- 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 Separatism in the United Kingdom. Liz Read! Talk! 01:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Potential breakup of the United Kingdom
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Potential breakup of the United Kingdom ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The first three article tags pretty much spell out the issue here, as if the title alone weren't enough. Look, it's possible that the UK may "break up" in some fashion. Until it happens, all is speculation. Yes, it's not quite as bad as Second American Revolution ( deleted) and Second American Civil War (also deleted) were, if only due to the lack of a catchphrase that helps stoke up the alarmism. But it's still the kind of speculative analysis article that policy rags publish and we do not. Mangoe ( talk) 03:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. I read the Second American Civil War article in full a couple times for that AFD. I've skimmed this one quickly once so far. But I can already tell, this article is much better than that one was. It has problems but may be salvageable in some way. I am not sure yet. (Note I skimmed Second American Revolution as well, and bad as it was, it was "just" a COATRACK and that discussion probably doesn't share as much with this one.) — siro χ o 05:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Delete- Siroxo, you are correct that this page looks better, but that is because it is constructed largely from text copy-pasted from other articles. You can select sentences, google them, and find the source Wikipedia pages. For instance, the first line of the devolution section is on Royal Commission on the Constitution (United Kingdom), and that section also has copy pastes from Welsh devolution. Much of the original page was created in this properly flagged copywithin: [1] from Formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The history information is found all over the place. If this page is deleted, none of this information will be lost. It is all on better targetted articles. It brings together many sources talking about all the aspects covered, but where those sources don't talk about the break up, there is likely to be synthesis. There are, however, references to speculation in a newspapers, and a think tank or two. It is not that no-one has speculated about such a breakup. In the wake of Brexit it was clear that many people spoke about it, and the page creator could certainly argue that this establishes notability for the subject. The reason I think this should be deleted, however, is that the presentation here is speculative, prone to synthesis, and unencyclopaedic. The subject is treated encyclopaedically on other pages. It is not that no-one has spoken about the breakup - it is that this is not, in my view, the best way to present the material in an encyclopaedia. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 09:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)- I've gotten a chance to read it deeper and I tend to agree. For now, because I don't think history needs to be scrubbed the way it did for
Second American Civil War, I will take your analysis and suggest a redirect to consensus redirect
to Formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland#The "disuniting" of the United Kingdom. I am open to changing my mind. — siro χ o 09:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)- I don't oppose a redirect, but have been considering the best target. I think I will agree with suggestions below that the redirect be to
Separatism in the United Kingdom if closed as redirect. The one you suggest is perfectly good too, but redirecting to a section has a risk that the section could be removed.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
18:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- I support a redirect to that target as well. — siro χ o 21:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- I don't oppose a redirect, but have been considering the best target. I think I will agree with suggestions below that the redirect be to
Separatism in the United Kingdom if closed as redirect. The one you suggest is perfectly good too, but redirecting to a section has a risk that the section could be removed.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
18:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- I've gotten a chance to read it deeper and I tend to agree. For now, because I don't think history needs to be scrubbed the way it did for
Second American Civil War, I will take your analysis and suggest a redirect to consensus redirect
- Delete As a one-time contributor to this article. It fails to meet WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:CRYSTALBALL. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Delete(new position; see below), as the article (technically draft) creator, it quickly drifted too much into WP:SYNTH and WP:CRYSTALBALL territory, as well as majorly cut-and-paste by other editors, and have been unhappy with it since for it to bear my name. I did see "Breakup of the UK" used in news, but it slowly became clear later that is was more of a clickbait title used for Scottish independence, rather than a fully a topic on its own. Initially gave up on the draft, until it was found by someone else. Everything else, quickly went to synth unfortunately, and discussions on hypotheticals ensued on its talk. Too large to re-write. And if anything is eventually discussed significantly on the topic, WP:TNT can apply. Dank Jae 10:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)- Redirect to Separatism in the United Kingdom which is effectively an index article to all the actually notable articles in this topic area. The target could do with more prose and anything actually verifiable could be merged there. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- I'm less keen about redirects than most, but this does make sense as an alternative. Mangoe ( talk) 02:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Support redirect to Separatism in the United Kingdom. This event hasn't happened, and WP cannot predict' it happening, however there are separatist movements afoot in the U.K. Like how there are in Spain (with Catalonia), or France (with Basque) etc. CaribDigita ( talk) 18:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to Separatism in the United Kingdom. Seems like a reasonable suggestion. This is a fairly plausible search term, and some its redirects in turn (e.g. Breakup of the United Kingdom and Dissolution of the United Kingdom) are even more so. TompaDompa ( talk) 20:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we're equally distributed between delete !votes and redirect !votes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 00:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect per Thryduulf. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect as indicated above, I suggested delete, but am content with a redirect. I have therefore struck my delete and replacing it with explicit redirect to Separatism in the United Kingdom. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 07:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to Separatism in the United Kingdom, would also tolerate redirecting here, per reasons stated above, changing from originally delete. While also stated above, Formation of the United Kingdom has such a section on this topic, it technically does not fit with the title of the article (formation exclusively), so there's a risk of removal, unless it is renamed to "Territorial evolution" like all the others. Dank Jae 13:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
-
Comment:
Hypothetical partition of Belgium exists.
