Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irexit


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Irexit

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is entirely speculative and focuses on Apple's tax bill from the EU, by somehow relating it to people wanting to leave the EU because of it. This doesn't meet WP:GNG and is more or less (minus the Apple tax bill information) a dictionary definition, going against WP:NOT and WP:NEO. This entire article should be deleted, the odds are extremely low for this hypothetical situation to happen. At the very least, it should be redirected to Withdrawal from the European Union with a section on secession movements for each country. st170e talk 18:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. st170e talk  18:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. st170e talk  18:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. st170e talk  18:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Nowhere does it say or imply that the Apple tax ruling is the reason people want to leave, it just zays there was calls for it after the ruling. How is it a dictionary definition? It's far from it in my opinion.Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If a newspaper called for Estonia or Lithuania to leave the European Union, do you think it would be suffice to create a Wikipedia article based on that? st170e talk 20:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

No, but that's not why the article was created. Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * My argument is that the subject isn't notable considering 'Irexit' is just a play on words and it isn't a 'common name' as you have suggested. There isn't wealth of information on Irish secession from the EU. If you want to portray the facts and figures you have given in this article, then look at putting them elsewhere in a general Euroscepticism by country article. st170e talk 20:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The article isn't about a term, that's just the title of the article as that's what it's usually refered to as. There's enough information to form an article. Other articles about other states leaving the EU (France for example) have less information.Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak delete (or merge/redirect). Per nom, if we take away the unlikely/speculative "some people have speculated about this and given it a notional name" type content, and remove the WP:SYNTH (which links that speculation to the Apple judgement), we are largely left with a DICDEF. The suggestion that "there's a Frexit article with less substance" is in itself a near DICDEF of "other stuff exists". If the Irexit title is to remain, then as proposed, the limited remaining few sentences (after the Apple stuff and uncited quotes are removed) might be merged to Withdrawal_from_the_European_Union. And this title redirected to that article/section. Guliolopez (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If it is to be redirected, maybe a redirect to Euroscepticism would be more plausible. st170e talk 16:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't link anything to the Apple ruling, as already stated it just states there was calls for an Irexit after the ruling. Fixed the uncited quotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo The Logician (talk • contribs) 08:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles need to be notable for inclusion. There is barely any information on this article that is notable. st170e talk 16:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo The Logician (talk • contribs) 16:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Ping - Hi. It seems that there is consensus to simply merge/redirect the content to an existing article. Hence this AfD can likely be non-admin-closed. And the "merge/redirect" discussion addressed on the article talk page. Guliolopez (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Keep and consider redirect to Proposed Irish withdrawal from the European Union Nom is certainly mistaken in giving "the odds are extremely low for this hypothetical situation to happen," as an argument for deleting. Certainly, there is serious and ongoing discussion / analysis of an Irish Brexit,. Brexit was started in Jan. 2014 (back then, the odds were extremely low for this hypothetical situation to happen,) as United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union, instantly moved to Proposed referendum on United Kingdom membership of the European Union, and thence to Brexit. The question here is not really notability of the concept, but of the neologism. I see significant usage of Irexit in a gNews search, but I can also see arguments for moving to  Proposed Irish withdrawal from the European Union. However, given the serious albeit minority nature of withdrawal advocacy in Ireland, by whatever name, this topic is a keeper. Present article is paltry. Strongly urge to bring it up to snuff.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, wait, I didn't notice that the title had already been changed. Just keep and improve.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I just changed it there after I read your message Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Eh. Are we making changes in advance of the conclusion of the discussion? If so, then what's the purpose of this AfD? On the change itself, I personally have issues (that are perhaps discussed on the talkpage of the [now] renamed article) with the new name. We now say "proposed". Proposed by whom exactly? Proposed (as per the article) by two Conservative British politicos and a journalist? Really? Bluntly, based on this new title, I will respectfully be changing my recommendation to delete. ("Irexit is a word that some people used to mean X" has some value to the project. As a redirect. "Three people notionally suggested something that they have sod all influence over or stake-in" has zero value IMO. Guliolopez (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I echo your concerns, this hasn't been proposed by anyone so the title is completely incorrect. It has been discussed but there are no propositions; it's often been discussed as a hypothetical situation. I'm also taking issue with 's recently article entry for Proposed referendum on Irish unity - this didn't just come about after the EU referendum result, it always has been an issue. I'll start an AfD on that article soon. With regards to - I didn't intend on 'the odds are extremely low' to become my argument, the issue was with the neologism of course. But your suggested redirect (which is now a reality) has other consequences as Guliolopez has laid out. st170e talk  01:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Many political parties have proposed it