- 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 keep per WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) Sceptre ( talk) 16:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Second Scottish independence referendum ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:CRYSTAL - discussing a hypothetical referendum which has not been called, and may not be. Most of the subject matter would be more suitable as a section on the Scottish independence page MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... ( talk) 14:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. This comes very close to a frivolous nomination. The topic of this article has been the subject of major international news coverage, and is an official step taken by the Scottish Government. Although the referendum at this stage is only in the planning stage – the Scottish Government has started to prepare legislation to that effect and announced the referendum is "highly likely" to take place – the topic of the planned referendum is clearly notable. We had an article about the UK EU referendum long before it actually took place too, and we have Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 2016 about an expected party election later this year. Even if it were not to take place, it would still be a notable topic, given the steps taken by the Scottish Government yesterday and today, and the media coverage. -- Tataral ( talk) 14:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- If we look at David Cameron first calling an EU referendum (back in January 2013 - the Bloomberg speech), it took more than a year before there was a page for a potential referendum (see
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=United_Kingdom_withdrawal_from_the_European_Union&oldid=591489439). Before then all the information was contained within pages for "Brexit" and "United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union", therefore, just because a possibility of a second referendum has been discussed doesn't mean a page need be created instantly. I agree, it's the subject of discussion, I am just suggesting that the discussion is better placed in the
Scottish independence article, rather than this.
MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (
talk)
15:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- This article is highly likely to be significantly expanded in the coming days, and weeks, and it's already long enough to merit its own article. There should be a shorter summary (a section) in the Scottish independence article, and we should retain this one as a more detailed main article. --
Tataral (
talk)
15:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- In fairness, more than half of the article is 'Background' of the two other referenda, so I would disagree that it is really long enough to merit keeping the article. I would say that the point at which the article is necessary is when legislation is introduced before the Scottish Parliament or if the Scottish Government publishes draft legislation (which I conceed, may be soon, but it could be months). Before then, there's nothing that isn't alreadty written in United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016#Scottish Independence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... ( talk • contribs) 15:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- This article is highly likely to be significantly expanded in the coming days, and weeks, and it's already long enough to merit its own article. There should be a shorter summary (a section) in the Scottish independence article, and we should retain this one as a more detailed main article. --
Tataral (
talk)
15:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- If we look at David Cameron first calling an EU referendum (back in January 2013 - the Bloomberg speech), it took more than a year before there was a page for a potential referendum (see
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=United_Kingdom_withdrawal_from_the_European_Union&oldid=591489439). Before then all the information was contained within pages for "Brexit" and "United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union", therefore, just because a possibility of a second referendum has been discussed doesn't mean a page need be created instantly. I agree, it's the subject of discussion, I am just suggesting that the discussion is better placed in the
Scottish independence article, rather than this.
MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (
talk)
15:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see what is to be gained by deleting this article now and recreating it in some weeks or months. The article was created only yesterday and will certainly be expanded even as this AfD discussion takes place. The amount of media coverage is more than enough to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Tataral ( talk) 15:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, per WP:CRYSTAL. The general Scottish independence article is the right place for new developments at this stage. We don't know for sure that there will be an independence referendum, as Nicola Sturgeon said on Friday that a referendum is only an "option". At least possible that there may be some other outcome, e.g. a deal between EU and Scotland that was different from its new relationship with the rest of the UK. This article explores one possibility, that of the rest of the UK leaving the EU but Scotland retaining the UK membership (see also Greenland and the European Union). [1] Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 15:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Although there is an element of WP:CRYSTAL in this, the article on Scottish independence is certainly long enough already, and this suggestion/proposal is a specific one that is already generating discussion in reputable sources. It should be kept and expanded as time goes on. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 15:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. I think the relevance of the topic is great enough to merit its own article, and indeed, the Scottish independence article is too long to have this in it too. Cipika ( talk) 16:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. It has been widely cover even in the US as early as just after the first referendum. While the article should have started as a section (perhaps as a part of Scottish independence referendum, 2014 possible rename) Tataral's point about ending up having to recreate the article is spot on. I also agree with Ghmyrtle on the WP:CRYSTAL issue. Spshu ( talk) 18:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. It seems that a second referendum on Scottish Independence is quite likely at this stage. I think that since the article will be expanded loads anyway, it makes more sense to keep it for now. Pablothepenguin ( talk) 18:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. I can already see a bright future of this article! Scotland is going to be a independent country! So speedy keep.— Gaurh ( talk) 19:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. There is likely going to be another referendum following the result of the EU membership referendum now. I would propose that it's called something along the lines of Proposed second Scottish independence referendum, however. (EDIT: I have just moved the page to this name).
