Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British independence

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. Michig (talk) 07:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

British independence[edit]

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

Composite article that seems to be here to push an agenda. Most of the text appears to be copied from Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016, and there is no evidence that this term is widely used. This is Paul (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concept too vague.Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tendentious agenda-pushing rubbish. I'd never heard of the expression British independence before, and I'm a Brit who tries to keep up with the news. Narky Blert (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, having read a little further this article reads like an editorial in the Daily Mail or Daily Express, both tabloid newspapers. Delete, delete, delete. Narky Blert (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Citing WP:NPOV as reason for deletion. Narky Blert (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Horrible POV-pushing, misleading, politically biased trash. The term itself is only used by those seeking political gain at the expense of rational thought. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is largely a POV fork of Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016, and the concept behind it seems to be a breach of WP:SYNTH. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - made up term with synthesised content added to suit agenda, anything of importance is already included in referendum aftermath article. MilborneOne (talk) 07:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:POVFORK of Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. Relies on (and treats as neutral) a turn of phrase that is only used in a marginal segment of one side of the debate. Kahastok talk 08:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above.Charles (talk) 09:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete as per everyone else. Bondegezou (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep, well the topic looks like it meets WP:GNG and has existed for far longer than the Brexit controversy. AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP so the article needs to be dealt with in a different manner. The language in some of these votes sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Compare the situation to other independence/separatist movements across the world.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those independence movement articles appear to be about regions or groups within a sovereign state wanting independence from that sovereign state, whereas the UK already is a sovereign state, and thus independent in terms of making its own legislation. The result of the EU referendum is basically about leaving a club because the UK doesn't want to abide by the rules of that club. Most of this article is plain and simple original research consisting of spurious comments made by the usual suspects. A more accurate description of the topic might be British isolationism. This is Paul (talk) 00:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- How about British independence from the Romans or Viking rule? In any case it's clear that an article about the term "British independence" is notable, particularly in light of recent events.--Prisencolin (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of British independence from Roman or Viking rule is meaningless because there was no Britain that could conceivably become independent. For all the time that a coherent Britain has existed, it has been either been one or two sovereign states according to all non-WP:FRINGE views. (Two being England and Scotland from 1603-1707.)

Like it or not, this article is about Brexit. "Independence" in this context is a highly POV-laden term and I see no benefit in pretending it isn't. If we were to convert this to an article on Isolationism in the United Kingdom it would basically need to be rewritten from scratch and this wouldn't be a sensible redirect. The correct procedure would be to delete this article and for someone who wants that article to write it in the normal way. Kahastok talk 17:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Prisencolin: The article isn't about Roman or Viking Britain. Scholars of history will, of course, be aware that Britain wasn't a country back then, but a collection of countries. Should it have existed, any independence movements would have been for kingdoms like Mercia and Wessex (incidentally, as a Midlands lad with roots in the Mercian capital, I'm not aware of a strong Mercian independence movement). I do think Dtellet is right to suggest including some of the information in other articles that are relevant to those topics before this article is sent to that big search engine in the sky, and hopefully someone can do that. Good information is worth keeping, so long as it is used in the relevant place. This is Paul (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently there is one though. You live and learn. :) This is Paul (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is End of Roman rule in Britain, which presumably covers the ground I mentioned. In any case "British" and "Britain" could just refer to the island/s, without implying they are unified as a single state.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of this article, British independence is used in reference to the United Kingdom. End of Roman Rule in Britain is irrelevant to this discussion, since it discusses a physical event, while the article we're debating here is about a fringe theory that, quite frankly, doesn't even have much of a fringe. This is Paul (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's more of a joke or semantic twist than a fringe theory, after all no country can ever be totally independent of others. Besides, there's no question that the phrase itself is very widely used, so it would be made into a DAB or possible redirect at the very least.--Prisencolin (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well in terms of keep arguments we've gone from it being a serious topic to a joke in just a few sentences. I'm curious to know in which parallel universe this phrase is widely used. This is Paul (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Basically every reference in this article uses the phrase "British independence". In any case I suppose I do agree that, even if this topic is generally notable, the current draft should be nuked and started over.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of headlines, the only reliable source that mentions the phrase directly is The Sunday Independent. I would question the neutrality and use of the others. This is Paul (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with TIP above that British isolationism would be a more accurate, less POV laden rendition of the topic. I also agree with the general line of commentary above that the article as it stands is a POV fork. Carrite (talk) 09:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SYNTH of a hotchpotch of disparate quotes and tenuously related matters and issues to advance a neologism as an existent, unified concept. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV fork. However, it is surprisingly well written and wiki-formatted for a new user, especially the 99 references in the first draft. Perhaps the user can tutor other new users on how to edit WP so expertly with no wiki-experience. - BilCat (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NPOV. This article is full of unsourced, tendentious claims. Not only that, but this concept is better explained in other articles that others have already brought up here. Omni Flames (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2016 (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.