Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Thomson affair


 * 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   '''Rename to a more neutral title, and cleanup. Moving to Health Services Union expenses affair'''. Rename to a more neutral title ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 23:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Craig Thomson affair

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Australian silly season WP:COATRACK split of Australian politician Craig Thomson. While subject matter is probably notable enough to merit its own section in Thomson's bio article, this is an attack page, although some editors are attempting to redeem it. I hold out little hope of their success. This should be deleted, although any WP:NPOV content could be merged into the main article on Thomson. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to Craig Thomson (politician). The in-merging piece will need to be trimmed substantially to maintain balance at the biography. Carrite (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge Agree with Carrite. Seems excessive coverage of one allegation of sleazy use of funds. COATRACK might be a bit of a push, but I just don't see the article as being necessary: it's not exactly like the main article is too long at the moment. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge (if there is anything worth merging, rather than simply finding a good news review article and noting a summary at Craig Thompson.) Regarding COATRACKing, no item cited describes the narrative present in the article, and the selection of material for inclusion has been conducted with considerable original research and excessive insights derived from interpretation of primary sources.  This is what happens when original research and synthesis are the basis of article development. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge only the important material from this "article" which had become a POV exemple of the first water. Collect (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete there is already adequate coverage at Craig_Thomson_(politician) JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge Unless that's already been done to sufficient degree, as suggested by the editor above. --  Despayre  tête-à-tête 18:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge for all the reasons above and I don't see that title in the source provided. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete ...rather than Merge. The latter would suggest that this once had a valid existence. It didn't. It was being used to attempt to remove a government. As someone who tried to redeem the article, I have no qualms about my efforts disappearing forever. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I respect your deep knowledge of Australian politics and years of service as an editor here, HiLo, but if you truly think that this is an article that could be "used to remove a government", then doesn't that make it notable enough to keep? --Pete (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, because that's precisely not what Wikipedia is for. HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you can't have it both ways. If you think that the article could be used to remove a government, as you say above, then clearly you think it is important, powerful and notable. It would certainly be more notable than any other Wikipedia article ever if it had the power to topple a government! --Pete (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nah. You don't get it. It COULD be used that way. That's precisely why it SHOULD'NT exist. It's not Wikipedia's job. We are observers and editors, not activists. (Well, not here, anyway.) You really have a strange idea of what Wikipedia is about. HiLo48 (talk) 08:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If the article could be used to bring down a government, then surely the subject is notable and important. I'm not sure as to the mechanics of how one could actually do that, unless it's some superuser coding feature not available to regular editors like me. All I intend doing - in any article I edit - is to use WP:RS and WP:NPOV and all the rest of the wikipolicies. Nothing secret about that. --Pete (talk) 08:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's good, but with all due respect, I think you need to work a little more on WP:NPOV, and perhaps begin to also think about WP:UNDUE and WP:CONSENSUS. HiLo48 (talk) 08:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably getting off the topic of power-editing a democracy-killing article here, but perhaps we could take this to the article talk page? --Pete (talk) 08:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve. This is an Australian political scandal that has been ongoing in the public eye for the past year, generating immense media coverage. Not a "silly season" story or a storm in a teapot, the Thomson affair is something that threatens the existence of the minority Gillard government and outrages the public. The political conflict between Julia Gillard, with 71 seats in Parliament and Opposition leader Tony Abbott with 72, is tense, and Thomson is in the unfortunate position of being a political football. He is the most currently visible of several senior figures of the dysfunctional Health Services Union, so this is something wider than the troubles of one junior politician. With ongoing police investigations, pending court actions and a parliamentary inquiry under way, this is a story that will continue on for months or years to come, and Wikipedia should provide an article and reliable sources for readers seeking information. --Pete (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per JoeSperrazza. Not seeing anything worth merging. AIR corn (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: this appears to be an incoherent article about a minor political scandal. Anything important from it can just as easily be covered in the Craig Thomson article. --Carnildo (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Passes GNG by a million miles so the only question is does it violate anything in WP:NOT? It's not "just news" - it's been going on for several years now and may have serious implications. I can't quite see how anyone could suggest this is not a notable topic. The only qualm I have with it is that while the investigation is ongoing, there is an element of WP:CRYSTAL about a lot of it, and of course WP:BLP must be carefully followed. But non-notable? Seriously?--Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply - Um, I didn't ever claim it wasn't notable, although I think it's better covered in the original Thomson article. I claimed it was a WP:COATRACK, and implied that it was a POV-fork, too. I think that the subject matter is impossible to present in a WP:NPOV way in its own article, because doing so gives it WP:UNDUE weight. Yeah, it's notable. It's an extremely notable attack against a living person. WP:NOTSCANDAL. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 05:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTSCANDAL seeks to prohibit the use of Wikipedia to disseminate rumours and hearsay, under the broader prohibitions in WP:NOR. It does not apply here - the allegations ( and more importantly, the findings of FWA) have been reported in reliable secondary sources. We must certainly ensure that this does not turn into an attack page, hence I support moving the page to a more neutral title as suggested below (and for another thing, it may not be Thompson alone who ends up being the villain in this whole affair).--Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: 1. The so-called "reliable secondary sources" consist of (a) one media empire (ie Fairfax), whom the subject of the article sued as a defamation defendant; and (b) the Murdoch media, which has made no secret regarding its bias towards the subject and its push for a change of government. If you accept the foregoing, how really reliable and NPOV are those secondary sources for Wikipedia's use as citations in this particular matter? 2. The "findings" of the FWA Report do not meet the rules of evidence which meet the standard of the Evidence Act 1995 - which the FWA Report itself concedes, and forms part of the reason why it was tabled in the Senate and not released outside of parliamentary privilege; note the fourth sentence of the fourth paragraph of the General Manager's statement for one of the main reasons why it was done that way. Please also note that Lindy Chamberlain was completely cleared of murdering Azaria today - while that's totally irrelevant to this article, it's of prime relevance here insofar as the principle of presumption of innocence - which the continued presence of this article in Wikipedia violates. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * IP, it's been raised on the article talk page that you may be Craig Thomson himself. Investigation of the IP address you are using (among other factors) makes this plausible. Would you like to rule this out? Although there is always the probability that a subject of a BLP will read his article - and I've seen how much stress that can cause - it does raise problems when a subject attempts to influence what is written about him. --Pete (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And I might be Bob Brown, Clark Kent or Bruce Wayne, and I refuse to rule out any of those possibilities. WTF are you on? HiLo48 (talk) 08:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I know Bob Brown and you aren't him. The other two are fictional. All three are ruled out by the many tags you display on your user page, and I believe you on them. But please think through this. Craig Thomson has had death threats made against him, we have people actively saying he's a suicide risk on morning television and he's under a lot of pressure. Maybe you've never been there, but it's a bad place, and regardless of how we regard his behaviour, he needs consideration for that. This IP editor may not be Craig Thomson, but we can't rule it out. As you say. He trusts you. Go hold his hand and tell him Wikipedia ain't such a bad place. --Pete (talk) 12:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, so morning television is the source of your wisdom. All is starting to become clearer. HiLo48 (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * While I understand your concerns, Pete, I have to advise you against requesting self-outing by another editor, IP or pseudonymous. There are a number of perfectly good reasons for the IP's choice of subject, and so I ask you to WP:AGF. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 21:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course. However, we cannot rule out the possibility - we must not rule it out, if as many concerned have noted Thomson is in a difficult and awkward situation. Two points to note here. If it is not Thomson himself, then it is someone who is trying to promote the same line - there are many such folk about in the blogosphere, and they have no evidence to support their line. It is like the Kennedy assassination, where there are any number of people claiming all sorts of things on the line that it could have happened that way. Second point is that the IP has not stated definitively that he is not Thomson. I am not Craig Thomson - I can say that without beating about the bush or identifying myself. I could be any one of the remaining seven billion people on the planet. As indeed I am. --Pete (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Speculation as to any editor's "real life identity" is forbidden on Wikipedia - and your speculation seems to fall into that category. This discussion is neiter the time nor place to do as you are doing.  