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 - though there is disagreement on what Greater Europe means; perhaps this debate is what the article should be about if the reliable sources talk about the subject but cannot agree on what it is. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Quite simply this entity or concept does not exist. All alleged references are not reputable sources. I severely doubt the term is used in any reputable notable publications. Nothing in this article could not be said in the Europe article. It is original research. Willy turner (talk) 10:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article when nominated was in shambles. I have since removed the unreliable sources, added reliable ones, and tidied up the page. It is a term I have encountered many times before. Hopefully the page can be saved. 78.146.235.129 (talk) 10:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The concept does not exist in any authoritative sense. Siberia and the Islamic states formerly part of the USSR have never been thought to be European, Greenland is on the North American tectonic plate, and Israel's only European linkage is participation in the Eurovision Song Contest. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 11:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Israel's only European linkage is participation in the Eurovision Song Contest? Our very own article disagrees there, while Israel has even showed interest in joining the EU [1] [2] [3] 78.146.235.129 (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge As the IP points out, this term is used, as the sources show. So there is something like that contrary to what the nominator states. If the NY Times, Coca-Cola Inc. or others use it, it does have a meaning and if it does, it can have an article. I think the nominated article and the current article are not the same and the current article is sourced okay and might only require a cleanup. Alternatively it could be merged into the Europe article as a new section and the nominated article made a redirect to point there. So#Why ^{review me!} 11:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per above. 78.146.235.129 (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Europe - this does not seem a credible or generelised concept, but a mere jornalistic or comercial expression used to denote some dubious reality. The Ogre (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Besides the article's destiny, there is also the question of the map: if it is a geographical depiction of the location of Europe in the world (as some user in Template:Regions of the world tried to do), then it is completely wrong; if it is an illustration of Greater Europe, whatever that might be and assuming a map for that should exist, then at least it should be renamed. The Ogre (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I checked the old and the new sources and found them less than convincing. Judging from them, I doubt that of three people speaking of a Greater Europe, any two agree on what they mean. Several sources use "greater Europe", not the proper noun "Greater Europe". In effect, a neologism which has not gained mainstream recognition or a unified meaning. We could summarize the article as "Greater Europe is a geographical or political entity greater than Europe or the current EU", but it's not a notable term. Huon (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment May I point out that the article is vastly different from how it was when it was nominated, so that is not a good enough reason. 78.146.235.129 (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I still stand behind Delete. I find the concept unsupportable and counter-factual. We are moving into Humpty Dumpty land, by taking a concept ("Europe") and stretching it to mean [most of] "Eurasia" as well as the "Mediterranean Basin." I have looked at the current version of the article and see no value in it. And to me, Coca-Cola is not an authority. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to UEFA, which covers all of "Greater Europe" Merge into Europe per the Ogre. Grutness...wha? 00:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into a new section in Europe Keep, considering the new changes to the page. --Maltalia (talk) 08:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are hundreds of books which talk of this and some, such as Towards Greater Europe are specifically about the topic. The nomination's contention that the term is not used in reputable publications is evidently false. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but seriously improve with more and credible sources. I really hate the map, IMHO it should be deleted and a better one should be found (along with proper sources). The map includes Jordan and several Asian countries who might be influenced by the wider Western world, but being a part of a 'Greater Europe' seems to be quite a stretch. I believe that the article is a bit suspicious but recent improvements seem to indicate that the term exists in some quarters. The argument of Colonel Warden is very unclear. Perhaps there are two terms/ideas with this name (Greater Europe): one shown in this article (kind of a fringe idea), and the other one concerning the EU (i.e.:a Greater Europe created by the EU - EU being the proper name for the article). Either way the term seems to exist - the article just needs more work and improvements. Flamarande (talk) 11:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a widely debated topic - and useful to a researcher. May want to consider more edits. Eisenhowerdd (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC) — Eisenhowerdd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.