Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euronationalism


 * 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 of the debate was Delete. Being a neologism, failing WP:NOR and WP:POV trump 'I've heard of it'. Easy decision to make. Proto   ||    type    11:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Euronationalism
Original research, pov and no scholarly definition. Delete. Intangible 23:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC) Comment That's all nice, that you have heard of the term; but instead, you should focus on the definitial problems surrounding the subject at hand. Intangible 15:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neologism.  The article itself admits it's a "rather vague concept". KleenupKrew 23:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have heard the term used on several occassions on news broadcasts. Ben W Bell   talk  08:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Neologism that may well gain more popularity and wider usage. but at the moment, too little used Bwithh 22:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, I've heard of it. Rework it, if necessary. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 19:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as badly-defined POV terminology. I would be willing to change if some sources are cited; this page currently has none. Stifle (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete At least as it stands, with no reputable sources to support the 'definition'. Besides, the article casts neo-nazi, conservative, religious and regional autonomist parties into the same vague concept, which is just ridiculous. Justice III
 * Keep // Liftarn 10:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neologism that is in little use and has different definitions depending where you look. Refers to strong pro-europe sentiments in some places for instance. Article also reeks of original research. Equendil Talk 09:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of google hits, although i agree it does seems to feature some original research which should be removed and hosted elsewhere 195.92.40.49 09:11, 12 June 2006 (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.