- Additionally, the 2014 referendum page was created in 2009, for an expected vote on this subject in 2010 in never happened. That page was initially called Scottish Referendum Bill, 2010 and was renamed a number of times. Referendum (Scotland) Bill, 2010 (on 20 October 2009), Scottish independence referendum bills (on 18 September 2011), Future referendum on Scottish independence (on 4 October 2011), Scottish independence referendum, 2014 (on 10 January 2012). And as already mentioned by others, the EU membership referendum page was created before we knew there would definitely be a referendum on the subject. Clyde1998 ( talk) 19:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:SNOW. Although this is still only proposed, it is receiving a huge amount of discussion in mainstream media. If this doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, I don't know what does. Molpies! ( talk) 20:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. There is enough recent media coverage about this topic (just put "second scottish independence referendum" into Google), so I believe that it is notable enough to qualify for an article. Nicola Sturgeon said today that, "To ensure that that option [a 2nd indyref] is a deliverable one in the required timetable, steps will be taken now to ensure that the necessary legislation is in place" (Source: https://www.rt.com/uk/348347-scotland-second-independace-referendum/), and, "We will seek to enter into immediate discussions with the EU institutions and the other EU member states to explore all possible options to protect Scotland’s place in the EU" (Source: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4610a46e-3ae2-11e6-8716-a4a71e8140b0.html). A selection of other reliable news sources about this second referendum, Brexit: Nicola Sturgeon says second Scottish independence vote 'highly likely' - BBC News, New Scotland independence referendum "highly likely" - Sturgeon - Times of Oman, - Brexit: Nicola Sturgeon begins paving the way for second Scottish independence referendum - Evening Standard. Seagull123 Φ 21:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a serious proposal for a referendum that is getting a lot of media coverage. There is also a shorter page for the less likely London independence. D3RP4L3RT (DERPALERT) ( talk) 23:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep – Even if this referendum were to never occur, it has become the subject of major international news coverage and to delete an article on a significant topic that a significant number of readers will be searching for would be counterproductive. Dustin (talk) 02:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - There is a Second Scottish independence referendum, at least all over the news and in people's minds. How this topic evolve is relevant, hence this article should be kept as long as there is enough people contributing to it. Miguel.mateo ( talk) 06:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: WP:CRYSTAL does not prohibit this page. It easily passes WP:GNG. Of course, everything must be well-sourced to avoid original research and speculation, but this is more than notable enough that it should stay. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{ re}} | talk | contribs) 07:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:GNG.-- Forward Unto Dawn 07:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - There is a great possibility that it will happen and if it never were to occur it should be mentioned on Wikipedia that it was proposed and a lot of media coverage was given to it. Itsyoungrapper ( talk) 09:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Even if it never happens, the current coverage of it easily passes WP:GNG. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep - Even if this is somewhat WP:TOOSOON, it easily passes WP:GNG. Ceosad ( talk) 11:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. This does not need to happen to be notable. The content would overwhelm the main Scottish independence article and this is not idle speculation or improper synthesis - the prospect of this referendum is real and well covered in many reliable sources. Fences& Windows 13:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:SNOW. This afd doesn't need to continue at this point. Clearly meets WP:GNG per secondary/media sources even if it is WP:CRYSTAL. — dain omite 15:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - This article is well-sourced and the subject is receiving a great deal of media discussion. Even if there isn't a second referendum, the discussion around it is notable. Tigercompanion25 ( talk) 15:30, 26 June 2016 (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 keep per WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) Sceptre ( talk) 16:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Second Scottish independence referendum ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:CRYSTAL - discussing a hypothetical referendum which has not been called, and may not be. Most of the subject matter would be more suitable as a section on the Scottish independence page MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... ( talk) 14:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. This comes very close to a frivolous nomination. The topic of this article has been the subject of major international news coverage, and is an official step taken by the Scottish Government. Although the referendum at this stage is only in the planning stage – the Scottish Government has started to prepare legislation to that effect and announced the referendum is "highly likely" to take place – the topic of the planned referendum is clearly notable. We had an article about the UK EU referendum long before it actually took place too, and we have Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 2016 about an expected party election later this year. Even if it were not to take place, it would still be a notable topic, given the steps taken by the Scottish Government yesterday and today, and the media coverage. -- Tataral ( talk) 14:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- If we look at David Cameron first calling an EU referendum (back in January 2013 - the Bloomberg speech), it took more than a year before there was a page for a potential referendum (see
