Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK Single Market


 * 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. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

UK Single Market

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable topic, fails WP:GNG. The "UK Single Market" is basically the default situation of a sovereign state, i.e. that there are no trade barriers with its borders.
 * Comment Page now moved by User:ChefBear01 to Draft:UK Single Market (notification per WP:EDITATAFD) Now moved back. YorkshireLad ✿  (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC), edited 06:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The only sources which are actually about the "UK single market" are:


 * 1) https://www.these-islands.co.uk/publications/i336/what_is_the_uk_single_market.aspx ... which seems to be an advocacy group
 * 2) https://reaction.life/what-is-the-uk-single-market/ ... which doesn't look like a reliable source.

This looks like the makings of a WP:COATRACK for one POV on the Brexit debates. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Almost every use of the phrase on Google refers to UK access to the European Single Market, and it's worth noting that the two sources listed above are both by the same person and consist of much of the same text. The phrase seems to be a neologism coined by the "These Islands" group. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * The article covers the various areas within the single market from goods, services, capital and people.


 * It links to pages where information would be repetitive if place in the article


 * As for references to the EU single market, the UK had been a member of the EU for a while and so the citations I found were mixed in with the EU though I do and will continue to try and find non connective citations.


 * I can take the article back to the draft space if necessary depending if you feel the article can stay on the main space while I improve it.


 * I tried to also keep it brief in areas where necessary or preferable to avoid it becoming a mirror article.


 * I took every step possible to keep it generic and avoid it becoming an opinion article.


 * I feel like it is suitable to be maintained, however I will endeavour to make any improvements and updates necessary to improve and grow the article where needed.


 * From what I can see of the issues presented it is a matter of sourcing and structure and has been incorrectly placed for deletion, I think the article should be updated and marked for WP:Cleanup


 * ChefBear01 (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


 * delete It's a political boondoggle invented by some of the crazier brexiters. Their political claim is that this "market" could replace trade with the EU and we'd just sit here trading loo roll and hand sanitiser amongst ourselves. Within their own minds, it's notable. But does anyone outside the wonk-bubble pay attention? Not that I can see. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * Andy Dingley is only making a political statement not relevent to the page or contributing to the debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChefBear01 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The question is WP:N, if anyone else paid attention to it. It's not enough if the only people writing about this are those advocating it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment User:ChefBear01 has now moved the page to Draft:UK Single Market.  (ChefBear, if this situation comes up again, it's a good idea to notify people on the AfD discussion to avoid confusion—see WP:EDITATAFD.  :-) )  YorkshireLad</b>  ✿  <b style="color:#052">(talk)</b> 22:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 'Comment I have moved the article back; it should remain in the article space until this AfD concludes. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. This is not a thing. Renerpho (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment It is written in archaic language in the treaty of Union, but non the less valid


 * This is confirmed by the explanation given within the citation, page and legislation links I provided.


 * It is confirmed as a matter of international and domestic law it does exist par say


