Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mosley v United Kingdom


 * 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, with a merge discussion on the article's talk page strongly encoraged. Regards,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 17:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Mosley v United Kingdom

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball! It is not known whether this case will be accepted. All what happened someone filed an application to the European Court of Human Rights which itself is not a notable event. Mootros (talk) 05:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver  seren C 06:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver  seren C 06:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep However, WP:CRYSTAL states "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred" and "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". This article is clearly verifiable, due to the excellent numbers and quality of the sources. It is most certainly of wide enough interest, since it could greatly affect the privacy laws of the UK. It fulfills the notability guideline and is entirely certain to take place. So, regardless of crystal balling, the subject matter of the article is still notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. Silver  seren C 06:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I have not see any source that states that this case has been accepted by the ECHR. A fast-tracked application does neither mean accepted, nor certain to be accepted. See page 60 of this document for targets on a decision on admissibility  I guess we are looking for possibly another 12 month of CRYSTALBALLING whether there will be such a case or a failed application post-Mosley v News Group Newspapers Limited.  Mootros (talk) 08:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And if it fails to be accepted, will that not also be an important statement? Regardless, my points on WP:CRYSTAL still apply. It is verifiable and notable and, as far as we know, certain to take place. Silver  seren C 20:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: This is not just "someone fill[ing] and application to the European Court of Human Rights". It is Max Mosley, in response to this very high profile case filing a brief with the Strasbourg court which, in an unusual manner, has been fast-tracked. This has been the focus of much media intention, including journalists filing their opposition with the same court. Moswento (talk) 07:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge with a redirect, since the two cases are overthe same issue involving the same central figure.  DGG ( talk ) 08:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Not really - one is a consequence of the other, in a sense, but they are distinct. One is a High Court case concerning a single incident of invasion of privacy, the other is a case at the European Court of Human Rights concerning the English privacy laws as a whole. Moswento (talk) 09:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The notability of the topic is demonstrated by its sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, sufficient coverage in WP:RS to meet WP:NOTE. Emily Jensen (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Notability is not temporary. I quote: "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability... routine news coverage... is not a sufficient basis for a topic to have its own standalone article" Mootros (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge - major case, obviously, but I'm not sure it should have its own article, for navigation and readability purposes. Bearian (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment A High Court case in England is distinct from a case at the European Court of Human Rights. But we don't know yet whether there will be such a case at the European Court of Human Rights; at the moment we are looking into a CRYSTALBALL. Mootros (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. It isn't a case yet. It's just news. What if he settles out of court or withdraws the suit? Then we've got a totally useless news article. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If that does happen, then it can be merged into the other case that already occurred. But if the case does occur, then it would most definitely warrant being around. Which is why we should keep it, as there is enough verifiable sources for it to be kept for now. Silver  seren C 20:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't put the cart before the horse. If the case actually happens, then someone can write a useful article on it. I agree there are verifiable sources, but WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL are both policy and overrides any level of sourcing that the article can present. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to figure out how WP:NOTNEWS applies here and i'm failing to do so. This article is not a "Plot-only description of fictional works, Lyrics databases, Excessive listing of statistics, News reports, Who's who, or an FAQ." So, how exactly does that policy apply to this article? And i've already explained how this fits into WP:CRYSTAL above. Silver  seren C 20:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How can you be certain that this case will be admissible? Nine out of ten applications aren't. (See Reference above) How can you be certain Mosely won't die before such a case? How can you be certain that he does not drop the case? How can you be certain that both parties settle out of court? What are your sources? Mootros (talk) 09:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per User:Moswento Francium12  03:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Mkativerata. In particular the WP:NOT policy trumps the WP:GNG guideline. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How does it fail WP:NOT, as i've described above? Silver  seren C 20:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I.e. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOT_A_CRYSTALLBALL. Isn't that obvious? Mootros (talk) 09:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What I meant was, in above comments, I have described how it does not fail WP:NOTNEWS, since it has nothing to do with that policy, and I also described in my initial comment how WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. Silver  seren C 09:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The nominator has now changed the title of the article away from referring to the case, breaking title requirements for WP:TITLE. I shall assume good faith, but this seems to me to be an attempt to affect the outcome of this AfD by changing the title to reflect the nominator's argument, furthermore, not following what appears to be consensus (though the closing admin shall have to corroborate this) to keep the article as it is. Silver  seren C 09:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The move was undertaken in good faith, as this discussion is coming to a close here and it looks like the article will be kept. Are you saying that after this AfD the article shall not be edited anymore? Mootros (talk) 10:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, what i'm saying is that consensus appears to be that it should be kept as the title being the case as it is, not changed to reflect an application. Silver  seren C 18:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that there is a consensus here about reliable sources which clearly state that there is such a case. All I can see here in this discussion is that some editors agree there is some "notable" going on regarding Max Mosley.Mootros (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm actually inclined to believe that the recent changes (including the move) have fixed most of the WP:CRYSTAL problems. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If so, then the title still need to be reformatted, as I do not believe it fits WP:TITLE. Silver  seren C 20:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge. The case certainly does WP:CRYSTAL; "the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred". This is not possible to determine yet, since it may well set no case law. As such, the best option here is to remove the article until it can be shown that the case is important. It also fails Notability (events); on the first point, "lasting effects", there is (obviously) no evidence this has led to anything important or groundbreaking. "Depth of coverage" is key here; "Media sources sometimes report on events because of their similarity (or contrast, or comparison) to another widely reported incident". This case is only considered important by the news because of the previous cases; as such, it should either be deleted until some kind of importance can be shown past a brief flurry of news coverage, or merged into the main article on the previous case. This is merely an extension of an other case, and in many cases it is more appropriate to include the information in the original article than a new one. Ironholds (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wait and see - in future pages like this should just have been a new section in the page on the previous decided case (Mosley v News Group Newspapers Limited). If the application for the hearing is granted, then it should obviously have a new page, because then it'll be a substantive case. But it's there now, and we might as well see whether the case is admitted for a hearing before deleting. Though in future it'll be better practice to not create new pages ahead of time, so Ironholds, and the others above are right that it is a bit crystal ballish.  Wik idea  09:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep but re-edit. The article skirts around crystal ball by making statements like "Mosley is also intending to challenging the state of English privacy law and" should be re-written to "Mosley has also stated the intention of challenging the state of English privacy law and" with a CITE at the end. I think as is the case passes WP:N. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 15:41, 28 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.