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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Pro-Europeanism (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's unclear what "Pro-Europeanism" means, and most of the article is an unsourced and indiscriminate list of political parties. I don't think there's an actual topic here; the synthesis between "supports specific EU measures" and "supports the concept of multi-nationalism" is too great. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep: The article can be cleaned up/improved- 100% agreed. But, just because the intro is slightly vague, it does not justify the deletion in my opinion. From what I have come to understand, this article hosts various political parties within greater Europe that are "Pro- EU" to a degree (as stated in their respective ideologies/manifestos). I believe the definition can be clarified to better reflect that. Best, Archives908 ( talk) 23:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep and address concerns through editing. I was expecting to find a largely unreferenced article when reading the nomination; but with 52 citations I don't think a claim of lacks sourcing can be made. A more fair assessment is that this article is only partially sourced. It's a little difficult to give an opinion on this topic because the two foundational sources for the concept are both offline references. If the nominator had actually stated that the offline sources cited didn't actually support the conceptual framework, or that the text was somehow an original synthesis of those works than I would be inclined to vote the other way. However, it's not clear the nominator has actually read those sources. As is, I'm inclined to WP:AGF that the original contributor has faithfully interpreted the offline sources and that there is RS supporting this conceptual framework in order for it to pass GNG. That said, I wouldn't doubt that OR/SYNTH has creeped in elsewhere, and that a thorough combing through the sources that are cited and trimming down of the article is needed. What we really need is to tag this with Template:Expert needed, because this is a puzzle that requires more than just the typical AFD once over. 4meter4 ( talk) 21:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep, 4meter4 sums it up best IMHO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Needs better sourcing or weak delete. This is a really hard one, the term is clearly very widely used, but it strikes me as something that is not presented as an ideology in itself. I would be much more comfortable if somebody could link an article which defines Pro-Europeanism, rather than attributing it as a position to an individual or party. Boynamedsue ( talk) 11:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep It's very clear what pro-Europeanism is but if people don't get it they can read something like this. And, as for the attitude of the various parties, here's a book on the subject. See also Pan-European nationalism, Pan-European identity and other related articles. Andrew🐉( talk) 18:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC) reply

"It's very clear what x is" is not a valid argument that it meets WP:GNG. The opinion article that you link is not valid to provide notability, the book is probably much better. I could not find the passage where "pro-Europeanism" is defined, as it is paywalled and none of the hits in the book for "pro-Europeanism" defined it close enough to the term for me to see it. But if you have found a definition in there, put it up and I will happily change my vote to keep. -- Boynamedsue ( talk) 06:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC) reply

The nomination says nothing about WP:GNG whereas it does claim that "It's unclear what "Pro-Europeanism" means". I have therefore refuted the nomination by providing some counter-examples. Q.E.D. Andrew🐉( talk) 14:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC) reply

That the word "pro-European" and its derivative "pro-Europeanism" are used is not doubted by anyone. That "Pro-Europeanism" constitutes an ideology which meets GNG has still not been demonstrated. If you find a scholarly article or two which does this, you should link them, because that it is more or less game over for the AfD.-- Boynamedsue ( talk) 16:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete Unfortunately this article does what so many do when struggling to find good sources treating a subject as a whole: become a list. The article has many reliable sources but they mainly seem to be pointing to particular parties being "Pro-Europe" which is a quite self-explanatory phrase but does not, as far as I can see, point to a larger movement or idea. The usage seems to be limited to speaking about varying national attitudes towards Europe and the EU. At best, the New Statesman articles [1] [2] can be seen as primary sources (and are opinion pieces) talking around the idea and trying to define it rather than speaking about an already defined concept. Writing this I have talked myself into a delete !vote. At my most generous I would say draftify until it is better than just a list. Political parties change stance all the time so I think it is unmaintainable in its current form. A last point would be to contrast this article with Euroscepticism which has no problem defining the term, its ideology, history etc. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 08:35, 16 September 2021 (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.