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=United_Kingdom_withdrawal_from_the_European_Union&oldid=591489439). Before then all the information was contained within pages for "Brexit" and "United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union", therefore, just because a possibility of a second referendum has been discussed doesn't mean a page need be created instantly. I agree, it's the subject of discussion, I am just suggesting that the discussion is better placed in the
Scottish independence article, rather than this.
MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (
talk)
15:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- This article is highly likely to be significantly expanded in the coming days, and weeks, and it's already long enough to merit its own article. There should be a shorter summary (a section) in the Scottish independence article, and we should retain this one as a more detailed main article. --
Tataral (
talk)
15:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- In fairness, more than half of the article is 'Background' of the two other referenda, so I would disagree that it is really long enough to merit keeping the article. I would say that the point at which the article is necessary is when legislation is introduced before the Scottish Parliament or if the Scottish Government publishes draft legislation (which I conceed, may be soon, but it could be months). Before then, there's nothing that isn't alreadty written in United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016#Scottish Independence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... ( talk • contribs) 15:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- This article is highly likely to be significantly expanded in the coming days, and weeks, and it's already long enough to merit its own article. There should be a shorter summary (a section) in the Scottish independence article, and we should retain this one as a more detailed main article. --
Tataral (
talk)
15:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- If we look at David Cameron first calling an EU referendum (back in January 2013 - the Bloomberg speech), it took more than a year before there was a page for a potential referendum (see
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=United_Kingdom_withdrawal_from_the_European_Union&oldid=591489439). Before then all the information was contained within pages for "Brexit" and "United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union", therefore, just because a possibility of a second referendum has been discussed doesn't mean a page need be created instantly. I agree, it's the subject of discussion, I am just suggesting that the discussion is better placed in the
Scottish independence article, rather than this.
MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (
talk)
15:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see what is to be gained by deleting this article now and recreating it in some weeks or months. The article was created only yesterday and will certainly be expanded even as this AfD discussion takes place. The amount of media coverage is more than enough to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Tataral ( talk) 15:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, per WP:CRYSTAL. The general Scottish independence article is the right place for new developments at this stage. We don't know for sure that there will be an independence referendum, as Nicola Sturgeon said on Friday that a referendum is only an "option". At least possible that there may be some other outcome, e.g. a deal between EU and Scotland that was different from its new relationship with the rest of the UK. This article explores one possibility, that of the rest of the UK leaving the EU but Scotland retaining the UK membership (see also Greenland and the European Union). [1] Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 15:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Although there is an element of WP:CRYSTAL in this, the article on Scottish independence is certainly long enough already, and this suggestion/proposal is a specific one that is already generating discussion in reputable sources. It should be kept and expanded as time goes on. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 15:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. I think the relevance of the topic is great enough to merit its own article, and indeed, the Scottish independence article is too long to have this in it too. Cipika ( talk) 16:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. It has been widely cover even in the US as early as just after the first referendum. While the article should have started as a section (perhaps as a part of Scottish independence referendum, 2014 possible rename) Tataral's point about ending up having to recreate the article is spot on. I also agree with Ghmyrtle on the WP:CRYSTAL issue. Spshu ( talk) 18:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. It seems that a second referendum on Scottish Independence is quite likely at this stage. I think that since the article will be expanded loads anyway, it makes more sense to keep it for now. Pablothepenguin ( talk) 18:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. I can already see a bright future of this article! Scotland is going to be a independent country! So speedy keep.— Gaurh ( talk) 19:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. There is likely going to be another referendum following the result of the EU membership referendum now. I would propose that it's called something along the lines of Proposed second Scottish independence referendum, however. (EDIT: I have just moved the page to this name).
