Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Europeanisation (2nd nomination)

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 Keep by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy ^(talk) 05:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Europeanisation

This was originally listed at Deletion Review. Instead of being undeleted (the original was AfD'd here) a new article was written, which is fine. Howver, the original article faced (serious) charges of being original research, and the new incarnation cites no sources whatever — it sounds to me a little like a construction of a term based on some possible examples. Whether it passes WP:NOR and WP:V should probably be discussed here again. -Splash^talk 02:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This is not the same language as was used in the original POV rant. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • You didn't wait for me to say that it wasn't. -Splash^talk 02:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, a commonly used term in the political and social sciences. I've added a link that covers most of what is said in the article. For any article like this, it is easy to get almost arbitrarily many sources via Google Scholar search (5670 hits for the Z spelling, 4400 for the S). Christopher Parham (talk) 02:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • As long as you can provide cites that verify the individual facts in the article rather than simply the existence of the term itself, that's fine. It's too late here for me to sit and read the link you have already provided to see if it already covers each claim currently present. -Splash^talk 02:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep With the possible exception of the last paragraph, all claims appear factual and accounted for. --anetode¹ ² ³ 03:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and add sources. Notable concept and current article seems reasonable. Capitalistroadster 05:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Have rewritten one or two POV phrases and the last paragraph. Reads OK now. Needs expanding really. Marcus22 09:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. This is valid political and social terminoligy, every bit as much as globalisation. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. A well recognised term. As per cactus man too. Nil Einne 14:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep phrase is in (fairly) common use - and the concept is of much debate. --Doc (?) 15:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's also a common term in law. Martg76 16:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's an increasingly important topic which needs expansion rather than deletion. Boldymumbles 01:40, 2 November 2005 (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.