Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EU three

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 keep, no consensus. 1ne 07:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EU three

• Bush used this term in an interview with Wolf Blitzer Sept. 20th 2006

Comment: This is the reason I found this article to begin with. To view the video, go link here to CNN.com (direct link to video). My personal opinion is that this term might spread and become more commonly used in the future, so why delete the article when it might be required to recreate it later? Mastgrr 05:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Non-notable neologism. This will never be more than a stub. Try European Union and weapons of mass destruction, possibly. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep Looking at a few articles from a Google search, it seems that the term has indeed entered the political vernacular in the UK and in the US (at least within the white house itself). The page could easily be expanded by providing brief chronological actions taken by the EU 3 and their repercussions, as well as comparing the common goals and interests of the member nations. The article needs expansion, and I believe it to be a valid topic. Xiliquiern 00:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep I think that phrase is commonly used. I'm not sure I'd call it a neologism though. At the worst you could accuse this of being a dictdef and you might have a point but I disagree that there's no room for it to grow. For instance it could be extremely interesting if someone were able to trace how this informal group happened to form. I don't know and I'd certainly welcome an explanation. For instance, Germany's involvement in military affairs was pretty much unthinkable before reunification. It's yet another attempt by European countries to form some sort of coherent counterweight to the US in foreign affairs and should be documented as such. Pascal.Tesson 00:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to European Union. It might be commonly used, but there's too little to say about it for a separate article. JIP | Talk 05:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Never heard of it. EU politics is a constant circle of blocks forming and breaking-up over different policies. While these three countries may have a united approach to Iran (which is itself debatable), they differ over topics like federalism and agriculture subsidies. Catchpole 06:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per Catchpole. Marcus22 09:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into EU per JIP. Signature^brendel 03:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment for the record I strongly disagree with the above four comments. As I tried to explain in my keep opinion, there is probably a lot to say about this subject. I also suggest that anyone who "has never heard of it" is watching too much of CNN and FoxNews and not reading enough of Le Monde, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung or foreign policy publications. The fact that "EU politics is a constant circle of blocks forming and breaking-up over different policies" is certainly the American point of view on the EU but it is debatable at best and even if that's the case, then isn't it precisely Wikipedia's role to document how and why these blocks and circles form and evolve? Note also that the merge to European Union is most certainly not an option as that page is already too long and not at all focused on such issues. Pascal.Tesson 16:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • SecondedI absolutely agree. Xiliquiern 16:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't get CNN and FoxNews where I live. Neither do I read French or German newspapers, as they are not written in English. As an UK citizen living in the Netherlands I would say that the average man on the street would not be familiar with the EU three. It certainly has not entered the political vernacular in the UK. Either way the article needs to be rewritten to make clear that the phrase relates to the three countries recent policy towards Iran and not EU politics in general or renamed. Catchpole 19:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Isn't this term also moot, since France broke ranks? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment well this Google search for instance shows that however informal the group may be, the term "EU three" is in wide use even in the english media. [1] I still think a lot can be said about the subject. The fact that the current article does not say much shouldn't mean that it's not a valid topic. Pascal.Tesson 23:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
        • The google search above demonstrates more that the term is Iran policy wonk jargon that has occassionally strayed into press reports than wide use in the english media. Note also that The Times has to append the 3 countries it refers to when it uses it [2] presumably because it recognises "EU three" is an unfamiliar term to its readers. Catchpole 07:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Not sure how good a judge you are of things Pascal. Not only does Catchpole not received Fox or CNN as he appears to live in the Netherlands, but I do not receive them either as I live in France. And FYI I haven't heard the term on TF1 and I haven't noticed it in Le Montagne either - my local French paper. So Delete it still is. Sorry. Marcus22 19:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Sorry to insist but if you haven't heard the term "troïka européenne" in the last few weeks then we are not reading the same french newspapers. [3] [4] [5] [6].

• Strong Delete: this term is a journalistic neologism used in the context of the nuclear talks with Iran. Since these talks include other non-European nations (eg, the USA), and those three countries generally act in concert in the context of those talks, it is convenient to refer to them as "the EU three". For example: «the US is calling for an ultimatum, while the "EU three" prefer to continue the talks without setting a deadline». However, this is only valid within the context of this specific international crisis; in other instances, those countries can easily be on opposing sides (see, for example, their stance on the Iraq war), and within other groups, you can have an "EU three" or "EU four" or "EU five" consisting of different countries, depending on the situation. 82.55.199.200 14:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not contesting that it is a convenient term and not much else. However it seems like a particularly good encyclopedia topic. Would you also recommend deleting the article "Collaboration of Germany, United Kingdom and France during the Iran nuclear crisis of 2005-2006"? I think "EU three" is just a convenient title for that article and one that is likely to be a search by users. Pascal.Tesson 20:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Extra comment I'm not sure why I'm fighting for this but I do think that the delete opinions expressed here are too weak. The fact that the common man has not heard the term is not an argument for deletion, especially since the common man doesn't read the foreign affairs section of his newspaper. I am certain that people who have followed closely the negotiations with Iran have heard the term or at lest recognize this group of countries to have had a particular, coherent role in this affair. In any case, this debate has focused on the notability of the term when in fact it should focus on the wisdom of keeping the content of the article. I think the content is uncontroversially valuable and we can always move the page to another article. Pascal.Tesson 21:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I dont like this: "especially since the common man doesn't read the foreign affairs section of his newspaper". All the more so because as with your other assumptions - that those who vote Delete live in the USA and only see US TV - you are mistaken. (I know that in my own case I have voted for delete because I have NOT previously encountered the term and I DO read both politics and EU matters in newspapers and on the internet. I also watch French mainstream TV and listen to France Inter. And I have heard no mention of the 'EU Three'. Consequently whilst I dont doubt that you have encountered the term I do doubt that it is both widespread and of note/significance). So please, no more assumptions about what others do or do not do. That is not the way to "win" an argument. Marcus22 19:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment I meant no disrespect to you or, God forbid, the common man. But it's not uncommon for Wikipedia articles to be about little known things and the fact that 90% of people have not heard the term is beyond the point: it does not resolve the basic question of whether or not this is an encyclopedic topic. And I will say again that the debate should not be about the prevalence of the term but about the value of the content of the article. Certainly the history of this alliance would be an interesting contribution to the project. Pascal.Tesson 22:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as neologism. A term used in a speech, which will soon die out... and before you jump the gun, I live in Geneva and read the Tribune de Genève and Le Matin. So yes, I get European news and no, I've still never heard of it. --Storkk 23:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Xiliquiern. Markovich292 22:51, 23 September 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.