and there is a movement called Ireland Exit who have proposed it. Apollo The Logician (talk) 08:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Where do we draw the line between this and WP:CRYSTAL? If I propose a ban on printed books and started a movement, would it deserve an article? There is clearly not enough material for an article. st170e talk 20:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If multiple notable groups joined that movement, it was reported on by many media outlets and discussed by major publishers, sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo The Logician (talk • contribs) 20:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There is certainly a proposal with a lower case "p", a movement with e a lower case "m" advocating pulling Ireland out of the EU. As a topic, it has more than sufficient reliable sourcing to support an article. What such an article should be called is a separate quesiton from notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 *  Merge Delete and redirect to Proposed Irish withdrawal from the European Union, it's a fork of the same (very speculative) topic. One article is enough. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Proposed Irish withdrawal from the European Union is not a different article or fork. It is the same article. The original Irexit article was "moved" to Proposed Irish withdrawal from the European Union before this discussion was closed. There are not two articles to merge. There is nothing to merge. Guliolopez (talk) 10:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, then delete and redirect is the only available option. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:HEYMANN, I did a very modest rewrite, expand, source of article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - On the basis of this rewrite (and subsequent edits), if we can address the issue with the title (the use of "proposed" being especially problematic to my mind), then I'll happily change my own response to this AfD. In honesty, as noted before, I think we can likely close this AfD (with a non-admin close), and deal with the content and titling issues on the relevant talk page. Or a move discussion. Guliolopez (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Reads as wp:CRYSTAL and WP:SYN to me. There is no cited material in the article to suggest that anyone notable is actually doing the proposing. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well the article mentions two minor parties. There are more, Workers Party of Ireland, Éirígí, Republican Sinn Fein and IRSP for example. They can be incorporated in to the article. Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about Irish politics but I can see enough online to indicate that all these three-men-in-a-pub outfits are rather less significant than the Monster Raving Loony Party (Provisional). It stinks of "let's do a press release to get some free publicity". Add WP:FRINGE to the challenge. This article is just a puff-piece by UKIPers with time on their hands, who have told each other so often that the EU is dead in the water that it must be true.
 * Fundamentally, there is no serious Proposal so Wikipedia should not contribute to the pretence that there is. Delete --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Your 2nd iVote shouldn't be bolded.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * However, the question here is whether the topic is notable. The quesiton of the best title needs to be discussed separately.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Every way I search, I find serious guys like Dan O'Brien, economic affairs columnist with Ireland's largest newspaper, Irish Independent taking this topic seriously "Europe's gilded cage: Is leaving the EU a realistic option for us?" . And guys like Gerry Adams have had to take positions..E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Still in the news .E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * How about a redirect to something like Discussions of possibility of Irish withdrawal from the EU.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Why don't we create an article detailing Irish-EU relations rather than focussing on withdrawal? st170e talk 19:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a good suggestion Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Decently sourced. Not an entirely new concept in the EU. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply as this is quite feasible. Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that we have parallel articles Dutch withdrawal from the European Union, Greek withdrawal from the eurozone and Frexit dealing with a mooted French withdrawal.  WP:OTHERSTUFF does not prohibit mention of parallel articles.   Such articles exist even though ideas like Partition and secession in California may never go anywhere, because the secession discussions are inherently notable, and in the specific case of Ireland, good sources exist.  On the quesiton of the best name for the article, we can punt to the article's talk page.  It is the topic itself that is notable. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The current title  (Proposed Irish withdrawal from the European Union) is sensible and in  line with other articles. Thisis a major political issue with international ramifications. There are plenty of good sources. This is more than current news, and will be of permanent interest.  DGG ( talk ) 19:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment from nom I'd be happy to withdraw this nomination for deletion based on the fact that the page was moved from its original name and it was improved (not significantly, but that's not the point). The page still requires a lot of work since it was originally focussed on the sentiments felt after the Apple tax issue. But, I'm withdrawing the nom. st170e talk 22:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * keep. It's a current political issue. Alligators1974 (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. At first glance I was leaning more to delete (or not voting either way), from the WP:CRYSTAL angle. However, this is well sourced, and a tangible discussion currently going on... where it ends up is speculation, but the discussion itself is notable.  Onel 5969  TT me 01:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Most important to notability is recognition by independent sources. A google search for "irexit" shows articles from media including Washington Post, Business Insider, CNBC, Irish Times, and Daily Express. It is certainly notable. I might suggest broadening the topic to Ireland-EU relations, which would maintain interest beyond current events. RichardMathews (talk) 20:36, 18 December 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.