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. Clear consensus based on policy is to delete this. Some support for an article or (more likely and stronger) a section on proposals for this, so I will move to draft if anyone wants that. A standalone article on a holiday that is proposed but does not exist, is not supported by policy, especially given how divisive the concept is. Public support for Brexit has declined steadily since the referendum and the impact of Brexit currently looks to be overwhelmingly negative, UKIP, the main proponents, have effectively ceased to be a political force, and there was never a holiday to celebrate joining the EEC, so an article on this as a holiday is clearly WP:TOOSOON. Guy (Help!) 17:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

British Independence Day[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is in effect a recreation of a previously deleted article. It does not add any substantial new information in my view. Previous discussions leaned to WP:SYNTH, in effect an attempt to create notability for an idea where no such notability exists. The logic of the article is clearly lacking too, as the United Kingdom is already an independent nation, attempts to claim that it is not are deliberarely misleading. Previous discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debate over a British Independence Day observed in the United Kingdom (2nd nomination) Shritwod (talk) 07:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 10:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 10:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -This is not The Onion. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Oh good, I was sure this would develop further and further into notoriety when I first proposed this topic. Vindicating to see it's now potentially being backed into UK law by multiple Conservative Party MPs. Oh but it's "not the Onion" so delete it again please. Big bad things you don't like the media reporting on consistently, over several years, don't exist as concepts! Mdmadden (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a "thing", just a collection of murmurs from MPs reported in local papers and a tweet by some bloke who's never been elected into parliament dispite running however many times he did. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 18:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of mainstream and local news on this.... passes with flying colours. It hasn't actually become an act in parlement yet just for the record, but have seen websites reporting on it so far.... Cap1988 (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)— Cap1988 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [optional] (UTC).[reply]

Comment - call me suspicious if you like, but a single-purpose account registered just today such as yours smacks of sockpuppetry. Did you create the account just to participate in the AfD? Shritwod (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of WP:SIGCOV. Sources (gNews search here: [1] insufficient to support stand-alone article. Not to mention the fact that many articles on the short list of hits on "British Independence Day" carry headlines like: "It's offensive to call Brexit an 'Independence Day' - the EU wasn't an enslaving colonial power like Britain" and "This is not the UK’s version of Independence Day, it’s the exact opposite" Lets get this straight. You guys were the Empire. We get to have Independence Day - from you. Costa Rica gets to have an Independence day - from Spain. Greece gets to have an Independence Day- from Ottoman Turkey. India and Israel get to have Independence Days - from you. You do not get to have an Independence Day because you were never governed by anybody else (Okay, the Normans - but you didn't free yourselves from them, you just sort of got over them.) And you most certainly do not get to claim to be having a Day of Independence from the EU which you joined voluntarily and which did not send soldiers to stop you from leaving. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - let the record show, as the above post 100% proves, with many 'Delete' voters here, this is not about the merits of a potential 'British Independence Day' national holiday genuinely being internationally reported on eg. has been debated in the UK Parliament, has a Bill attempting to make it law in the UK Parliament, has support from recognised politicans (MEPs, knights, MPs, former UK cabinet ministers, former leader of the largest UK party, part of a 2017 general election manifesto gaining over half a million votes) - all these factors, crucially, with media coverage are there to see (or ignore, as they selectively do). It's not about the facts and the merits of what constitutes a stand alone article; it's about politics and Britain's colonial past. So Please Note: many 'Delete' posts are partisan, politically motivated and not at all based on the truth or Wikipedia standards. Mdmadden (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I gave valid, policy-based reasons for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV, already deleted twice, no new coverage to make it notable. SportingFlyer (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Urm, nope. Deleted once, after an initial 'No Consensus' vote when the topic was more relevant in the media, initially getting lots of 'Keep' posts and incredulity at totally partisan, factless 'Delete' posts from the community - go check the record. Subsequently ambushed and railroaded through by some VERY interested editors once the media attention had moved on (due to no new progress or circumstance). Since then it has been part of UKIP's 2017 general election manifesto (with literally TONS of media coverage on that specific pledge), which subsequently gained .5 million votes in general election AND now been put forward as law in the UK Parliament (with LOTS of valid media coverage). So wrong in number of deletions, and wrong in 'no new coverage'. Anything else you want to get wrong? Again, take 'Delete' posts from these types with a HUGE pinch of salt. As, so far, they have no facts to back up anything.Mdmadden (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you lost the previous AfD. Get over it. Shritwod (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm a disinterested editor who's been doing a lot of AfD voting on a variety of topics the past few days. I really don't care, but after a review of the sources it doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV. Careful of WP:BLUD and WP:UNCIVIL. SportingFlyer (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I can barely believe this is in question with the amount of reliable coverage and mainstream advocacy the topic has. I also note (as mentioned above) there were 5 or so "Keep"s cast in first AfD that were then ignored in a later nomination. Pretty underhand... CyboDuck (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)— CyboDuck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [optional] (UTC).[reply]

