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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed second United Kingdom European Union membership / final deal referendum[edit]

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

It's not yet developed to be an independent article. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing has been "proposed". This is all crystal ball gazing and at best, can be covered in the main Brexit article. But I don't think even that is needed. Suck it up, snowflakes, we're leaving the EU. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (a) The article that is now United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 was created on 14 November 2012 under the title Brexit. It was retitled to Proposed referendum on United Kingdom membership of the European Union on 20 January 2014. That referendum did not become a certainty until 17 December 2015, almost two years later, when the necessary legislation was enacted. While I am aware of the principle of the WP:WHATABOUTX, these cases seem so exactly parallel that we should surely treat them both the same way:
- UKIP policy is to overturn the 1975 referendum with a new one to legitimate Brexit - they won't win, but they might get the Tories to introduce one.
- Lib Dem policy is to overturn the 2016 referendum with a new one to legitimate the withdrawal of Article 50 - they won't win, but they might get Labour to introduce one.

(b) The referendum under discussion would be the third UK referendum, following both 1975 and 2016, so the current article is poorly titled. It would be better titled something like Proposals for UK to remain in or rejoin the EU. Matt's talk 20:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't answer the question of why we need this article at all. It is one short paragraph and says nothing that couldn't be in other articles. If there is a referendum called, certainly it would deserve an article (with a better title) but until then, any discussions about the need or format for a referendum are just part of the wider Brexit process covered in other articles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my above comment there is no need for this article. And the title is far too awkward to be worthwhile as a redirect. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic should be covered at Brexit, but I can't see the justfication in a separate article yet. The article on the 2016 referendum should not have been created until it was called (WP:TOOSOON/WP:CRYSTAL etc), so I don't think its existence can be used to justify this one. Number 5 7 11:01, 28 August 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.