Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debate over a British Independence Day observed in the United Kingdom (2nd nomination)


 * 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 delete. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Debate over a British Independence Day observed in the United Kingdom
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Following the close of the previous AfD as 'no consensus', I think it is now clear that this article contains nothing that cannot comfortably be included in the Brexit article. Essentially, WP:NOTNEWS; the idea may have trended on twitter for aboy three minutes but a twitterstorm does not confer notability. TheLongTone (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't believe is a notable topic now, nor has it ever been in the past. I think WP:SYNTH still applies here. Perhaps we could avoid repeating the same arguments made in the last AfD again, and interested editors could review that before rehashing the same lengthy arguments. Shritwod (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a very real debate, many brittish national newspapers wrote articles about it  just to name 2, Nigel Farage, a major UK politician has called for this to be a national holiday many times. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Newspapers write articles about lots of things. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Not do we have article on everything Farage has ever said. Bondegezou (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as above and before. Useful content can be merged into the Brexit article, but this is a WP:CFORK. Bondegezou (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and others, and summarise in 50 words in the main Brexit article. Jdcooper (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to keep this, mostly because of the large number of reliable sources. I see above that somebody proposed this be included in the Brexit article, but I would oppose that for length. It's a distraction to have a long discussion about something similar but not the same thing in an article. I doubt this would be kept at 50 words within the Brexit article either... White Arabian Filly  Neigh 22:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as a flash in the pan, albeit one with reliable sources. In the event that a public holiday along these lines is established (and I'm sure there was media coverage suggesting that the date Article 50 was triggered was "Independence Day", so surely the date that everything's finalised with Brexit would attract similar coverage and thoughts), that's the time to create an article. At the moment, it's a proposed public holiday, and a lot of places moot these without meriting articles. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment (added 14 May, my time). There are comparisons being made to other proposals (or at least proposed-proposals) in British politics at the moment by the article creator a couple of entries below. The second Scottish independence referendum is - as far as I'm aware on the other side of the world - something which is substantially further advanced, in that it would be highly unlikely not to get as far as Westminster (as opposed to a potential public holiday commemorating an event which is still ongoing and which isn't sort of "set to happen" yet). The question of "Londependence" has (per its own article) been discussed at least by some since the 1990s, and apparently more loudly since 2014, much less 2016. That said, while it doesn't really enter into considerations here, that latter may not necessarily be the best example of an article in and of itself, and may also do better in articles about London's government or reactions to Brexit. A discussion for another day, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a perfect example of a topic we should not cover. This is speculation sourced mainly from a couple of dubious tabloid newspapers and blogs. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. AusLondonder (talk) 04:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - very obvious keep too. The lack of research or logic here is bizarre. Petitions with national media coverage? Yep. Discussed in Parliament? Yep. Official government position on the issue delivered and published? Yep. Explicit praise and criticism of the national holiday proposal by renowned politicians and public figures? Yep. International media traction? Yep. Not allowed to exist though because well... nothing at all really. "I don't believe" it's notable? Ok then, belief is a powerful thing after all. "Wikipedia is not a newspaper", who said it was? "CFORK" they say (which is multiple separate articles treating the same subject) this subject is about the debate surrounding a proposed national holiday on 23 June in the UK annually. So, what's it a repeat of, exactly? So would Remembrance Sunday and World War I be the same article by those standards? Because they're the exact same thing right? From now on in the world, both the event itself and the annual observance and/or celebration of a historical event are literally the same thing on Wikipedia. Nothing resulting from Brexit will ever be it's own topic in the history of time, because someone said it's a "flash in the pan" - no reason or evidence necessary. "Mainly sourced from a couple of dubious newspapers" - not true, but who cares? Somebody said so, so there. Has anyone got any actual analysis or evidence to disprove that this is a factual concept, that has been and is being proposed with enough notability to find national coverage? None so far. Please someone state some analysis or evidence against this proposed national holiday finding hugely notable political and media traction without creating strawmans or just totally unresearched irrelevant charges against the article, like "we don't have an article about everything Nigel Farage says". Great, who's asking for that? Nobody. Just a way of belittling AlessandroTiandelli333's point perhaps. And no, because the national holiday has not become official or "happened" yet is not a reason to delete an article outlining the debate (both support and opposition) around the topic. That literally makes no sense. We will need to delete London independence and Proposed second Scottish independence referendum now then. They do not exist, because I say so. Really both those concepts are literally just Brexit now anyway, right? The proposal and campaigning for London to be an autonomous city state is explicitly and conceptually the exact same thing as the EU referendum saga, right? A referendum on Scottish independence happening in the future, a proposal gaining political and media traction is absolutely conceptually inseparable from the political timeline that Brexit represents. It's literally exactly the same thing and it's CFORK, because reasons and stuff. Mdmadden (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note is the creator of the article. Bondegezou (talk) 15:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete blatant editorializing in the title, online petitions aren't the subject of Wikipedia articles, I see no sign the House of Commons ever discussed the matter. Power~enwiki (talk) 08:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Every petition that gains a number of votes is 'discussed' in the Commons. I believe that this occupied them for about two minutes.  I've no idea why the article creator thinks that this is a current topic; as the references show, this ludicrous idea was the subject of media attention for a couple of days.  TheLongTone (talk) 13:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * As in the previous AfD: Delete or briefly merge to Brexit. Is part of that issue, WP:NOTNEWS applies.  Sandstein   06:18, 19 May 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.