There appeared to be an amount of sockpuppetry going on before, and there appears to be an amount of sockpuppetry going on now. Your peculiar edit history is consistent with a single-purpose account actually belong to another editor in my opinion. Who is that? Shritwod (talk) 08:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be someone who's line of argument has ran out, so they're putting forward some interesting conspiracy theories instead... CyboDuck (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I'm not arguing with a sockpuppet. Shritwod (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep note: page creator. Much of it salvaged from a previous deleted page. I was of the opinion with marking the anniversary now a proposed bill in Westminster, media attention of that could constitute a new development. Can be improved further certainly Slashmire (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL. Lots of things could happen, including WP:SIGCOV of the myriad legislative proposals that never go anywhere. To keep this or any topic, there has to be SIGCOV extant. But this topic has received only a smattering of coverage, little or none of it INDEPTH.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets and exceeds WP:SIGCOV, with 47 citations so far.XavierItzm (talk) 05:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

XavierItzm counting sources does not provide a reasonable argument when there are synth and lack of depth issues.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now with 50 citations ranging from 2012 to 2017. If there were "synth" issues, you would raise them in the TP, not here. WP:DINC, deletion is not cleanup. The fact is you cite no policy, just "lack of depth", and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is no argument.XavierItzm (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

XavierItzm please point out where I stated I did not like British independence. Here is another policy since you seem so in tune with them: no personal attacks, chiefly casting aspersions. And synth falls under WP:OR, another policy, so please tell me again how I never cited a policy.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Alfie; just a jumble of suggestions and a not-particularly successful petition. Number 5 7 15:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An "article" just loosely threaded together by synth. To say there could be new developments is crystalballing and to say it passes GNG shows total lack of effort to read the sources.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Straw manning above. "Jumble of suggestions and a [...] petition." Where does the bill in the House of Commons fit into that description? It can't. And also above, nobody is saying there "could" be new developments, they're saying there "HAS BEEN" new developments across several years now consistently. I've easily added new sources this afternoon alone; from Reading Post (2017) re: the bank holiday 23 June Bill, The New European (2017) re: 23 June plans for a "national holiday", The Independent (2018) featuring 'UK Independence Day' on 23 June in a Brexit lexicon. Added this afternoon with ease, detractions are transparently selective reading and not based in reality. This amount of references and sources on point and on topic would fly through notability requirements without partisan motivations. This is purely political and as any person can see, the detractions are willfully straw manning and willfully ignoring wide contextual major coverage. Mdmadden (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merely having a bill in parliament does not infer notability. Wikipedia is not Hansard, nor is it Infowars. This is simply a recreation of a previously deleted article with no notable new information, apparently supported by a small army of sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Shritwod (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On the point of whether there being a bill in Parliament implying notability, it should be noted that there is also a PMB on presumed consent for organ donation right now. This PMB has received a larger amount of news coverage, several MPs who have made statements on it, a newspaper that has been campaigning for it (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-vows-change-law-organ-11284951) and, as