Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne Storm salary cap scandal


 * 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The result was   WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR WWGB (talk) 10:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)  (NAC)

Melbourne Storm salary cap scandal


Nothing in this article improves on Melbourne_Storm. While "Melbourne Storm salary cap scandal" may well in the future continue to be described as "the biggest fraud in Australia's professional sporting history", Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Shirt58 (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Melbourne Storm and redirect to the same - as the nom states, this article doesn't improve the main one, but it seems a reasonable search term. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) &#124; (talk to me) &#124; (What I've done)  19:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Melbourne Storm article for now. If the salary cap breach topic grows (as seems likely) then a separate article may be split off at some later date. Anyway, "scandal" is a value-laden media-driven term that is inappropriate here. WWGB (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily notable - this has received literally pages of coverage in the major Australian newspapers and is certain to be of lasting significance. Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs expansion, not deletion, and keeping it in the Storm article would overwhelm it, when it's fully done. And why has the article creator become the article deletion nominator?  Split personality or am I missing something?The-Pope (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have asked, in what I would assert is a tone of neutrality, on the Melbourne Storm talk page for editors to consider and possibly contribute to this AfD. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, but only if the highest standards of verification and NPOV are achieved. It's not uncommon for WP to cover unfolding events in stand-alone articles. Tony (talk)
 * 12:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC) I agree with the comment above about the non-neutrality of "scandal". Isn't there a better term? "Issue" is a bit tired. "Controversy"? Tony ** (talk) 12:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability is not a problem. Most of the information in the Melbourne Storm article relating to this should be merged into this eventually. Prefer "Breach" to scandal. AIR corn (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Breach' would probably be the better word to use, as it states exactly what the event is. -- saberwyn 07:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nomination. It's obvious that the consensus will be keep.  Apologies to folks who responded, for obvious reasons, chiefly that I should have started the article - about a current and contentious issue - with much more than its scant content, then waited to see what happened to it.  Would seek your assistance with improving it! --Shirt58 (talk) 10:51, 30 April 2010 (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.