Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accession of the United Kingdom to the European Economic Community


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  02:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Accession of the United Kingdom to the European Economic Community

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is not notable it is stub and have no external links.  Nepali Keto 62 Talk to me 13:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 1.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 13:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps that's because you started this AFD a minute after the article was created. Give an article a few minutes, and stop WP:BITEing the new editors. OnionRing (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 12:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It was speedily deleted, now it's back, with a new speedy deletion tag added. I've declined the speedy. I think we need an Afd result to stop the cycle. I've also added a category, Category:United Kingdom and the European Union. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was the old CSD tag, I forgot to remove it... --Randykitty (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I should also mention that User:Andrew Davidson has just started working on it, adding a book reference. So the nomination rationale of "no external links" no longer applies -- especially in that references and not external links are really what is called for. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, the old Cfd tag said it duplicated Enlargement of the European Union: but that main article didn't mention the UK negotiating team, which is now cited here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep There is an overlap with other articles because the UK joined at the same time as Denmark and Ireland (Norway dropped out). But there seems to be scope for this topic to be developed about the UK's case in particular, as there was a ten year history of negotiations leading up to this point.  And, of course, there is special interest in the UK's position after the recent referendum and so it seems good to clarify and expand its history.  I have made a start on expanding this and tying it into the wider web of topics. Andrew D. (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve per Andrew Davidson. OnionRing (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I was surprised to see that there was no article on the process by which the UK eventually joined, which took a number of years and actions to happen. This could even eventually grow into a main article United Kingdom and the European Union, which encompasses the whole topic -- still very much ongoing. Anyway, it does seem to me that the original rationale no longer applies, given improvements. The "accession" topic needs to be covered, somewhere, even if just as a stub, for now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve per all of the above.  Jujutsuan  ( Please notify with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; talk &#x7C; contribs) 17:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Unless someone can point to an appropriate merge target. 1973 enlargement of the European Communities does not fully cover the subject in the depth of this outline.  I would caution against including anything on BREXIT over 40 years later in the same article.  That is a different subject.  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – Interesting and notable subject, worthy of research and expansion. — JFG talk 21:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – Per all the above.VictoriaGraysonTalk 23:22, 7 July 2016 (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.