Collect (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It may be forbidden, but it is commonplace when a subject, or one closely aligned with the subject's point of view edits a BLP. It is a difficult situation, and one that needs to be handled sensitively. The Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) incident a couple of months back illustrates what can go wrong. I am grateful for your experienced eyes and assistance on this. --Pete (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Second point is that the IP has not stated definitively that he is not Thomson" - I draw your attention to the words immediately below, posted about 20 hours before your comment: "false and ridiculous accusation regarding my identity". That seems pretty definitive to me. Even supposing for the sake of argument that only 5% of Australians accept Thomson's version of events, that makes over a million people; the fact that 121.216.230.139 is among that number seems like extremely slender evidence upon which to base a repeated allegation of bad-faith editing. Please AGF and give it a rest. --GenericBob (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Question: (first asked on Collect's talk page and asked again here) if an editor has admitted on a blog or similar that he or she is editing this article, and by doing so, that editor can easily be traced back to the membership of a political party with a vested interest in editing this article, is it appropriate to mention this on Wikipedia in AIN or in AfD to point to a clear conflict of interest? Would you agree or disagree that the editor has outed him or her self? Before I possibly running afoul of a policy, I thought I'd better ask someone before saying anything more about this issue. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like stalking to me. If you are talking about me, I haven't been a member of any political organisation this century. --Pete (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, 121, that would be a violation of policy. See WP:OUTING, which specifies that even if a person has declared their identity off-wiki, we cannot bring that information on wiki. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Understood, however: If .... personally identifying material is important to the COI discussion, then it should be emailed privately to an administrator or arbitrator [....] Then I'll do that. Can someone please point me where to email the details with regards to this AfD matter - and the matter over at AIN - for admins to examine off Wikipedia? AFAIC, this involves a serious COI issue involving editing by a member of extreme right wing racist hate party known for dirty tricks. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I saw the comment, GB. As I said, oddly-worded denials. My point about the small number accepting Thomson's story is that it makes it a fringe view, for NPOV purposes, and makes defending the view an awkward and frustrating matter for anybody holding it. I note that elsewhere the IP editor has ruled out accepting any media outlets owned by Fairfax or Murdoch as reliable sources, which would wipe out a lot of Wikipedia's Australian coverage if we accepted his advice - I don't think there would be a metropolitan daily remaining we would be able to use as a source! While we can and should respect every editor, we are not required to accept every opinion. I'll give this a rest now, unless something new comes up. I was keen that editors be aware of the possibility, given Thomson's unhappy presence at the focus of wide media and community attention. --Pete (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you really should give it a rest now. All this insane speculation about editors' real identities, especially Pete/Skyring's obsession over our IP editor actually being Craig Thomson, is completely out of place. The IP editor and I have very similar views. At least one of us is not Craig Thomson. There is no point to this line of discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 03:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Pete, you seem to be implying that the IP has been leaving loopholes in his/her denial, but I don't see it. The words "false accusation regarding my identity" don't seem to leave any wiggle room. If you believe they're lying and you have evidence to support it, send it to an admin or an arbitrator. Otherwise, you should never have made these insinuations in the first place, and you might consider striking them. --GenericBob (talk) 04:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at the original comment from another editor, it looks very broadly worded. I'm not pushing this, beyond asking that he be extended latitude and consideration. Besides, he's a new editor, and we don't bite the newbies. --Pete (talk) 04:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * IP doesn't seem like a newbie to me - he/she has a great knowledge of wiki-terminology, admin hierarchy, policy, diffs, edit history, contribs, block logs... Strikes me as a seasoned Wikipedian, actually. No problem with that of course, but I don't think any newbies are in danger of getting bitten here.Yeti Hunter (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks (?I think?) Yeti Hunter, but I have read a lot lately and I'm learning the jargon quickly out of necessity. Still I am nowhere seasoned enough to know where to email the information that I discussed above. Could you please provide a pointer on where to send it? 121.216.230.139 (talk) 05:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably WP:WQA, but I wouldn't advise doing so in this case - I suggest cooler heads on both sides. Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment (PS): For the record - 1. false and ridiculous accusation regarding my identity - please note the accuser's affiliation; and 2. my response to the nonsense. The POV pushers believe that the article's subject is the only person who accepts the concept of the presumption of innocence, and that such a concept is a "fringe" viewpoint - at least, according to Rupert's polls. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We can and do have articles describing poor behaviour by living people who have not been found guilty by a court of law. Athlete Ben Johnson of Canada sprints into my mind. Reliable sources are what we use to support allegations untested in court. Media outlets regularly publish allegations against named individuals, as do we. I did see your response mentioned above, and found it oddly worded - no actual denial, but a claim of "no political affiliation", which describes Craig Thomson's status exactly now that he has left the ALP. Under our NPOV policy, we do not support fringe viewpoints such as a flat earth or moon landing hoaxes with the same weight as more mainstream views. As noted, public support for the Thomson's view of events lies at 5-10%. --Pete (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, per John Profumo and Profumo Affair, both the man and the affair need an article. The political ramifications of the affair are complex and important, but many are undue for a BLP. Reducing our coverage of the affair to a section of Craig Thompson would result in either the loss of important detail or the overwhelming of the man's biography with elements of the scandal that are undue for a BLP. If there is a neutrality problem with the article, fix the article; if you can't be bothered with that, trim it to a stub and protect it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * John Profumo and Profumo Affair were created long after the latter happened, and thus with the wisdom and perspective of history. Because of its currency it has been impossible to keep editors with obvious POV intentions (such as members of the major opposition party) away from the article under discussion here. It has been used primarily as a political tool, and those of use working hard to prevent that really do have better things to do. HiLo48 (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Then cut it to a neutral stub and fully protect it. For those of you outside Australia, this thing is called the "Craig Thomson affair" in Australia. That's it's common name here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Bill Heffernan's allegations against Michael Kirby were explosive, and if confirmed would've undoubtedly led to the toppling & probable jailing of a High Court judge. Malcolm Turnbull's "Utegate" allegations, if confirmed, would probably have led to the resignation of a Prime Minister. But in both cases what actually happened was quite different; we should be cautious about any arguments that rely on speculation about how this might turn out. The affair definitely merits coverage, but while the fur's still flying we should be cautious; it will probably be easier to put this one in perspective when we have more distance. --GenericBob (talk) 02:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge This belongs together with the subject. I'd suggest a bit of paring down as well. I don't think delete is the answer. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep but rename to something along the lines of "Health Services Union expenses affair". This is obviously something that will need to be watched closely, but as Yeti Hunter said this passes GNG with flying colours and is clearly a notable event. It is, however, wider than merely Thomson, and restructuring the article to express this would counteract some of the (justified) concern about WP:BLP violations and attack tendencies. GenericBob above, however, is very much on the mark; this needs close monitoring for crystal-balling (although we do, in fact, have an article on Utegate, for what it's worth). Frickeg (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. Attack page. The page was started only to push a POV supported by the subject's political opponents. From the time the article was created, it used unreliable, biased sources to disparage and defame the article's subject. When the POV was challenged and balanced, and the defamation removed, WP:GAMEs began. As the article's subject engaged in defamation proceedings against one media empire, and the other media empire present in the country admits it has bias against the living person (and is owned by Murdoch), finding reliable NPOV secondary sources will be a problem. The Craig Thomson article also needs serious clean-up work by NPOV editors with BLP experience. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 02:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This topic is quite distinct enough to merit a content "fork" from his bio article given the length and detail of the material. The opposition to the article and the wide array of attacks brought to bear against it seem to be from supporters or sympathizers of his. Obotlig ☣ interrogate 02:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply I don't give a rat's ass about him. I found this article through a message on User talk:Jimbo Wales, evaluated it as a previously uninvolved and completely neutral editor, and found it to be a blatant WP:COATRACK and in violation of WP:NOTSCANDAL. And this AFTER several editors had done major cleanup on it. I will thank you to assume good faith, which means not making blanket assertions about other editors' motivations to create a strawman argument. