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. This was the incorrect forum to discuss this, which is WP:RFD, and all of the arguments go against WP:RNEUTRAL. I will relist this at RFD shortly. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC) (now at RFD: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_18 --00:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]

United States military occupation[edit]

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

Strong DeleteThe name is POV and is not a reference to any armed forces, but rather exists to imply that the U.S. Armed Forces serves to occupy Garuda28 (talk) 06:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Really, since it is a redirect it should probably be under RfD rather than AfD, but it should be deleted either way. "United States military occupation" is not a suitable redirect for the US armed forces in general, and there is already a list of US (and non-US) military occupations at List of military occupations.PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and PohranicniStraze's points. Rockypedia (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE The term is neutral with no point of view. It refers to one of the historic roles of the military forces. The U. S. has conducted numerous missions of temporary occupation of places during and after conflicts, with the primary role being to restore a functioning government by getting the populace back on its feet. Some U. S. military occupations that come to mind range from Spanish East Florida in 1812 to post-WWII Japan to post-Saddam Iraq. Indeed, the historic Marshall Plan was born of the Allied occupation of Europe after World War II. Also, this is simply a Redirect. If a user searches on "U. S. military occupation", what better place to be redirected than the article about the U. S. military? Jeff in CA (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated above the term is derogitory and isn't another way to say armed forces or military. Even the article has very little to do with U.S. military operations. Moreover no other Armed Forces or military page has this kind of redirect.65.152.162.3 (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of the reasons above are good reasons to delete this redirect. It shows significant POV and bias, and frankly that doesn't work with the encyclopedic standards of Wikipedia. 2600:100E:B02D:F472:C4BD:B5B6:2456:E255 (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note:

See WP:Redirect#Reasons for not deleting

8.2.1 Neutrality of redirects:

Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names. Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is therefore not a sufficient reason for their deletion.

[One reason] Non-neutral redirects are commonly created ... :

The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term. (NOTE: Many press reports and history books use the term, "military occupation".)

8.2 Reasons for not deleting a redirect:

You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time ... should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. (NOTE: This redirect has incoming links from elsewhere on Wikipedia.)

They aid searches on certain terms. (NOTE: This redirect aids searches on its term.)

Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. (NOTE: I find the redirect useful.)

The redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and deleting the redirect would prevent unregistered users from expanding the redirect, and thereby make the encyclopedia harder to edit and reduce the pool of available editors. (NOTE: This redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article.)

Jeff in CA (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - POV redirect. Carrite (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2017 (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.