Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Royal blackmail plot


 * 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 no consensus at this time. Per below this should probably be revisited in a reasonable amount of time, although merger seems to have more support than deletion... a discussion could simply be held on the article's talk page after the trial, for example. W.marsh 14:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

2007 Royal blackmail plot

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Breaking news...WP:NOT, " Two men are alleged", "unnamed member of the British royal family", "alleged", and so on. We all know who this involves, but this is only a news story, and it's already in David Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley. Crazysuit 02:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, since the news is still developing and it involves a government matter. Though Wikipedia is not a newspaper, the currency ("currentness", not money) of Wikipedia allows articles to be updated as soon as information becomes available.  I can imagine that if Wikipedia had existed in 1972, people would have nominated "1972 Watergate Office Break-in" for deletion in July.  Mandsford 03:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. This may become a notable story in time, but there's no need to have an article on it now; that amounts to breaking WP:NOT by predicting it will become notable in the near future. If and when it does, we can write the article, but for now it isn't and has virtually no content; the only significant content is already contained in the David Armstrong-Jones article, so this should be deleted and redirected there. Terraxos 03:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Armstrong-Jones, I should think. --Dhartung | Talk 03:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or redirect per Dhartung. No restrictions later on forking this back off again, later. The further it goes in legal proceedings, with coverage from non-UK uncensored media and information could make this a decent article sooner or later. • Lawrence Cohen  03:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge & Redirect page: Per Dhartung. - Rjd0060 04:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge [er DhartungBalloonman 05:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep this could expand substantially in a few weeks. PatGallacher 11:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for now This is a story that has potential to be expanded. It should be left for a few weeks to see if anything else evolves. I would suggest keeping this article for a month an then returning to it to see if it has improved or not.Seddon69 13:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for now widely reported news story; as more facts become available, it may be appropriate to merge - but not yet. Noel S McFerran 14:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Terraxos - Merge with Armstrong-Jones may be appropriate in this case, too. Jame§ugrono 21:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge (which is effectively already done) with the article on the Viscount in question, and redirect there. Currently, what's being said here is functionally the same as is being said there. If enough information comes to light to make the section too large, then it should be split off, but currently we're well under that point. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. --Malcolmxl5 03:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete- relevant info included already at the Viscount's page. Astrotrain 21:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - I disagree with the statement "We all know who it involves", bearing in mind the British media gag they are probably many, many people in the UK who don't. Deleting this article now is very premptive. This is nothing to do with WP:NOT, this is a Royal scandal to other such articles and deleting now, before the scandal is over means we can not asses whether the incident warrants a page. If it goes to court and all charges dismissed, then fine merge article. But given the press attention it will get when it goes to Court, there should be an article on it.--UpDown 08:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep To me this doesn't seem like news reporting or crystal balling, it has independent value as an article. Panichappy 15:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Has their been any significant new information on this since the initial hushed up UK media storm? • Lawrence Cohen  16:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Waiting for the trial next month I believe.--UpDown 18:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - seems notable enough and independent of the people involved. Springnuts 12:58, 16 November 2007 (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.