Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debate over a British Independence Day observed in the United Kingdom


 * 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 no consensus. Clearly no agreement here on whether this is a topic that merits a standalone article or whether it would be better covered elsewhere. Arguments are made that this is WP:SYNTH but there is no real agreement on whether that is the case. It is disappointing that this discussion seems to have fallen around partisan lines, and just a friendly reminder that using unnecessary juvenile terms like "butthurt" in an AFD may result in an "Afdexit" for the offending user. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Debate over a British Independence Day observed in the United Kingdom

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I really do noy think that this is a notable topic. All the references seem to date from shortly after the referendum, WP:NOTNEWS and I do not believe that there is any serious ongoing debate whatsoever concerning this idea. I listen to a lot of talk radio and have not heard any mention of this, even in comedy programs. TheLongTone (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge a brief mention into Brexit after removing a pointless list of pro/contra people. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete As I said in the prod rationale, this seems to be quite heavy on WP:SYNTH. Not sure why an AfD was needed when the prod was still in place though? Number   5  7  16:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Prods often disappear without a murmurTheLongTone (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge a concise version of the same to Brexit...Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. —Мандичка YO 😜 18:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't you think it should find a mention in Brexit...? Rameshnta909 (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, topic is not notable, and the article consists of either WP:SYNTH or WP:OR depending on how you read it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, off to a bad start here guys, I have spent the evening augmenting and improving. Perhaps you could do the same? Rather than attempting to mindlessly censor to shelter your fragile, personal political persuasion - with no evidence whatsoever to back it up or address the body of text. I am in the process of adding to people like Boris Johnson's (for) and David Cameron's (against) pages (as well as Andrea Leadsom, John Oliver, Douglas Carswell etc. etc.) to mention their opinions and/or statements on a British 'Independence Day'. I think if it's notable enough for them, it's notable enough for Wikipedia. Unless your whimsical internet reality is more real than elite-level politics and journalism? Bear in mind the UK Government have officially debated the topic, at tax payer's expense. Whether it's trending in the supposed current 'talk radio' isn't actually a metric of a page's viability on Wikipedia. Nor is which way the wind is blowing or how you 'feel'. 'Support' and 'Opposition' is catered for, allowing a neutral and factual representation of dozens of statements, speeches, columns and articles on the topic. This page is about the debate itself (statements of opinion, factually cited and proven by world-renowned politicians and columnists from impeccable sources), not the actual existence of the national holiday. Where is the proof that these statements didn't happen, aren't viable, aren't relevant to the title and aren't about the topic at hand? None so far. Mdmadden (talk) 00:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)  —  Mdmadden (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Firstly, regarding your snippy comments, WP:AGF. The reason for nominating this for deletion is that there is no such debate. Or certainly not so one would notice. I suspect you are the one with a political horse in the race, a blief only partly down to the fact that this article and edits on the topic are your only contributions to Wikipedia.TheLongTone (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, reasons as above. As for the list of supporters/opponents, merely mentioning 'Independence Day' in a statement, usually as campaign/political rhetoric, isn't the same as taking a firm position as to whether there should be a national holiday observed every year, which account for very few of the people who have been listed. Furthermore, the fact that most of this article mostly consists of people who are allegedly supporters or opponents of the topic suggests that the topic isn't particularly substantive or notable. In addition to Brexit, suggest it might also be better mentioned in British National Day. MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, Seems completely reasonable to me to have this as its own article. CyboDuck (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC) — CyboDuck (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep, wholly don't think we need a national holiday of a British Independence Day. However I see the petition gained over 21,000 signatories to be debated by the UK's MPs. The MP Robin Walker said it would be too expensive and had competition from St George's Day - so at least it's been officially discussed by government with even budget requirements... I'm sure this will resurface in 2017 when we get to anniversary of referendum too. But think it has to STAY/KEEP, too many MPs and MEPs have commented on it for 23 June to be celebrated/considered/recognized as 'Independence Day' and the public getting the government to respond for national holiday is significant enough. I might find some time to improve it - I will add some more people that have publicly opposed the national holiday suggestion. Slashmire (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or at best Merge. Having standalone articles on the basis of something having been debated in parliament would keep us busy with several new article a day. This was all a, rather dim, flash in the pan. Mdmadden's assertion that deletion is reliant on proof that the topic is not notable has matters rather the wrong way round. