Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romania's potential

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. The title is plainly unsuitable for a redirect as it is inherently going to imply POV on its target. Those opting to merge should be aware that there is virtually nothing in the article that can be usefully merged. The title also implies that the content of the article results in potential: this is pure interpretation, and original research which is explicitly disallowed. The delete arguments made here are significantly much stronger than the keep. -Splash^talk 22:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romania's potential

Please anyone who votes "merge", specify whether you want to delete or keep an entry as a redirect to whenever you "merge" info. Actually, as of now, there is no info to merge. --Irpen 22:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• del No content. No context. mikka (t) 19:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

  I don't agree until it will be ended the discussion first. Let's wait a while to see the result of the discussion. Bonaparte talk 20:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Completely idiosyncratic non-topic; just a desperate & useless call for attention - AdamSmithee 20:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Strange topic and strange article name. No potential for the article under this name anyway. Importance of Romania for the European Union might be made an encyclopedic article by someone one day, but there is nothing in the Romania's potential article that might ever be useful for that. Accession of Romania to the European Union is already there. Also, no need to keep the redirect, an extremely unilikely search entry. --Irpen 22:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge - Why not create a new section in the Romania article and see what progresses from there? James084 21:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually Accession of Romania to the European Union covers the topic better than this article, so one wouldn't have what to merge. If someone feels the topic needs more information, he can add it in there - AdamSmithee 21:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Accession of Romania to the European Union, redirect.-- Astrokey44|talk 23:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per above. -- JJay 02:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Change to Keep and expand. Article clearly has not been given time to develop correctly. Nomination seems to have shutdown ongoing discussion on talk page. -- JJay 03:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You may now change to "strong keep", but there is no meaningful discussion at the talk page. mikka (t) 04:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, thanks. Strong keep per mikka and my comments above. -- JJay 04:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I am totally bewildered. Folks who vote merge: did you happen to peek into the article? What is there to merge? Here is the whole content: mikka (t) 03:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Romania's potential in EU is given by its size. As the 7th largest nation in EU Romania has a great regional power. Main issues:

economical power

geostrategical location

cultural power

population size

• Delete. Seems pretty crystal-bally and originial research. --Apostrophe 07:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: POV. --King of All the Franks 07:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research --Ghirla | talk 09:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep- Here may be disscussed a lot of issues, mikka didn't let enough time to expand it. Now is only a stub guys! You have to help to extend it. --Bonaparte talk 15:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Apostrophe -- totally, totally, totally emtpy. --Node 17:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Either redirect to Accession of Romania to the European Union or delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Even the title suggests only original research content. Pavel Vozenilek 01:45, 24 December 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.