The problem with the concept is that many ideologies claim to liberate people from what they define as states of being oppressed. A universal meaning therefore cannot be found. Different ideologies examine different aspects of human existence. They ensure the freedom of some aspects that can be only ensured at the expense of others. And they charge each other by being tyrannic for oppressing the other aspects. I agree with the criticism: sources are needed and NPOV should be reached. When I first started editing the article my intention was to make it less POV, less North American/First World POV. Before I modified the article it was ridicolously POV, a POV that is presented by the American media and what for this reason may be believed to be a universal viewpoint by people living in the First World. My parents lived behind the Iron Curtain before the Fall of Communism therefore I have first hand reports what that ideology considered important and what view it propagated through the media in its world, the Second World. My claims about it are only extraordinary for someone who never examined deeply a viewpoint other than that of the First World. What I will try to insert are references from communist media. Using a Second World history book will be the best. N.11.6 (talk) 22:52, 3 November 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.