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 05:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as its already covered in his bio and at least one more location (merge a bit back but not unduly), if keeping then rename and completely rewrite to the suggested Health Services Union expenses affair - You  really  can  05:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm undecided on whether the article should be deleted per WP:TNT: while the article is no longer the total disgrace it was and is on a clearly notable topic it still sucks. However, it obviously needs a new title - this scandal is about the Health Services Union, and not just Thompson (though he's obviously a key figure in what's been alleged to date). It's worth noting that this matter a) concerns living people so WP:BLP applies b) is currently under investigation by the police and c) is certain to result in civil court cases and possibly criminal cases, so it needs to be very carefully written. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd have my doubts about the court cases. If, for some inexplicable reason, the balance of power suddenly changed in Australian federal politics such that Thomson's vote was no longer of any importance or, heaven forbid, he died, or something like that, the heat would completely disappear from this. Most if not all legal threats would disappear. If all we had was allegations of unacceptable behaviour by a union official who wasn't also a major political figure, there wouldn't be an article. Nobody outside that union and the police would care. The ONLY reason this article exists is because Her Majesty's Opposition smells blood, and that's a very dangerous reason. HiLo48 (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And quite wrong. The political impact of the affair is significant, but what is driving public discussion, as opposed to the Parliamentary Press Gallary hanging over the railings every Question Time, is the misuse of union fees. My son, as a kitchen hand in Calvary Hospital, exemplifies the membership of the HSU. He and thousands of others in similar jobs depend on their union to maintain or improve their dismal conditions and low pay. When they learn that the money they earn from stacking dirty plates in a dishwasher or hosing out bedpans or whatever is being spent on prostitutes, they question the purpose of their union membership. Forget what may or may not happen in the Reps, what is happening is that these workers are leaving the Health Services Union in their thousands. Get out and about and listen to people. The reason the article is here is because it describes an important social matter, and that has its own existence, regardless of what is said here or in Parliament. --Pete (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nicely put, Skyring. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To both of you, that's rubbish. Without the hung parliament problem, we would not have an article. To claim otherwise is just silly HiLo48 (talk) 00:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And without the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand... Don't call people's contributions rubbish and silly. It's rude. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat it if you like. Those contributions are silly rubbish, Anthonyhcole's in particular. It's just barracking. HiLo48 (talk) 08:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment as nominator: if consensus does turn to "keep", I advocate that it should still be given a WP:TNT deletion because of the indisputable attack-page status that this had at one point. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 11:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point actually. It's important that the edit history not contain defamatory material. Recreate current article at new title, delete old one entirely. Possibly immediately re-create a redirect at this title as a plausible search term?--Yeti Hunter (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - notable controversy; not a BLP violation, at least in its current form. Merging is a possibility, but I don't think it's obligatory here; there seems to be enough to say to justify a separate article, at least for the time being. However, I would advise renaming to get Craig Thomson's name out of the title, to something less contentious like Health Services Union expenses affair. Robofish (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I just came across Category:Political controversies in Australia. Yikes. Is anyone else concerned about having biographies of living people categorised as 'controversies'? Robofish (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ugh, that should be rectified immediately. A person is not a scandal. Tarc (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Except the SMH and ABC refer to this as the "Thompson affair" regularly. Preponderance of sources.  Fifelfoo (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not actually reading what we're talking about, which is that other people's biographical articles are themselves tagged as "controversies". This wasn't about "The so-and-so affair" type of articles. Tarc (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Too much detail for a relatively straightforward political spat. How much mention, if any, on the main BLP can be discussed at that talk page.  