Talk:North american union

Fixing this article

It is similar but I intend to fix it, Thanks Hutcher 23:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

may i suggest, for purposes of holding onto this article (as there seems to be great opposition to its existance) that you begin the article with "NAU is a term used almost exclusively by critics to describe..." etc. it is a term in wide use, but having an article wuth that name might suggest that it describes something official. that could be seen as misleading and gives ammunition to anyone who wants to remove it. --PopeFauveXXIII 01:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability

Notable to all CNN viewers. CNN has a median prime-time viewership of 815000

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0611/29/ldt.01.html

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/09/ldt.01.html

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/29/Dobbs.May30/index.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H65f3q_Lm9U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxCeWQ9Ge38

Hutcher 04:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I used the "Notability" tag becuase it's the closest thing to a pre_AFD tag that I have found. The title of the page is a direct attempt to get around a page whose title has been blocked. THat is not a good-faith measure, even if you were not involved with the original page.

In addition, it is very unusual for an article's text to consist almost soley of quotes from a single book, and a highly-POV one at that! If this page is basically a recreation of the book's online sources, then it really does not qualify as a well-belanced article with an NPOV coevering multiple viewpoints. I do believe baisc idea of the article is a legitmate one, but one cannot rely on a single source for the bulk of an article.

I believe you have something in mind for what you want the article to be, but you really need to state that up front here to address the concerns that I have raised, and that other are likely to raise here, or in an AFD. I honestly think the best thing to do here tho, is to pull the aritcle, thus avoiding an AFD. You would do well to move the text of this page to your userspace to work on it. AFter you are finished improving it, you should then apply through Deletion Review to have your new version reinstated. That would show good-faith, and a respect for the Policies of WIkipedia. - BillCJ 04:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

actually, i was the one who created the page as a redirect to Independent Task Force on North America, as i could not believe that a term in broad use, which is very likely to be typed into the search bar, was banned. might make people think wikipedia is in on the conspiracy, no? that would be tremendously bad for credibility. --PopeFauveXXIII 09:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha, I'm not trying to show bad-faith - like some of the people that vandalize these types of pages might. I'm a Noob at this. I did as Popefauvexxiii suggested: I heard that there were massive protests planned in Montebello, Quebec against a North American Union; typed North American Union into my favorite source for information Wikipedia and was redirected away. I was shocked that something I've heard about literally 1000's of times did not have at least a stub! Scandalous! I didn't even realize that articles were case-sensitive! Anyhow, I've already broadened the sources (there a millions of other sources available since this is openly spoken of at this point). I'll pull it into my userspace, whatever that is, refit her and then apply for a Deletion Review. I'm confident that the editors will return my show of good-faith. Thanks for the tips. Hutcher 16:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I find it very suspicious that there is no page concerning the North American Union. I believe this is the first time I have used Wikipedia fruitlessly. Just because the mass media of the world is failing to educate the populace on this topic, I still hold faith that this "free" source is not unduly influenced in its editing of the facts. But, if this is indeed the case, then I fear that Lysander Spooner, The Preamble, and the American Constitution itself may someday cease to be accessible in untainted form. And no, i don't feel like I'm over-reacting. Everyone should be wary of a website this powerful. Corruption is like a vulture, hovering patiently.

75.139.220.234 09:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Resurrection

It is my considered opinion that resurrecting this article is not wise. It is not properly capitalized, which will draw attention to it from the AfD task force. I originally created this link so that somebody typing NAU into the search bar would yield a result. I suggest taking references of critical commentary on the NAU to the Independent Task Force on North America page. I would love to help, but unfortunately I have neither the time nor the expertise to tackle this subject. Good luck. --PopeFauveXXIII 21:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

One wonders how many times this article will be deleted ... --Kralizec! (talk) 03:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)