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, I've provided around 30 sources, on top of the Parliamentary debate, I have quoted literally some of the most notable, modern UK-politicians like Boris Johnson (Foreign Secretary), David Cameron (former Prime Minister), Nigel Farage (former UKIP leader), Andrea Leadsom (2016 Conservative leader final candidate) and so many more, directly addressing and debating the issue. You have provided nothing as a rebuttal. The onus is on you to credibly produce reasoned evidence against the inclusive 'for and against' debate on this issue existing, or once existing, at a viably notable level, which you have failed to do. I have proved the existence of direct quotes, comments, support and opposition. Your rebuttal is; "flash in the pan". A very unscientific and weak thesis. Why the obsession with removing a factually discussed recourse on an issue, that's taking a few Kilobytes space on the Wikipedia, I wonder? Keep Mdmadden (talk) 14:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The WP:SYNTHesis of a long ragbag of quotes in varying circumstances and contexts is not the same as reliable sources referring to an actual significant debate. At best this is worthy of a couple of sentences at Brexit. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Just looking back at this debate - I don't think on the 1 hand we can lament a proper/focused Parliaments debate by MPs on the issue because of the successful petition, and then also lament that there are other quotes on it in varying circumstances and contexts ETC - I think this might actually support the page (INCL. foreign politicians, USA, ETC) I think it's fanciful this will ever be a national holdiday but I can see MPs/MEPs who've spoken out in support AND opposition of it. Think it's got to STAY/KEEP, especially as I think there is more to add to opposition section eventually! Slashmire (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Not sure how lamentation of anything figures in this discussion. The implication seems to be that other participants here are taking sides in the supposed debate of the subject of the article, rather than neutrally discussing its notable existence. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry thought you said before about standalone articles for Parliament debates being problematic to you but then also were worried about all the other quotes from lots of different circumstances/contexts (like foreign politicians/newspapers/blogs ETC) - I actually thought that might actually help with its notability (DIFF/VARIED sources ETC).. I just added a The Guardian Observer article to opposition section that I found, I'm sure there's more opposition debate out there.. Slashmire (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Er, please stop projecting lamentation and worry upon me and just stick with what I've said. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Have struck the second vote by MdMadden. Feel free to make more comments but don't double "vote". Cowlibob (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, the issue of an Independence Day as a result of leaving the European Union has been discussed and reported in political circles from those on both sides and the page represents both opinions. I would rather have this page showing the opinions of those for and against rather than it being hijacked by one side in news outlets. Stevo1000 (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is an issue that was heavily discussed in the UK before and after the referendum. As previously stated, it is notable for a summary of both sides the debate to be present on Wikipedia. --RaviC (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Heaqvily discussed my curvy pink butt. Understandably nobody was talking about this before the referendum; ubderstandably only a few hardline arses are talking about it after.TheLongTone (talk) 12:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete or briefly merge to Brexit. Is part of that issue, WP:NOTNEWS applies.  Sandstein   13:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well about 1/2 people don't agree with that. There's certainly not a consensus. AfD was put on here prematurely in my opinion (and as others have said) as many say "or merge" after vote. Clearly the most ethical/right thing to do was put an IMPROVE notice above and encourage building prose on the article - not a hasty AfD. The sources and types of people quoted are legitimate, the Parliaments debate happened as well.... isn't that the most credible place in the UK for debating? The debate also has varied proven contexts/evidences FOR/AGAINST (as many on here agree), so why delete the home for this debate? Slashmire (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 13:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, is this article meant to be about the (non-notable) parliamentary debate or the non-existant public debate??? Really, this should be merged to Crass brexit triumphalism before the hard reality kicks inTheLongTone (talk) 14:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, so you do have your "political horse" in the race, after all. Numerous people disagree with you, so amp up the rhetoric to mock and pigeon hole other people. Ah so; it's "non-notable" because you said so and