There's just not enough here to justify forking the coverage to its own article. Tarc (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at what links the Craig Thomson page, there's over a hundred links, though many are routine. The Gillard Government article has a section, complete with photograph. As for naming controversies after living people, it seems commonplace enough around the world. Petrov Affair, Profumo Scandal, Category:Political sex scandals, Political sex scandals in the United States and so on. --Pete (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not that incoming links really has much to do with anything here, but you need to fine-tune your search a bit. Links from other articles that aren't transcluded shows only 5. Tarc (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course. I note that the actual section detailing the affair is linked from Craig Thomson (politician) rather than Craig Thomson affair. We could probably grab a few more mentions by looking at links to the various HSU pages. My point is that mentions are all over Wikipedia. He even got a guernsey in The Signpost for his Wikipedia plagiarisation. --Pete (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The Petrov and Profumo affairs are far enough in the past that the historical perspective is pretty stable and highly unlikely to change. This is NOT something we can rely on with the HSU scandal. Utegate started out as a story about Kevin Rudd but ended up as a story about Godwin Grech (and to a lesser extent, Malcolm Turnbull). Rentboygate started out as a story about Michael Kirby and ended up as a story about Bill Heffernan. Until we know whether the HSU scandal is going to stay as a story about Craig Thomson, or evolve into a story about Kathy Jackson or some other person, we should not pre-emptively assign it to Thomson. "Health Services Union affair" or some such seems like a reasonably NPOV name. (Even if one takes all the allegations against CT at face value, and dismisses his denials as fiction, it's pretty clear that the problems in the HSU extended much further than Thomson.) --GenericBob (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course. The thing can evolve, and I am pretty sure in my crystal ball that we're going to see more from the direction of the HSU. But at the moment the good sources we have are all about Craig Thomson, and HiLo even claims above it's really only about him and his critical vote in Parliament anyway. I'm not averse to changing the title to reflect the HSU basis, but I kind of despair at navigating the byzantine characters and branch structures of the union over the years to be able to tell a coherent tale. We'd need a local guide for that sort of work. --Pete (talk) 01:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've never said that it's only about Thomson. A more accurate description of my view is that it's all about the Liberal Party's lust for power. HiLo48 (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A political party lusting for power - what will we have next! Gillard shares the same genes on this. In fact she became Prime Minister by toppling the existing head of government without the bother of having an election. Nevertheless, the affair involves more than just Thomson and the parliamentary situation is important. Perhaps if we're going to merge the article, it should be merged with Gillard Government, where there is already a longer and more comprehensive mention than at Craig Thomson. --Pete (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you get all your lines from the Sydney shock jocks? The process of change of party leader and hence PM is a perfectly normal and legal one under the Westminster system, despite what the rabid media and the Libs have told you. It's a bit like innocent until proven guilty in court, another concept you seem to find difficult to comprehend. But anyway, this is not about Gillard, but I guess your true colours are showing. HiLo48 (talk) 08:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * User:HiLo48, please check out ANI - it's like a SMPTE test card. Heh. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 09:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge NPOV content into a section in the main article. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or greatlly abridge & merge - Article comfortably fits here → WP:SENSATION
 * and neatly here: WP:Recentism → writing or editing without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention and possibly resulting in:


 * Articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens.
 * Articles created on flimsy, transient merits.
 * The muddling or diffusion of the timeless facets of a subject, previously recognised by Wikipedia consensus.
 * - Cablehorn (talk) 06:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * merge this is a particularly oputrageous instance of overcoverage. Even for politicians, part of the undue coverage aspects of WP:BLP apply to WP.  DGG ( talk ) 07:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Craig Thomson (politician). Per common sense, I'd say. Cavarrone (talk) 09:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * General comment on merge proposals. The material might be more appropriate at Gillard Government, where the affair is already covered in more detail than Craig Thomson. While Thomson is the focus, at least until more material from the HSU becomes available, the significance lies in the political impact on a closely balanced parliament where the Opposition holds more seats than the Government. --Pete (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge either to Gillard Government or Craig Thomson (politician) (whichever is more appropriate) per topics such as Cheriegate, which are notable enough for a section, but not sufficiently enough to stand on their own. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have a sense of schadenfreude when plastering this space with notable scandals that shame powerful people, but it does not seem to be either notable nor the will of the Wikpedians. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Craig Thomson (politician). I've very carefully read all the Keep arguments presented here, and in my opinion a good case for keeping the article separate has not been made.  The affair is certainly notable, but that's better dealt with on the bio page.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC).