the Government is now backing it, it has a significant chance of passing. Another, more related, example is the Blue Passport campaign which has recieved way more press attention, many more people have taken a stance on it, also has a newspaper campaign (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5192542/uk-dark-blue-passport-back/) and the change is actually being made by the government. Both of these proposals have much more significant coverage and would therefore have more notability, but no one is proposing for them to have a separate article. Dare I say it, the reason this page keeps on getting proposed is that the people proposing it are annoyed that it isn't getting any significant attention and they think that creating a Wikipedia page for it will create more attention for it, but that's not what Wikipedia is for (or, frankly, how political campaigns work). MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think that last point drives to the heart of the matter. This page appears to have been created to advance a political view to try to make it notable, rather than reflecting a notable political view. The topic was already covered in Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 perfectly adequately. But let's not forget that the title of the page it misleading and illogical, it advances the myth that the UK as a Member state of the European Union was not a sovereign and independent state, when in fact it was. Shritwod (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - strawmen being advanced: 1) "There's some things which I say are more notable which aren't being created as articles, so this topic can't be an article." 2) "The UK was a sovereign nation already so it can't be an article". The media coverage is mainly regarding a national holiday or bank holiday or some form of commemorating or marking the 23rd June named as 'Independence Day', 'UK Independence Day', 'British Independence Day' or some variation thereof. That wasn't decided by editors, but by the public figures and politicians who advanced it and the subsequent media coverage it gained. You're both arguing against a case which isn't being put forward with irrelevant strawmen, which is why many other editors are quashing 'crystal balling' or 'non-notable' claims with clear facts. Mdmadden (talk) 12:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is not notable, period. But don't you just love the "straw man" argument? You can't justify what you are trying to push so you are basically resorting to ad hominem attacks? Shritwod (talk) 12:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please do point out any "ad hominem attacks". I've merely dismantled your illogical straw man fallacies, which have nothing to do with you personally. Failure to correctly use simple concepts like ad hominem or straw man, might be why your best argument against this topic is "the UK is independent already". Mdmadden (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:SYNTH and all the reasons given by others above. This page has effectively no new information than was in the page which was deleted last year for lack of notability. There is no reason for this proposal to have more than a paragraph on the British National Day page. It wasn't a thing then, and it most certainly isn't now. MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is quite sufficient publicdiscussion. that it is only a proposal is irrelevant, since the sourcing is sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, sufficient indeed. Proposal nature of topic not being applicable to it's sourcing, does eliminate WP:CRYSTALBALL. Tend to agree with XavierItzm, exceeds WP:SIGCOV with relative ease. The new information and press coverage since the 2nd AfD deletion has further secured that seemingly. For disclosure, I'd voted toward no consensus result on 1st. Slashmire (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a good, informative article on a notable topic. JD Lambert^(T|C) 11:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

— 70.188.87.146 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.50.59.9 (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— 35.50.59.9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. Sufficient public interest exists in this topic to warrant it being addressed by Wikipedia.

