Talk:Sport policies of the European Union

WP:RM
Move to Sports in the European Union? -- User:68.72.118.244
 * Oppose - sport is a perfectly good word, and is preferred to sports in British English at least. sjorford &rarr;&bull;&larr; 10:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose, BE vs. AE difference. James F. (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - 69.212.73.73 22:14, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. violet/riga (t) 17:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 17:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

What is this article?
There is no particular cultural, sporting or political distinction about sport in the EU that requires a separate article. There are no EU teams or leagues and the sporting cultures in the individual countries are very distinct. This page looks uncomfortably like propaganda for the EU. This page should be renamed "Sport in Europe", or preferably deleted. It's existence seems POV. JW 23:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anti-EU propaganda ? . --Pgreenfinch 07:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ehr, it's not propaganda, it's a fair point. Why does this page exist? It seems to be using sport for a political end. Why should there be a page on sport in the EU? What next, sport in NAFTA? JW 10:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I read the VfD debate on European Union at the 2004 Summer Olympics and I can see where you're coming from. The problem is this article is promoting the importance of the EU in an area where it has no importance at all. Its very existence is POV. I realise that you would like to promote European integration, but that is not what WP is for. Most of this article is a duplication of the one on the Olympics, which itself was VfD. I considered merging the two but I really couldn't find anything in this article that was factual or NPOV and that wasn't already on the Olympics page. If you want to re-think the Olympics page so the two can be merged and renamed "Sport Policy in the EU" or something like that, I think that would be an improvement. Otherwise this probably has to be VfD as well. JW 15:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe a few lines in the two articles are redundant, but the non existence of those articles would be POV. --Pgreenfinch 16:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why would it be POV? It's more than a few lines that are the same, I honestly tried to merge them but 50% of these two articles are identical. The rest is either vague statements like "a variety of sports are played in the EU" or speculation on what might happen in the future, which isn't encyclopedic. JW 16:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is your real purpose ? --Pgreenfinch 18:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. If the two articles were merged and re-named it might address some of the problems that people had with the EU at the Olympics page. JW 11:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Except that one is a permanent article, and the other applies to an event at a given date (there will be other olympic games, and every one is a category in itself). --Pgreenfinch 12:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Blatant political agenda
Since sport is organised Europe wide rather than restricted to the EU no one would start this unless they were promoting the extension of EU power, which they authors clearly are. I've nominated it for deletion. Osomec 06:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Cleaned page up
Removed POV and cleaned page up. There are more indirect consequences of EU policy on sports. That section needs to be expanded. Any volunteers? Mjolnir1984 12:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)