Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London 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 keep. WP:SNOW NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

London independence

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

The article was probably written more as of a light-hearted tongue-in-cheek and an anti-Brexit article started shortly after the 23rd/24th June 2016 and largely written from July to September 2016 (the time of the year when British University staff and students typically have (or about to have) their Summer holidays, or otherwise have their time off at home with Mum or Mum and Dad after graduating (or otherwise finishing Uni)!), and probably edited by some British political science professors, lecturers or students! London Independence (or, Cities of London and Westminster (together with the Inner and Middle Temples), London and Greater London (together with Middlesex) Independence) is always feasible and a serious option...until the next terrorist attack, which duly happened (in London) as expected and without fail, and on the 22nd March 2017! Anyway, without making too much distasteful light out of Terrorism and terrorist attacks, as my humble suggestion, can it perhaps just be merged into the article on the Aftermath of the 2016 Brexit Referendum?! This (and the topic behind the article) is obviously more of a joke, and non-British editors obviously don't quite really get (understand) English humour and the English sense of irony! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. 87.102.116.36 (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 87.102.116.36 (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. 87.102.116.36 (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. 87.102.116.36 (talk) 11:26 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

Speaking of something that must be a joke, why on earth did you add this Afd such deletion sorting pages as Oceania, Caribbean, South America, Islands, etc? It's disruptive - and I see you were blocked for disruptive editing rather recently. So please don't do that again. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator has chosen to write an essay about how he feels about the topic, rather than address the issue of notability. In looking at the variety of coverage in Gnews, there seems to be more than enough to meet GNG, as a concept or aspiration. It doesn't have to be feasible or advisable, it simply needs to have be sufficiently discussed in independent reliable sources and I think it has been. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. There are lots of sources about the idea of London independence, many of which are from before the referendum (I recently added two from 2014, for example), so it is clearly not just something that lasted for a few days. There is plenty to say about the issue; see the talk page for a longer list of sources. N Oneemuss (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep. It may be a mad as a bag of badgers but it is covered by RS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Ridiculous and puerile rationale not worthy of discussion. This topic is covered in depth in multiple independent published reliable sources. AusLondonder (talk) 04:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This is a real discussion/concept widely covered in reliable sources. The idea of London achieving the same status as the four UK "countries" isn't even particularly radical/unrealistic in the medium to long term. --Tataral (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I fact, it seems to me that this article could even be added as related item in See also at Countries of the United Kingdom? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 3 April 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.