 * [User:ChefBear01|ChefBear01]] (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If there is a case to be made for that, Wikipedia isn't the place to develop the theory, as Wikipedia has a "no original research" policy. Per the general notability guideline, there needs to have been significant coverage of the "UK Single Market" concept in reliable sources before it can appear. There are two linked above by User:BrownHairedGirl, but their reliability is questionable, and they also seem to be essentially the same article. <b style="color:#049">YorkshireLad</b> ✿  <b style="color:#052">(talk)</b> 18:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * my comment has nothing to do with :making a theory or original research I don’t need either, I am pointing out the inevitable that the treaty of Union alongside it’s legislative parts undisputedly proves the existence fundamentally of the UK Single Market and it’s sub components.
 * It sounds like you are stating that Wikipedia does not accept the legality of international recognised treaties as you seem to state that you won’t accept it as a reliable source despite it been good enough for the international community. I can look for citations to reinforce the article, but the foundation of what I have provided should protect it from deletion and allow me to continue to grow the page source base.
 * ChefBear01 (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by good enough for the international community? <b style="color:#049">YorkshireLad</b> ✿  <b style="color:#052">(talk)</b> 22:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just spotted that you've added some more sources for the term to the article—that's great. I've removed the Daily Mail one because it's blacklisted by Wikipedia as a source (see WP:DAILYMAIL), but left the others. <b style="color:#049">YorkshireLad</b>  ✿  <b style="color:#052">(talk)</b> 22:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * KEEP
 * YorkshireLad I hope that I have shown enough progress to allow the page to be kept, I will endeavour to keep expanding where I can to improve the page and I appreciate the input I have received as it has helped me to identify where errors could be fixed and additions could be made
 * ChefBear01 (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sourcing which verifies the 1707 act of union still isn't enough to demonstrate this new concept of a "UK Single Market" as being notable.
 * Also, why's the 1800 act of union with Ireland here? That hasn't been in effect for a century. Nor would the RoI be any part of such a "UK Single Market". Andy Dingley (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * Andy Dingley I have added 5 citations, and the act of Union 1800 is there as I is a foundation legislation that bought Ireland into the uk, however I have added in brackets that the Republic of Ireland ceded from the UK.
 * ChefBear01 (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And again, Sourcing which verifies the 1707 act of union still isn't enough to demonstrate this new concept of a "UK Single Market" as being notable. Yes, we know Scotland exists. We know that it trades with England. But why do we need a new concept, and a new WP article to tell us this? Sam Taylor (and no-one else) likes to present this as if it's some radical new concept within the Unicorn-ridden Sunlit Uplands of brexit, when it isn't.  And until we shot our feet off with The Great Stupidity, we already had a single market stretching across the whole of Europe too.
 * Also your Reuters link is broken. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * Andy Dingley, I have fixed the broken link.
 * I have citations and links that both make notable mentions of the UK single market, and in one link referring to the EU - UK withdrawal agreement the European Union even acknowledges the existence UK Single Market in an international treaty and that I would say was notable alongside other mentions within my other links.
 * ChefBear01 (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * @ChefBear01: please read WP:GNG, which is the test being applied here. (It is also known as WP:SIGCOV, because it's all about significant coverage.
 * Note in particular the first two sentences:

<blockquote style="font-family:serif; font-variant:italic; margin-left:11em; border:2px solid brown; border-radius: 7px;">WP:GNG, aka WP:SIGCOV: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.
 * "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
 * So far, you have offered precisely nothing which comes to meeting that test. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 00:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It is an improvement, though I'm not sure the sources are enough to qualify as significant coverage, as User:BrownHairedGirl notes: the mentions in those sources are still relatively brief. (By the way, I'm still interested to know what you meant by good enough for the international community—did you mean those sources you added?) <b style="color:#049">YorkshireLad</b>  ✿  <b style="color:#052">(talk)</b> 12:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * YorkshireLad
 * I was ineloquently trying to say that no country would question the integrity of a international treaty that two or more parties have chosen to be a party to international law is respected by countries and adhered to, and as the Treaty of Union is an international agreement and international law that is followed by countries surely it would be accepted as a respectable source of information to use as fact. I was pointing out for consensus whether you would agree that treaties bound by international law, used and respected by countries for centuries are respectable sources.
 * ChefBear01 (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. So, the Treaty of Union and the Acts of Union 1707 (for instance) would be considered to be primary sources.  The "no original research" policy talks about the use of them, and says: Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so (emphasis in original).  My interpretation of that is that deducing from the Acts of Union etc. that they create a "UK Customs Union" is original research.  There is one secondary source that does make that deduction, which is what Sam Taylor presents, but editors (myself included) have raised question marks over its reliability.  The other sources, as far as I can see, are passing mentions of the term that don't talk about what it is or might be.  It is, however, good to see sources that do use the term at all, as this suggests there is some wider use of the term.
 * Oh, I see. So, the Treaty of Union and the Acts of Union 1707 (for instance) would be considered to be primary sources.  The "no original research" policy talks about the use of them, and says: Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so (emphasis in original).  My interpretation of that is that deducing from the Acts of Union etc. that they create a "UK Customs Union" is original research.  There is one secondary source that does make that deduction, which is what Sam Taylor presents, but editors (myself included) have raised question marks over its reliability.  The other sources, as far as I can see, are passing mentions of the term that don't talk about what it is or might be.  It is, however, good to see sources that do use the term at all, as this suggests there is some wider use of the term.