 * Except that it's not all about CT. It involves several individuals, a union, a government department, and the government itself, with support acts from the media and the opposition. To merge to any one of those entities alone would be inappropriate, yet I reckon we have consensus that it is indeed notable. Its own article is the only NPOV place for it. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So what's your proposal for a new name for the article? HiLo48 (talk) 05:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I and several others above suggested Health Services Union expenses affair, although of course this could be subject to discussion. As a corollary, I worry about merging this article for one main reason: I foresee endless problems in relation to WP:UNDUE if all this is included in Craig Thomson (politician) (or worse, Gillard Government). A neutral, probably protected article about the entire HSU problem (of which Thomson is only a part) seems to me preferable. Frickeg (talk) 06:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I agree with all of that. I guess the emphasis so far on Craig Thomson has been one of the things worrying me about all of this. HiLo48 (talk) 06:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm more concerned about attempts to whitewash Thomson by partisan editors. Given the wide media coverage, the few lines at Craig Thomson are quite inadequate. The Gillard Government article has a better coverage! --Pete (talk) 07:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I genuinely don't believe that anyone here is trying to whitewash Thomson. I for one am primarily concerned that he should be tried in a proper legal setting, rather than by the media, opposition parties, and you. HiLo48 (talk) 08:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We report on poor behaviour that has not seen the inside of a courtroom, such as drug cheating by athletes. The Fair Work Australia report is a valid source. Every major media outlet in Australia is using it, what makes Wikipedia any different - we're just a website, after all. On the matter of whitewashing, I note that the Craig Thomson article lost more than a third of its content over the past month, and all of that was coverage of the HSU business. The diff above commences from before I made any edits and finishes with the most recent edit, so that's all material sourced from the regular editors now vanished. How come? --Pete (talk) 08:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Missed the point again. One of the three bodies I alleged was playing the out-of-courtroom judge and jury role IS the media. Then you used the fact that the media is covering it as a reason why Wikipedia and you should. Oh dear. I truly believe that you quite often just don't get it. HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not accept that other people have different opinions? Such as the Prime Minister, who forced Thomson out of the ALP and told journalists that "a line had been crossed." She's not judge and jury, and the ALP party room is no court, but still she acted publicly and Thomson is out in the cold, shunned by his caucus comrades. --Pete (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would argue she did that BECAUSE of the trial by media. You must admit that our two major print sources are both actually part of this story, not just objectively reporting on it. Any cursory read of The Australian over a few weeks will tell you that Murdoch hates Labor right now, and Thomson sued Fairfax. They are not great independent sources on this story, and that's yet another reason to take our time and find more impartial sources, probably from further afield. HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's every Australian daily newspaper you've just pitched into the harbour as a reliable source. How much further afield do you want to go, and just where do you think overseas news outlets source their material anyway? Is the left-leaning ABC an acceptable source in your eyes? They are all telling the same story because they are carefully reporting the facts. --Pete (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do reject both the major daily newspaper outlets as reliable, independent sources on THIS matter, and I gave reasons. That you label the ABC as left-leaning actually labels you. My solution, as ever on this matter, is to slow down. Wait. Wikipedia is NOT a breaking news outlet, nor a scandal-mongering tabloid. We can afford to wait for a more objective coverage after some time. Probably at least months, maybe best left until after the next election, for obvious reasons. We must take care care that we don't become part of the story too. HiLo48 (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I prefer the ABC to any commercial channel, especially for news and current affairs. I find myself in agreement with their corporate line on most issues. But why are you aiming your firepower on this article, exactly? The Gillard Government article has a good coverage of the affair, why not go look at that. They use 'gasp!' both The Australian and The Sydney Morning Herald as reliable sources! We use the media as reliable sources for other issues, for example the Rudd and Gillard leadership tussles. Why not just accept that the WP:RS policy is a good one? It works. --Pete (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You ask, why not? I ask, can't you read?!!!!!!!!!! First, I gave reasons, second, I pointed out that I had given reasons. Third, you ask why? Stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge Into Craig Thomson (politician). I see no reason why this needs it own article, plus there are some IP editors that have strong opinions on this. