Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EU Propaganda


 * 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   Speedy delete per G11 and G4. (non-admin closure) Whpq (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

EU Propaganda

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Personal essay which makes no attempt to give a neutral point of view on the subject. While there are sources, there is no possibility of an article with this title could be balanced. The content of the article is amazingly one-sided and clearly promotes a very specific viewpoint of the subject. Prod was contested, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

I am a graduate student, studying International Relations & Foreign Propaganda, and have created this entry for a school project. All of the sources that I have used are documented, and in no way is this wiki entry an attempt to create my own propaganda. I have no axe to grind, and am simply doing school work. I will actually have to present this page in front of my class and the professor for a grade, so it behooves me to be scholarly. I would greatly appreciate if you would not take this site down, but instead, please help me find additional sources to make it as scholarly as possible.

Every state, as my class has learned maintains propaganda operations, or forms of communication that are aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position so as to benefit oneself or one's group, and so this article does not suggest an extreme view or intend to be an attack on the EU. The US, Russia, China, France, Britain, and all states, essentially, do this- promote themselves. Please, help me, therefore, to simply make this entry as well documented and fact worthy as possible.

I appreciate your help and understanding.

Kind regards,

Butterfly2011
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete ASAP. Not encyclopedic. — Jean Calleo (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is almost entirely original research.(WP:OR) It's written like a research paper and would need a complete re-write in order to be encyclopedic. On a side note, Wikipedia is not a place to store your homework and it's never a good idea to base a grade around a Wikipedia page because it can be edited and put through deletion processes. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Weak Delete with reservations. It could be a notable topic, and we have articles, such as Propaganda in the United States which started out in a biased, essay format such as this. It would probably be better if someone with some time on their hands would go and do a rewrite of this article. Joefridayquaker (talk) 06:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment For comparison, we have articles on the following:
 * British propaganda during World War II, American propaganda during World War II, Japanese propaganda during World War II
 * Communist propaganda, Nazi propaganda, Propaganda of Fascist Italy
 * Propaganda in the Soviet Union
 * Propaganda in the United States
 * Propaganda in the People's Republic of China, Propaganda in the Republic of China
 * Propaganda in North Korea
 * Taliban propaganda
 * The article, if it stays, should be renamed to Propaganda in the European Union or European Union propaganda (meaning propaganda in favor of EU, not just any propaganda inside the EU's borders). Thoughts? I'll try to actually go over the text and references and see if it can be saved. — Jean Calleo (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) Comment. While the current contents of the article appears to suffer from the original SYN, my impression is that the topic is notable. Most of the sources, also the ones we normally consider reliable, appear to have a clear point of view (namely looking with disapproval upon pro-EU propaganda campaigns), and it will not be easy to bring this into the required NPOV form. --Lambiam 16:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep (I changed my mind) (EDIT: I can't decide). I read through it and, as said above, article suffers from original research and original synthesis — a lot of the references are straight to primary sources, the sources that supposedly produce "propaganda", it is the first editor's interpretation that these things count as propaganda. The editor should find secondary, reliable sources that comment on these things and call them propaganda. But the topic itself is noteworthy and some of the existent material is useful. — Jean Calleo (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The content of this article looks familiar. A previous article had, from memory, begun under the title of "EU Propaganda"; an editor trying to NPOV it renamed it as "Allegations of excessive EU self-promotion" before deciding instead to take it to AfD. So Articles for deletion/Allegations of excessive EU self-promotion concluded with a delete on 13 November; this article (substantially the same?) appeared 3 days later and is now itself at AfD. AllyD (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed that, but are you sure the content is the same? There's currently no reason to believe that. — Jean Calleo (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to the deleted article, so can't be certain, but I recognised various statements and people quoted in this article. Perhaps, in the interests of transparency, Butterfly2011 (who was also notified of the AfD on the previous article, so was presumably also involved in it) can tell us whether this is a re-creation of the previously deleted article? AllyD (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the Google cached copy. Looks very similar after a quick look. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 02:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it qualifies for speedy deletion under WP:CSD G4, recreation of material deleted after an AfD discussion. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 02:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I put it up for speedy per CSD G4. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 02:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It was speedied. Can anyone close this? Dr.K. λogosπraxis 13:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete The fundamental issue here, as with the earlier AfD, is whether a proper article can be created on this subject, under this or one of the other proposed names. My own view remains that it is a collation of particular facts to form an argument, and it is unlikely that this can give rise to an NPOV encyclopaedic article. So I stick with my previous sggestion that individual documented facts might be appended to the European Union article and its sub-articles, but that the outcome should be deletion of this article. AllyD (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2011 (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.