it's "non-existent" because you said so. Never mind all the references. You claim it's "Crass brexit triumphalism" as though that means the debate article can't exist because of it, as though the crassness on the "Support" side removes it from existence; that crassness cancels out elite-level politicians remarks, televised debates, Parliamentary debates. In what world does that happen? Equally, does the "Opposition" sides' liberal scathing cancel out David Cameron's or John Oliver's opposition? Remove it from existence, because others might not like that publicly expressed viewpoint? Also, referring to your "pink curvy" anatomy to RaviC above, just because they disagree with you - not especially helpful to a fair discussion either. You've made it clear you're on the side of "Opposition" - that doesn't mean the debate doesn't, or indeed hasn't, existed at viably notable level. Sorry, I think you AfD'd seemingly too quickly, flimsily and, clearly now, rather based on your political opposition rather than logic, and I think the split consensus proves that. Mdmadden (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF. I afd'd this because there is no public debate about thids catastrophically stupid and divisive idea.TheLongTone (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - I don't believe this is a thing, it might be worth a small mention in the Brexit article if it can be substantiated. But in my view it is just a bunch of soundbites with no constitutional or legal substance to it. Shritwod (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Belief is not a metric for Wikipedia articles and their viability. It has been substantiated already, in it's own article. It's best to read the article and it's cited references first before any commenting. Constitutional and legal substance is not a metric for whether an article is notably viable. Thank you. Mdmadden (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - If it's being considered for parliamentary discussion, I don't see how it's not relevant, whether you agree with Brexiters or not. That being said, if the resulting parliamentary discussion results in little uproar or external discussion, I'd support a merger to the Brexit page. --WhyIsItWereHere22 (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Certainly, present tense, it is not. To the extent it was ever any sort of live issue (not much) it certainly isn't any more. Merger's fine though. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Corrected.--WhyIsItWereHere22 (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the input. Present tense is not required for notable viability of an article. Thank you. Mdmadden (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Logic against seems fairly weak and politically-charged. See TheLongTone's comment, it's clear there's a lot of butthurt behind this motion. Steel Mariner  Talk  16:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The logic against it is just logic, the article itself seems to be a case of WP:SYNTH at the very least to push a political point that also smacks of WP:FRINGE. Shritwod (talk) 11:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I really don't see how something that has been discussed by mainstream politicians is "fringe". --WhyIsItWereHere22 (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly, mainstream politicians involvement and then labeling as "fringe" is an example of cognitive dissonance with this issue. As is the idea that there is a "political point" being pushed. Both "Support" and "Opposition" is, or has been, pushed by mainstream commentators, politicians and media. This article documents them and provides both viewpoints, plus a Parliamentary debate explicitly on the national holiday request. Mdmadden (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment On re-reading this discussion and the article, it appears that it is based on even flimsier grounds than I had thought. Both the article title and my reading of the posts above implied to me that a major aspect of the supposed notability of this topic was an actual parliamentary debate held on the matter of a public holiday. That itself would not be sufficient grounds for notability but on re-reading the article and Hansard, there seems not to have been any such debate. There was a discussion to consider six public on-line petitions relating to the UK’s exit from the European Union, held in the Grand Committee Chamber of Westminster Hall, not the main chamber, one of which called for an Independence Day. It was a consideration of the petitions, not a debate of their proposals and certainly could not be characterised as a parliamentary debate about Independence Day. The government responded negatively. (Incidentally, to be considered for parliamentary time, a petition should reach over 100,000, this one having reaching over 20,000.) Aside from this parliamentary footnote, the article is just a synthesised list of disparate quotes from people touching on the aspect of a public holiday, also largely talking in a much wider context. None of this is a tangible debate. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant strawman fallacy, admirable as it may be. The viability of the article does not rely on which chamber the tax-payer-funded MPs discussed the issue (at the public's request). Nor does the word "debate" in the title explicitly have to refer to a Parliamentary debate. Nor does the article rely solely on the debate of the petition, even with a spurious claim that is wasn't debated, subjectively or technically speaking. In fact, the Government's official statement on that petition is: "Parliament debated this topic. This topic was debated on 17 October 2016" As seen on UK Parliament petition: 123324.