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Note regarding any merge of content - The content in this article is completely disputed by multiple editors in regards to wp:npov, wp:blp AND wp:undue so it is highly likely any attempt to automatically merge''' any content citing this discussion as a reason will be disputed and reverted - and discussion requested on the talkpage of that article - You  really  can  05:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep but rename as suggested above and refocus to the wider HSU issues, Craig Thomson is not the only part of that and the actions happened before the Gillard Government's time in office - therefore neither a direct merge/folding in to Craig Thomson's article nor it becoming a section in the pages on the Government in general would be appropriate. It's notable enough to need its own page, and the scope too broad to be just kept under other articles, though would suggest Health Services Union would otherwise be the most appropriate place for the subject matter. --GoForMoe (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Since there are no parallel articles titled Kathy Jackson scandal and Michael Williamson scandal, there is bias in singling out just one party. Why not an article on Health Services Union controversies? WWGB (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete not merge per above. --→gab  24 dot  grab← 21:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Question This is actually a major and ongoing Australian political scandal, running since 2009, as a quick look at the sources will reveal, so I ask those !voting for deletion, when did Wikipedia begin to censor political controversies? I think a better question is not whether we cover it or cover it up, but under what article name we report a notable event. For your consideration, thanks. --Pete (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is your twenty-fourth contribution to this discussion. Stop badgering other editors.  Fifelfoo (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)  More over, you made exactly the same suggestion as in the post above in your opinion that the article should be kept.  By repeating yourself to such an extent, after the posts of contributors that disagree with you, you are damaging this discussion by badgering. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This is actually the first time I've asked these questions, and I think that all participants will be interested in any answers supplied. Feel free to contribute. --Pete (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment While this is not a vote, just for simplicity, please note that there are 12 comments supporting a merge, 9 comments for deletion, 2 for delete/merge, and 7 for keep. That's an overwhelimng 76% in favor of making this specific article go away. While I have not commented here either way, I did make two edits to the article (though they were simply to enforce policy), so I'm sure if I closed this for deletion (leaving a discussion of what should or shouldn't be added to Craig Thompson up to editors on that talk page) I'd just give ammunition to those admanant about keeping this to get it overturned by calling me technically WP:INVOLVED. Furthermore, a number of the keep commenters focus on how this article is important because of their own personal political perspectives (about how this scandal is going to bring down a government). Those recommending deletion have presented solid arguments about how this article violates WP:NPOV (often via the WP:COATRACK analysis), and how this cannot be rectified by normal editing (since it is the existence of the article itself that gives excessive prominence to this subject), and the easiest way to fix that is to delete it and include only a smaller number of details on the pages of the principles. So, the closing admin is welcome to either read this as yet another delete !move, or as an attempt to summarize the consensus of those above. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Can I just address your misrepresentation, there? This isn't going to bring down the government. It might. That's because the Gillard Government is in a minority and if Thomson is forced to resign, a by-election would change the balance by two votes, and Gillard only has a margin of one.. That's what makes it notable, not because of Thomson per se, but because of the impact, and of the wider HSU scandal. Those aren't my opinions in the quotes there. That's Prime Minister Gillard talking, and journalist/historian Paul Kelly who has four decades service in the Canberra press gallery. Have you actually read any of the sources? --Pete (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What you're describing would make this article a textbook case of WP:COATRACK: if Craig Thomson isn't notable per se, then the scandal and its impact should be covered in HSU scandal or somewhere in Gillard Government. --Carnildo (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment There are far too many Brits and Yanks asserting stuff about the notability of the Craig Thomson affair who clearly haven't a clue how this tawdry episode has dominated the parliament and media here. You may as well argue that the Lewinsky scandal should be relegated to a paragraph of Bill Clinton. If the article is biased, fix it, or if the project proves itself incapable of that, trim it to a neutral stub and protect it until the election is behind us. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Question What's your opinion on a WP:TNT deletion, followed by a neutrally renamed version? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 13:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would not oppose that. Do you have something prepared? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete then recreate with neutral name (as Jorgath suggests), since I don't think I explicitly stated my preference before. Something like "Health Services Union scandal"/"affair" would be broad enough to cover both CT and also any of the other interesting parties embroiled in this affair, without the POV problems associated with naming after one participant. --GenericBob (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete This matter can be adequately contained within the articles covering Craig Thompson and the Health Services Union. As it stands it could be argued this article has been created to focus on this matter in an attempt to subvert the neutrality principle. --Lw (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:EVENT, WP:NOTCENSORED. A merge to Craig Thomson (politician) would give the subject undue weight there. The main article has a readable prose size of just 3174 bytes, and the article under discussion here 5710, so extensive paring down would be needed for a viable merge to take place. -- Trevj (talk) 08:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - because of WP:NOTCENSORED. A well known political scandal.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by OracleB (talk • contribs) 12:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)  — OracleB (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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.