— 71.211.102.154 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - it looks like the "Keep" brigade canvassed the support of three non-editors. Please can these be struck, I do not believe they are valid comments. Shritwod (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Mdmadden hope you realize that the SPAs only hurt your dwindling chances of keeping this article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment yes that's right, you deleted IP editors votes straight away because they would have "hurt" the "chances of keeping this article". Sorry, I can't help that the public, editors and admins are outvoting you and writing with a semblance of basic logic. Have you got any more WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT arguments you'd like to advance? Mdmadden (talk) 10:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Random IPs, some of whom provided no rationale whatsoever, are not going to help your cause. Lepricavark (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Personal attack removed) This has got loads of news stories already - a lot of people in denial on here lol 62.253.85.34 (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— 62.253.85.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Rename to Proposals for a British Independence Day, but keep. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Disagree: that would basically make it the same page that was already deleted by AfD, unless someone rewrote it in the style of Flat Earth which it is conceptually similar to. Shritwod (talk) 07:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you write: "basically make it the same page that was already deleted by AfD" as though this somehow advances the debate or is some kind of trump card. Multiple and wide news coverage since deletion has advanced and deepened the references available to editors. This is creating a new consensus in the 3rd AfD, self-evidently. Did you know AfDs sometimes get overturned because of new developments? No amount of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT can reverse that. Not to mention that the 2nd AfD needed to be ambushed by overly interested editors, after a very balanced 1st AfD resulted in no consensus. The record shows that. Mdmadden (talk) 10:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment but you and your fellow editors who are interested in resurrecting this topic didn't do that, did you? You recreated the article under another name hoping that nobody would notice? And incidentally, all of those previous AfDs have been characterised by you attacking the integrity of critics in your rather bad tempered way. The second AfD was decisive, and yet you cannot accept that you lost the argument. Shritwod (talk) 13:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The previous week's discussion has been torpedoed by sockpuppetry - can we leave it another week to check true consensus? Full disclosure, I am a paid-up remoaner snowflake - apparently
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of canvassing: The reason for those IP editors turning up can be found here with Reddit user wikipedia1234 posting four attempts to derail the AfD debate in clear violation of WP:CAN

Of note that also shows canvassing for the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debate over a British Independence Day observed in the United Kingdom (2nd nomination) AfD. So I think this explains rather a lot about the "support" for keeping this article, doesn't it? Shritwod (talk) 13:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added - and perhaps it is not a coincidence that the only "Keep" contributor common to both AfDs where the canvassing took place was Mdmadden. Shritwod (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shritwod although I think the initial warning about canvassing was warranted, I believe any more comments about the matter belong at ANI. Regardless of whether Mdmadden is canvassing (which is possible), you are just inviting him to be even more uncivil than he already has been throughout this discussion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, I raised this in WP:ANI. Thank you. Shritwod (talk)

Comment, I respect any decision to delete any IP editor votes after hearing that. Mdmadden (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with some prejudice - only prejudice is due to canvassing, but this is definitely a WP:TOOSOON. Kirbanzo (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate: Merge - Could be merged with Brexit, but deletion seems more likely. Kirbanzo (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment previous versions were merged into Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 which I think is the appropriate place still. Shritwod (talk)

Has anyone filed a cu or spi? L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is just UK politics and will never happen. As almost half the UK population voted to remain in Europe - how could we have a national holiday that says "F*ck you!" to half the population? So do we keep an article based on the discussion of a national day that will never happen? No its just politics and could be covered by a few sentences in a Brexit page if it isn't already there. (I support Brexit - not this article). Szzuk (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought this was an encyclopedia. Is there nothing on Wikipedia that's well sourced or cited with media coverage that almost certainly won't actually happen? Like say London independence? This topic well exceeds notability with the public figures backing it, let alone media coverage of new developments. Mdmadden (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of SIGCOV. Lepricavark (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd. When an article has 50 sources, SIGCOV is a given, as mentioned by slahmire and DDG above. XavierItzm (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - quality counts, not just quantity. Most of those references appear to be either reports of throwaway comments by hard right politicians or blogs which are noted for their partisan views. But I guess you already know that. Shritwod (talk) 10:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When you have the Washington Post and the BBC reporting with articles such as An independence day for Britain?, there isn't much room to argue that there is no WP:SIGCOV, is there now? XavierItzm (talk) 12:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Post one is an opinion piece, so not news. And some article about social media trends at the BBC is not news either. Granted, there are a lot of articles cited but not all of them are relevant, and those that are are rather thin when it comes to substance. The creators and supporter of the article are simply trying to spin this thin coverage and make it into something more significant than it really is. Shritwod (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is here to report events not to create events. There seems to be a lot of twisting the sources to fit the story. A good example is the Washington Post opinion piece, which is touted in the deletion discussion as an example of significant coverage, when it is nothing of the kind.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.