 * More widely, Boris Johnson claimed about the 23 June; "I believe that this Thursday can be our country's Independence Day" in the BBC's own 'The Great Debate'. This was a public debate, at Wembley Arena, watched by millions of British voters. Then-Prime-Minister, David Cameron was explicitly questioned on Johnson's claim, who said "the idea that our country isn’t independent is nonsense. This whole debate demonstrates our sovereignty." These examples of the wider debate, partially on a British Independence Day, are catered for in "Support" and "Opposition" sections of the article. Those 'fringe' politicians Boris Johnson and David Cameron with their "disparate" and "wide" discussion on the issue; a wonderfully hair-splitting and artificial condition of article viability - whatever next. Also, perhaps someone should let these MPs know that "None of this is a tangible debate":


 * Robin Walker MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, claimed that "tempting though that might be, I think the idea of an independence day would face fierce competition from the likes of St George's Day, Trafalgar Day and many more. It's very hard to commit to June 23 over its many rivals. Unfortunately it's just too costly."
 * Patrick Grady MP, claimed that "of the 21,292 signatories to the petition that states that '23 June should be designated as Independence Day, and celebrated annually', two were residents of my constituency." Grady has been MP for Glasgow North since 2015. He further stated that "in years to come, 23 June will not be a day for celebration. It may indeed end up as a day of deep regret", and that "I sometimes wonder if I have woken up in a parallel universe and the independence day referred to is the day of Scotland becoming independent".


 * Furthermore, "The government responded negatively" in fact supports the viability of the article (and is pointedly mentioned in the opening paragraph of the article itself); it proves the executive branch of government has acknowledged the desire, from some quarters, for an Independence Day national holiday on 23 June and has, for the time bring, rejected it, explicitly taking loss of revenue and budget concerns into account. Here's another MP's reaction to that government response:


 * Nigel Evans MP, in October 2016 after the government announcement on a 23 June national holiday, stated; "What a shame the government has made this decision, this is an absolute belcher of an idea. This is the day to celebrate that we voted to make 100 per cent of our laws in the UK." He provided a further suggestion that "if its too expensive then why don't we swap it for one of those summer bank holidays in August and have our day of celebration. If it worked for the American's, why not us?"
 * Do you mean 'belter' Or is this a frank admission that this is all malodorous guff????TheLongTone (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * With all-due respect, unsupported declarations that concepts aren't "tangible", or simply don't exist on one's 'say-so', have no standing next to elected MPs and the highest-level, most mainstream politicians' comments, declarations, debates or responses on the issue both colloquially and explicitly concerning a national holiday - both for and against. Mdmadden (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * So a number of debates and pronouncements which are about Brexit broadly, in general, where a detail mentioned within them is the idea of Independence Day? That does not make them debates about Independence Day, any more than they are specifically about any of the mutltitude of other potential aspects of Brexit people have touched on. Are we to cook up supposed stand-alone "Debate over post-Brexit Fisheries Policy" or "Debate over Erasmus scholarships in the light of Brexit" articles - you'd be able to list a similar number of cherry-picked quotes where these issues have been touched upon. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Shall I address the questions in artificial isolation from the petition, Parliamentary debate, Government response and separate stand-alone calls from several mainstream politicians explicitly for a national holiday? Your concession on the Parliamentary debate issue you raised is fine, but if you want to then jump to exclusively examining the wider mainstream references in isolation; I would suggest that you'd be better off editing and improving the article itself. If the discussion has moved onto that already, we're essentially in indirect agreement that the main thrust stands.Mdmadden (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Eh?! Why would you do that? It wouldn't alter the fact that this is synthesised list of disparate remarks on one of many aspects of a much broader topic, made to look like a coherent "debate" on this aspect exists. Specify my "concession" please - I'm puzzled. Tinkering with an article whose basis is spurious is futile; this would not be a fruitful use of my time, or anyone else's. Where is there the merest hint that I believe the article's existence is vindicated? Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, it was your intervention above (starting Comment) about how this subject had not been debated, and with an irrelevant over-importance projected about which chamber MPs debated it in. Which was immediately refuted as a strawman and proven to be a false statement. Literally, the government disagrees with you. You then went on to abandon that topic completely and focus solely on "wider" comments in isolation, as though this somehow evolved the debate. That's quite demonstrably a concession and abandonment of your argument. Thanks. Mdmadden (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd thank you not to make false statements about my having conceded a point which I have not. You disagreeing with someone, even if you believe your supposed line of logic, does not mean you can just pronounce they now agree with you. That is flagrantly underhand. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Interpreting your concession of a point is not a false statement. Saying that the petition wasn't debated by Parliament/MPs is a false statement. If you haven't conceded on that specific point, I look forward to your response on it. Thanks. Mdmadden (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The parliamentary debate is an irrelevance. (I can't be arsed to trawl thu hansard, but I would be very surprised if there was any debate of substance). What the article claims to be about is a public debate on the topic... which as you well know is nonexistent.  Not only do I read newspapers: I do latex gloves and skim the Daily Mail and The Sun'.  The article is a sorry farce anyway, a list of people who have said something on the subject of Brexodus. (I note that Uncle Tom Cobley hasn't made the cut yet)TheLongTone (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops, I didn't see the Hansard link below. Couldn't see anything but a scant mention of the 'independace day' nonsense.TheLongTone (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Mdmadden, you don't seem to be able to accept that people don't agree with you. I would suggest that you live with it. Debating the points of the AfD is one thing, but you are coming very close to resorting to ad hominem attacks. Perhaps I can suggest that you read WP:ADHOM? Shritwod (talk) 19:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * He said, starting a random, unsourced accusation on another user. "Very close to"? I don't buy into your "belief" system, as I said before. Prefer facts and evidence. Provide some if you wish, or carry on as before, your choice entirely. Mdmadden (talk) 19:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * And yet you don't seem to have been able to come up with any facts of evidence supporting your assertions that this "Independence Day" is anything more than a collection of soundbites amounting to nothing more than hyberbole. Apart from a brief flurry of news items that really coincided with the release of a movie of a similar name, I completely fail to find any evidence of sustained debate about this issue anywhere at all, not in the news, not in social media. Although I am impressed at your tenacity on providing a list of quotes from two apparent sides, I do not believe that in any way they indicate that there's a real debate at all. Shritwod (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Shritwod, you seem to be just repeating sentences with zero evidence to back them up. I DON'T agree with the "Independence Day" national holidays either but why are you ignoring all the main newspapers and news sites references AND the Parliaments debate (and as others say) "mainstream" politicians who have talked about it? Why does the debate HAVE to be "sustained"? When, everyday? This clearly will be raised again and again. It has been debated at NEARLY the highest level you can officially debate something in Great Britain. What's wrong with that? Who said those were the rules that you're claiming? If we change the article name to Calls for a British Independence Day observed in the United Kingdom is that fine? or "Support and Opposition for a British... etc."? Why do you think you think CyboDuck, Stevo1000, Mdmadden, RaviC, WhyIsItWereHere22 and SteelMariner disagree with you? You don't seem able to accept people disagree with you perhaps. Come up with some logical evidence against the credible cited sources rather than your own "soundbites" with nothing to back them up. Slashmire (talk) 13:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Calls for a British Independence Day observed in the United Kingdom, or better List of thereof would at least be a less inaccurate description of what we have here but are we really here to produce articles that just consist of lists of mentions of something?