- Additionally, the 2014 referendum page was created in 2009, for an expected vote on this subject in 2010 in never happened. That page was initially called Scottish Referendum Bill, 2010 and was renamed a number of times. Referendum (Scotland) Bill, 2010 (on 20 October 2009), Scottish independence referendum bills (on 18 September 2011), Future referendum on Scottish independence (on 4 October 2011), Scottish independence referendum, 2014 (on 10 January 2012). And as already mentioned by others, the EU membership referendum page was created before we knew there would definitely be a referendum on the subject. Clyde1998 ( talk) 19:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:SNOW. Although this is still only proposed, it is receiving a huge amount of discussion in mainstream media. If this doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, I don't know what does. Molpies! ( talk) 20:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. There is enough recent media coverage about this topic (just put "second scottish independence referendum" into Google), so I believe that it is notable enough to qualify for an article. Nicola Sturgeon said today that, "To ensure that that option [a 2nd indyref] is a deliverable one in the required timetable, steps will be taken now to ensure that the necessary legislation is in place" (Source: https://www.rt.com/uk/348347-scotland-second-independace-referendum/), and, "We will seek to enter into immediate discussions with the EU institutions and the other EU member states to explore all possible options to protect Scotland’s place in the EU" (Source: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4610a46e-3ae2-11e6-8716-a4a71e8140b0.html). A selection of other reliable news sources about this second referendum, Brexit: Nicola Sturgeon says second Scottish independence vote 'highly likely' - BBC News, New Scotland independence referendum "highly likely" - Sturgeon - Times of Oman, - Brexit: Nicola Sturgeon begins paving the way for second Scottish independence referendum - Evening Standard. Seagull123 Φ 21:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a serious proposal for a referendum that is getting a lot of media coverage. There is also a shorter page for the less likely London independence. D3RP4L3RT (DERPALERT) ( talk) 23:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep – Even if this referendum were to never occur, it has become the subject of major international news coverage and to delete an article on a significant topic that a significant number of readers will be searching for would be counterproductive. Dustin (talk) 02:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - There is a Second Scottish independence referendum, at least all over the news and in people's minds. How this topic evolve is relevant, hence this article should be kept as long as there is enough people contributing to it. Miguel.mateo ( talk) 06:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: WP:CRYSTAL does not prohibit this page. It easily passes WP:GNG. Of course, everything must be well-sourced to avoid original research and speculation, but this is more than notable enough that it should stay. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{ re}} | talk | contribs) 07:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:GNG.-- Forward Unto Dawn 07:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - There is a great possibility that it will happen and if it never were to occur it should be mentioned on Wikipedia that it was proposed and a lot of media coverage was given to it. Itsyoungrapper ( talk) 09:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Even if it never happens, the current coverage of it easily passes WP:GNG. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep - Even if this is somewhat WP:TOOSOON, it easily passes WP:GNG. Ceosad ( talk) 11:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. This does not need to happen to be notable. The content would overwhelm the main Scottish independence article and this is not idle speculation or improper synthesis - the prospect of this referendum is real and well covered in many reliable sources. Fences& Windows 13:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:SNOW. This afd doesn't need to continue at this point. Clearly meets WP:GNG per secondary/media sources even if it is WP:CRYSTAL. — dain omite 15:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - This article is well-sourced and the subject is receiving a great deal of media discussion. Even if there isn't a second referendum, the discussion around it is notable. Tigercompanion25 ( talk) 15:30, 26 June 2016 (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.