 * To be clear here, I'm not saying you're wrong to conclude that there is a UK Customs Union; my case is that the evidence in secondary sources isn't strong enough for it to be written about here. Similarly, I'm not criticising your evident hard work on the article, or saying you should do more to make it pass the general notability guideline, since the GNG is a test applied to potential, not to potential  themselves.  (I'm saying this without prejudice to including some of those new sources in an existing Brexit- or Indyref2-related article to mention that people have argued that a UK Customs Union exists, though the Sam Taylor article probably isn't a reliable enough source to go in those either.  Also, other editors may disagree with me, particularly on this last point!)  <b style="color:#049">YorkshireLad</b>  ✿  <b style="color:#052">(talk)</b> 16:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not the logical path I'd see as being the main problem here. Rather Oculi's terse comment, which nails it perfectly, "states the obvious at inordinate length." Andy Dingley (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that is also a problem with the article, but I'd argue that's not a reason for deletion, but for pruning it into a stub—which I think be the right course of action if multiple people in reliable sources started writing articles like Taylor's, or discussing Taylor's views on the matter.  They haven't done so, nor do I believe it's likely that they would, so it's not the right path to take, and the article should go for that reason.  <b style="color:#049">YorkshireLad</b>  ✿  <b style="color:#052">(talk)</b> 16:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - states the obvious at inordinate length. Oculi (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * I have fixed the text so that it is more condensed.
 * ChefBear01 (talk) 07:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * User:YorkshireLad|YorkshireLad]]
 * I have added a citation that is detailed regarding the history of the single market, and is by a professional source
 * [6] Simms, Brendan (September 18, :::2019).
 * "From backdoor to backstop: Ireland's shifting relationship with Britain and Europe". New Statesman. Brendan Simms is a professor in the history of international relations at Peterhouse, Cambridge and an NS contributing writer. His most recent book is “Hitler: Only the World was Enough” (Allen Lane).
 * ChefBear01 (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * @ChefBear01, that article https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/09/backdoor-backstop-ireland-s-shifting-relationship-britain-and-europe makes precisely one mention of a Uk single market: "In 1707, during the struggle against Louis XIV’s France over the Spanish Succession, Scotland and England established a parliamentary and defence union, as well as a single market and customs union, in a new state called Great Britain".
 * It should be abundantly clear to you that a single passing mention in one sentence of the 11th paragraph of the article is a trivial comment, and that it comes nowhere near the requirements of WP:SIGCOV. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 09:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * BrownHairedGirl
 * The comment goes into more detail about the history of the market, without waffling that information on the page. And it is from a more reputable source, as previous comments have mentioned they judge the source of the citation, I will move it into the history section as that is where it is most appropriate.
 * I have also corrected my comment above to include more specificity and I will more the citation to avoid any further confusion
 * ChefBear01 (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * @ChefBear01, please do READ WP:SIGCOV. Despite numerous requests, you show no sign at all of having done so. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 15:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * BrownHairedGirl
 * I have read it multiple times over, but finding citations that meet the criteria is another thing
 * ChefBear01 (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In other words, there is no significant coverage. Which is precisely why I nominated this article for deletion. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 17:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * <B>Comment</B>
 * BrownHairedGirl there is significant coverage but people then attack the citations I have used as questionable which is really a matter of interpretation not facts, just opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChefBear01 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , So I'm the only other person who used the word "questionable", and therefore I assume that was directed at me? To clarify what I meant: the source from These Islands is essentially a blog—see WP:BLOGS.  The other piece (or rather, source for the same piece) is Reaction.life, which I admit wasn't a source I'd heard of.  It's not a well-established source, but it  has some credibility (judging by its own Wikipedia article).  However, it's worth noting that WP:GNG mentions significant coverage in reliable sources in the plural, and there's only one there.  Hope that clears things up.  :-) <b style="color:#049">YorkshireLad</b>  ✿  <b style="color:#052">(talk)</b> 19:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment YorkshireLad My Comment wasn’t aimed at anyone particular, I should have said people have reservation, I am only trying to make contributions without being caught wikireaucracy. Or Wikipedia’s bureaucracy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_a_bureaucracy — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChefBear01 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't bureaucracy. It is quality control, which goes to the heart of what Wikipedia is about.
 * The issue is simple. Wikipedia is a tertiary publication.  In other words, it is based on secondary sources, rather than on primary sources.  And those secondary sources have to be reliable sources.
 * Use of primary sources contravenes WP:No original research.
 * Unfortunately, what you have here is mostly primary sources, with some secondary sources which are not reliable sources.  You do have one vaguely reliable source (the New Statesman wouldn't be anyone's first port of call for economics) ... but it makes only a trivial passing mention of the topic.
 * If and when there is significant coverage of this topic in reliable sources, then we can have an article on it. But not until then. Wikipedia is not a hosting site for original research and material sourced from blogs. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 03:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.