- Potential enlargement of the European Union exists.
- United Ireland exists.
- Unification of Moldova and Romania exists.
- Greater Netherlands exists.
- Etc. Just because a political idea or potential future event is not a reality (yet), doesn't mean there can't be an article about it. It just needs to meet
WP:GNG and not be full of
WP:OR and
WP:CRYSTAL etc. You know the drill. I do not see nominator invoking any kind of policy other than an implicit
WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
22:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- Right, but on the flipside, mention of the other pages is
WP:OTHERSTUFF. Policy arguments for deletion have been given above.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
22:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- True, but I'm saying that in order to argue that I don't think an article like Hypothetical partition of Belgium would be deleted because it has been so openly and widely discussed for decades, with its zenith in 2006/2007 with the mockumentary Bye Bye Belgium and subsequent political crisis, where at one point an opinion poll had 49% of Flemings say they wouldn't mind if the country broke up.
- Given the Scottish Indyref of 2014, the divisiveness of Brexit, the ever-present rhetoric by the SNP (often backed by others) of holding a second Indyref now that Scotland (which voted 61% Remain), plus the apparent increase in opinions favouring a United Ireland (which was likely to happen demographically anyway, but shifted faster due to the Brexit and the Irish border issues), there has been virtual nonstop public debate on a potential breakup of the UK since 2013. Rewrite? Yeah. Delete? Nah, mate. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 23:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- Right, but on the flipside, mention of the other pages is
WP:OTHERSTUFF. Policy arguments for deletion have been given above.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
22:28, 26 July 2023 (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.
- 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 Separatism in the United Kingdom. Liz Read! Talk! 01:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Potential breakup of the United Kingdom
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Potential breakup of the United Kingdom ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The first three article tags pretty much spell out the issue here, as if the title alone weren't enough. Look, it's possible that the UK may "break up" in some fashion. Until it happens, all is speculation. Yes, it's not quite as bad as Second American Revolution ( deleted) and Second American Civil War (also deleted) were, if only due to the lack of a catchphrase that helps stoke up the alarmism. But it's still the kind of speculative analysis article that policy rags publish and we do not. Mangoe ( talk) 03:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. I read the Second American Civil War article in full a couple times for that AFD. I've skimmed this one quickly once so far. But I can already tell, this article is much better than that one was. It has problems but may be salvageable in some way. I am not sure yet. (Note I skimmed Second American Revolution as well, and bad as it was, it was "just" a COATRACK and that discussion probably doesn't share as much with this one.) — siro χ o 05:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Delete- Siroxo, you are correct that this page looks better, but that is because it is constructed largely from text copy-pasted from other articles. You can select sentences, google them, and find the source Wikipedia pages. For instance, the first line of the devolution section is on Royal Commission on the Constitution (United Kingdom), and that section also has copy pastes from Welsh devolution. Much of the original page was created in this properly flagged copywithin: [1] from Formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The history information is found all over the place. If this page is deleted, none of this information will be lost. It is all on better targetted articles. It brings together many sources talking about all the aspects covered, but where those sources don't talk about the break up, there is likely to be synthesis. There are, however, references to speculation in a newspapers, and a think tank or two. It is not that no-one has speculated about such a breakup. In the wake of Brexit it was clear that many people spoke about it, and the page creator could certainly argue that this establishes notability for the subject. The reason I think this should be deleted, however, is that the presentation here is speculative, prone to synthesis, and unencyclopaedic. The subject is treated encyclopaedically on other pages. It is not that no-one has spoken about the breakup - it is that this is not, in my view, the best way to present the material in an encyclopaedia. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 09:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)- I've gotten a chance to read it deeper and I tend to agree. For now, because I don't think history needs to be scrubbed the way it did for
Second American Civil War, I will take your analysis and suggest a redirect to consensus redirect
to Formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland#The "disuniting" of the United Kingdom. I am open to changing my mind. — siro χ o 09:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)- I don't oppose a redirect, but have been considering the best target. I think I will agree with suggestions below that the redirect be to
Separatism in the United Kingdom if closed as redirect. The one you suggest is perfectly good too, but redirecting to a section has a risk that the section could be removed.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
18:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- I support a redirect to that target as well. — siro χ o 21:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- I don't oppose a redirect, but have been considering the best target. I think I will agree with suggestions below that the redirect be to
Separatism in the United Kingdom if closed as redirect. The one you suggest is perfectly good too, but redirecting to a section has a risk that the section could be removed.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
18:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- I've gotten a chance to read it deeper and I tend to agree. For now, because I don't think history needs to be scrubbed the way it did for
Second American Civil War, I will take your analysis and suggest a redirect to consensus redirect
- Delete As a one-time contributor to this article. It fails to meet WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:CRYSTALBALL. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Delete(new position; see below), as the article (technically draft) creator, it quickly drifted too much into WP:SYNTH and WP:CRYSTALBALL territory, as well as majorly cut-and-paste by other editors, and have been unhappy with it since for it to bear my name. I did see "Breakup of the UK" used in news, but it slowly became clear later that is was more of a clickbait title used for Scottish independence, rather than a fully a topic on its own. Initially gave up on the draft, until it was found by someone else. Everything else, quickly went to synth unfortunately, and discussions on hypotheticals ensued on its talk. Too large to re-write. And if anything is eventually discussed significantly on the topic, WP:TNT can apply. Dank Jae 10:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)- Redirect to Separatism in the United Kingdom which is effectively an index article to all the actually notable articles in this topic area. The target could do with more prose and anything actually verifiable could be merged there. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- I'm less keen about redirects than most, but this does make sense as an alternative. Mangoe ( talk) 02:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Support redirect to Separatism in the United Kingdom. This event hasn't happened, and WP cannot predict' it happening, however there are separatist movements afoot in the U.K. Like how there are in Spain (with Catalonia), or France (with Basque) etc. CaribDigita ( talk) 18:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to Separatism in the United Kingdom. Seems like a reasonable suggestion. This is a fairly plausible search term, and some its redirects in turn (e.g. Breakup of the United Kingdom and Dissolution of the United Kingdom) are even more so. TompaDompa ( talk) 20:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we're equally distributed between delete !votes and redirect !votes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 00:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect per Thryduulf. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect as indicated above, I suggested delete, but am content with a redirect. I have therefore struck my delete and replacing it with explicit redirect to Separatism in the United Kingdom. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 07:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to Separatism in the United Kingdom, would also tolerate redirecting here, per reasons stated above, changing from originally delete. While also stated above, Formation of the United Kingdom has such a section on this topic, it technically does not fit with the title of the article (formation exclusively), so there's a risk of removal, unless it is renamed to "Territorial evolution" like all the others. Dank Jae 13:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
-
Comment:
Hypothetical partition of Belgium exists.
- Potential enlargement of the European Union exists.
- United Ireland exists.
- Unification of Moldova and Romania exists.
- Greater Netherlands exists.
- Etc. Just because a political idea or potential future event is not a reality (yet), doesn't mean there can't be an article about it. It just needs to meet
WP:GNG and not be full of
WP:OR and
WP:CRYSTAL etc. You know the drill. I do not see nominator invoking any kind of policy other than an implicit
WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
22:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- Right, but on the flipside, mention of the other pages is
WP:OTHERSTUFF. Policy arguments for deletion have been given above.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
22:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- True, but I'm saying that in order to argue that I don't think an article like Hypothetical partition of Belgium would be deleted because it has been so openly and widely discussed for decades, with its zenith in 2006/2007 with the mockumentary Bye Bye Belgium and subsequent political crisis, where at one point an opinion poll had 49% of Flemings say they wouldn't mind if the country broke up.
- Given the Scottish Indyref of 2014, the divisiveness of Brexit, the ever-present rhetoric by the SNP (often backed by others) of holding a second Indyref now that Scotland (which voted 61% Remain), plus the apparent increase in opinions favouring a United Ireland (which was likely to happen demographically anyway, but shifted faster due to the Brexit and the Irish border issues), there has been virtual nonstop public debate on a potential breakup of the UK since 2013. Rewrite? Yeah. Delete? Nah, mate. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 23:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- Right, but on the flipside, mention of the other pages is
WP:OTHERSTUFF. Policy arguments for deletion have been given above.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
22:28, 26 July 2023 (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.