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 delete. --Core desat 00:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EuropeanUnity[edit]

Incomprehensible personal musings by user Xxell and IP 64.69.127.105. Article content and authors seem highly related to a previous deleted article: Complexxon (of a year ago). Article probably not eligible for a speedy ( G4 for instance) or prod. Van helsing 15:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an essay, not an encyclopedia article, and profoundly POV. It is so confusing to read that it's difficult to say what it's about, but it's definitely not a fact-based, neutral encyclopedia article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly nonsense. Law & Disorder 17:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
user talk and response —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxell (talk • contribs) 21:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Seems to be an agenda being pushed by User:Xxell at http://xxell.com/. Corvus cornix 23:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Do you consider new evidence based on facts of the -until now covert- European-Energy-Agenda-1963-Under-American-Pressure with global impact -in order to distinguish 'Unity' from 'Union'- an Agenda we should not endeavour and just rule out? And do you consider qualifications like musings and clearly nonsense quantifiable with arguments based on good faith and mutual respect? What is your mutual special interest of obscuring the evolution of intelligible information? Written & signed by: Stephan Tychon@dr.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.127.105 (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presenting your personal interpretation of historical facts as an encyclopedia article runs counter to the policy of no original research. We can only reflect opinions which can be sourced to reliable secondary sources. We'd apply exactly the same policies if a member of Shell's PR department tried to create an article on "How Shell are helping to create a greener future for all our children". An encyclopedia is not the right place for pursuing any agenda, no matter how important you feel that agenda to be. Thomjakobsen 19:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are your arguments to think Union would include Unity? And how can special interests groups like you claim Unity not to be a seperate lemma from Union regarding the EU in this case? It is total nonsense as far as I can see. Unity does and should not redirect to Union either. Stephan Tychon@dr.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.127.105 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 25 October 2007

It is common usage to associate the term "European Unity" with the ideas leading to the "European Union". Unless there is a substantial body of reliable secondary coverage talking about "European Unity" in a sense that is not related to the "European Union", European Unity will continue to redirect users to European Union. In the meantime, replacing that page with an essay of your personal ideas on "European Unity" is against our policies, which have been repeatedly pointed out to you. Does that explain things? Thomjakobsen 20:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly explaines why your conventional way of thinking does not want to understand broader ideas and conception beyond common usage. That part of the problem of the world being in the situation it is now. I know history cannot be found in written documents. People like you are at threat to responsible development and sustainable globalisation. The concept of Unity is much broader than abusive authority under arrogant market pressure of the past.

Jean Monnet and Robert Schumann, arguably were traitors to the greater good while sustaining special interest groups. Therefore the lemma EuropeanUnity is not a personal assay based only on individual ideas. You should stop obstructing evolution and edit the lemma instead. You might be of positive added value for the Global Society. Written & signed by email removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.127.105 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 25 October 2007

Delete - non-neutral, unverified original research.--Beloved Freak 20:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no Unity in the EEC, nor EC and there is no Unity in the Union. You repeat saying cash-flow, when say cash-fly. Tychon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.127.105 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 26 October 2007

Delete as per Belovedfreak. Edward321 04:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essentially incomprehensible waffle. JFW | T@lk 21:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.