Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Kingdom Reform Treaty referendum


 * 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. Jaranda wat's sup 03:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom Reform Treaty referendum

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

not even scheduled yet, only requested by some groups Od Mishehu 07:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment a merge with United Kingdom European Constitution referendum seems sensible considering the huge overlap between the two articles and the likelihood that no referendum will be held. However I am not sure what title such a merged article would be under. Davewild 07:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Having had time to go back and add content, context and references to the article, I think a merge is not out of the question, though for users that thread would tend to be seen as a 'dead' issue (the Constitution having been dropped) and so unlikely to go there looking for the present position. Google will give you plenty of references to the present debate in the UK on whether or not to hold a referendum; this is a noteworthy topic and should be covered. Merging it or including it in another article would tend to unbalance that article or hide the topic from view. PolScribe 15:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree to some extent but think the overlap between the two articles makes a merge still the best option, however given the good rewrite just undertaken would strongly oppose just deleting the article with keeping being my second preference behind a merge. A merge of both articles to something like Proposed United Kingdom referendums on European Constitution and Reform treaty (though would welcome a better title!) seems sensible. Davewild 16:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Suggestion What about a United Kingdom referendums on the European Union top page, linking to the past referendum, the proposed referendum on the Constitution and noting debate on a referendum on the Reform Treaty? In fact we could rename this page and add in the references and links to those two others. PolScribe 12:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete &mdash; campaigning, PoV, unreferenced. The introduction begins in moderately unencyclopædic style though, so it's possible that an informed, referenced re-write could make the subject matter notable. Then it might be worth considering a merge. – Kieran T  (' talk ') 15:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Improve I'm responsible for starting a new article on this. It's not perfect, but it is (I think, anyway) noteworthy. There are equivalent pages for the referenda on the former Constitutional Treaty; this is an important issue in the UK with a number of broadsheet newspapers (and campaigning groups, and at least one political party) forming a debate on the topic which could have serious and long-term domestic and international implications. If I weren't trying to keep the Kosovo status process pages up-to-date I'd have put more time into making this perfect. Merging it into another article would end up giving undue prominence to the debate in the UK as opposed to all EU member states. PolScribe 16:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to the main article.--JForget 16:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and/or delete, unnecessary at this point. — Nightstallion 19:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as unnecessary per Nightstallion and above. Giggy  UCP 07:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm really not sure where to go with this... my first reaction is, "this isn't about any referendum, it's about the treaty". As such, it's a POV alternative to a proper article on the subject. Then again, maybe it's just a piece of writing espousing a political opinion, in which case it shouldn't be on wikipedia. There's other routes of though I take, but it always ends up with saying "delete". The only thing to note is maybe some bits about the contention should be in an article about the treaty itself. SamBC 23:18, 27 July 2007 (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.