 * The important distinction about the sources is that they just support that a thing has been mentioned several times, each in a context where lots of other things were mentioned. They do not refer to and do not support that there has been a debate regarding "thing" and to make a conclusion that there is one by tying these sources together to say something that they do not individually say is to advance WP:SYNTH. Neither is a debate considering a petition about "thing" (amongst several others) a debate about "thing". Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * And this is the nub of it - it is not a "thing" at all. It doesn't matter whether I agree with it or not, if it were a "thing" then a good NPOV Wikipedia article would be useful. But this article appears to exist to attempt to give the concept notability, when in fact it has no such thing. Looking at both Google News and Twitter as a couple of good ways to see if there has been a debate about it, I find nothing of consequence. Shritwod (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I think its high time we close this discussion as no consensus and start another one after the dust settles. –– Rameshnta909 (talk) 11:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * AGREED - clearly enough people back the references here. We can't just un-exist this because people don't agree with it politically - mainstream examples of for AND against is there for all to see. Slashmire (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect as only best fitting clearly since this was itself still only a one-time event, but at that then only something it's going to be itself: A debate. There's clear connections to Brexit hence best suited there; both Delete and Keep thinly concur this is not both independently notable and currently improvable. SwisterTwister   talk  06:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No don't agree with that. In fact, I put a couple of hours into improving it yesterday. Now we have a better split of general opening detailed description, Parliaments debate, specific notable calls for national holiday, and separate notable wide/general references to British Independence Day in all forms of media. Let's KEEP evolving/improving. Slashmire (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I haven't looked through your recent changes in detail but the immediate aspect that leapt out was the subsection title misrepresentation of a debate on petitions as a debate on Independence Day (the result of which was that the topic is not to be allocated a debate). This goes past the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH aspects into outright untruth. Banging on about supposed references is neither here nor there if they do not support the POV that the article advances. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * To elaborate further, per the categories on the government web site regarding the way e-petitions have been dealt with, this one is one of the many which "got a response from government" as opposed to the comparatively few which "were debated in the House of Commons"/"Petitions debated in Parliament". (Apparently the government website is blacklisted here, so I've had to remove the link from this post!) Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Mutt Lunker, I'm afraid you're unnecessarily conflating terminology and again, drawing the same absolutely irrelevant straw-man distinction between which chamber MPs debated in. The petition was debated by Parliament. That is a fact. The government statement is: "Parliament debated this topic. This topic was debated on 17 October 2016" - UK Parliament, Petition No.123324.


 * My very point is that the petition was debated in parliament. The petition. And the conclusion of this debate, on the petition, rejected the issue therein being given a debate. Wording this to imply a debate on Independence Day was granted is false. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * This part seems to be ignored (for obvious reasons): The government statement is: "Parliament debated this topic. This topic was debated on 17 October 2016" - UK Parliament, Petition No.123324. You claim MPs "rejected the issue" via " a debate". So what "issue" was debated? Please provide sources Mdmadden (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Please understand, the petition is the vehicle for delivering the "topic" to Parliament for debate. The government asserts: "This topic was debated". What is the topic? An Independence Day national holiday in the United Kingdom. There is video footage evidence of Members of Parliament officially debating that topic in Westminster Hall, that you can readily refer to, as well as the Hansard transcript you provided previously. As Robin Walker MP said in the debate on 17 October 2016: "We have already enjoyed a number of excellent debates in both this Chamber and the main Chamber."

Please provide your source (and a direct quote for ease of searching, if possible) of the result being that: "the topic is not to be allocated a debate." Major news outlets, such as BBC and Yahoo! News have reported the petition and topic as debated by MPs and debated by Parliament. I have also provided MPs discussing the topic in Parliament both in this discussion page and in the article. All this, on top of the government's own position that "Parliament debated this topic". So it's very intriguing as to what source you are drawing your opposite conclusion to the UK executive's and legislative's position on this. Mdmadden (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as a very minor talking point within the larger Brexit debate. Here are Politico: ], and that's really all it amounted to,  handful of op-eds, a handful of speeches. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - this entire debate seems entirely politicized. With that in mind, I'd say let's leave it with appropriate tags in place, and let interested editors like Mdmadden take a crack at the POV issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karunamon (talk • contribs) 19:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 06:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - this is a well-sourced article, and the topic appears to be notable given the range of high-publicity figures who have commented on it. Chessrat  ( talk, contributions ) 23:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. This certainly warrants mention in Brexit as a relatively minor aspect of that, but it doesn't meet the standard necessary to stand alone as a separate article topic in its own right — the fact that we have to invent an implausible and overly prolix title for it, because a standard name doesn't actually exist, demonstrates that right on its face, as does the fact that the content here consists very predominantly of "what people tweeted about it" rather than substantive content. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2017 (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.