Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overseas expansion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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/redirect. Note: an anon IP removed the AfD notice on 30 December 2007, but the consensus here is clear enough that no relist appears necessary. — Scientizzle 18:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Overseas expansion

Overseas expansion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Appears to be an essay of some sort. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Jonathan (talk • contribs • complain?) 01:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to World economy. This seems to be a valid topic, but the current prose is almost totally useless in terms of being an encyclopedia article. A redirect keeps the text in the history if anyone wants it, and is a useful redirect anyway. --W.marsh 01:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect per W.marsh, and because the only other path I see is to userfy and MfD, then redirect. Thinboy00 @172, i.e. 03:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - This appears to be advertising. Note the author and sole editor has the same name as the website that it is steering people to at the end of the article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete While I acknowledge W.marsh's point, I don't think a redirect is indicated here. Unless there is some indication that it is a phrase with some circulation and definition, I see no need for a redirect. And I see little call for keeping the current text available since it is essentially an essay with no WP:V or WP:RS in it. Pigman☿ 07:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    • 9000 news mentions of the term, and in headlines as a noun phrase... I just see people typing this in or linking to it for more information. So it's a useful redirect. I don't mind if the current text is deleted first. --W.marsh 16:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Strong POV and dict def issues. Mbisanz (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect as explained by wmarsh --Ryan Delaney talk 08:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redirect suggested above would emphasize way too much the current social and political ideology. Two random examples [1], [2] where the term is used differently. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2007 (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.