Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flexcit

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 redirect to Richard A. E. North. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flexcit

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

The subject matter concerned does not warrant a specific article, there is nothing that discerns this from the article from other areas where the UK's possible future membership of the EU is considered; including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area#Possible_Withdrawal_of_the_United_Kingdom or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_UK_relationship_with_the_EU. Neither does this article warrant merging as these issues are already considered in more detail at these pages. The creation of this article is an attempt to tie the idea of joining the EEA to a specific person, Richard North. The fact that he advocates joining the EEA upon leaving the EU until a further deal can be reached is already referenced in a concise manner on his biography page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._E._North#European_Union EU explained (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. The term "Flexcit" does not seem to be widely used, other than by the author. Additionally, there is not sufficient content to justify separate articles for specific proposals for the UK's deal for a future relationship with the EU post-withdrawal. If there is any salvageable content it should be merged to Brexit or Continuing UK relationship with the EU. If these articles grow then it could always be WP:SPLIT in the future. TDL (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus seems pretty clear to me, not sure why this has been relisted. Delete per WP:NEO Euexperttime (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge this neologism that fails WP:NEO to Richard A. E. North. ( Not seeing sufficient use of term ot justify a redirect to Continuing UK relationship with the EU.) E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's about the proposed plan and not the word, and the references show that it is one of the few external suggestions that is used in UK Government planning for leaving the EU, a process which is hardly one that needs less coverage. JASpencer (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A single passing reference in a WP:RS to the plan being "perused" is not sufficient to demonstrate that the plan meets the WP:GNG of "significant coverage". I can find only a few other mentions. WP:BLOGS aren't reliable, and can't be used to establish notability. Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to be promoting blogs. TDL (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss E.M.Gregory's proposal to redirect this to Richard A. E. North
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Richard A. E. North; not independently notable. Anything useful can be picked up from the article history. Would be preferable to a 'merge' outcome is the article is largely unsourced original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this nattering non-notable neologism. --Lockley (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2017 (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.