Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special Counsel counter report


 * 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. The fact that only a few editors participated in this debate is to be regretted. No prejudice to bringing this to AfD again in a couple of months. Randykitty (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Special Counsel counter report

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This surely fails WP:CRYSTAL; it's an article about something that doesn't exist yet, with the assertions that it will exist coming from figures who are perhaps not universally regarded as trustworthy.

Until such a report does exist, it does not seem to me to merit a page. Some of the material on the article could perhaps be used in pages about things that do exist. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. You are correct. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball but does however allow such contents survive here. "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable (Done, there are various citations from The Atlantic, Washington Times, Washington Post, etc.) and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. (Again, the Wikipedia that I created suffices this clause as well. Some of the largest news institutions in the country are reporting it. The President has said it, his lawyers have said it...) It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." The same paragraph further elaborates on areas in which I have not infringed. You also stated "coming from figures who are perhaps not universally regarded as trustworthy." Everything has been citied by either media companies, legal institutions, or the people themselves. (E: For more context, Guiliani has said it, Trump has said it, Jay, Marty has, etc. This has been talked about for close to half a year.)


 * "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place....As an exception, even highly speculative articles about events that may or may not occur far in the future might be appropriate, where coverage in reliable sources is sufficient." I am pretty sure the Mueller Investigation and soon-to-be Counter Report are "notable and almost certain to take place." This is a bit of a stretch due to the semantics of "far in the future" however it is fair to say that the Mueller Investigation and the Special Counsel Counter Report will *most likely* be out within a year.


 * I am not speculating anything. Everything has been cited. Aviartm (talk) 03:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It is not at all clear to me that this supposed counter-report is "almost certain to take place"; as far as I can tell the cites on the article amount to Trump saying it's happening, associates of Trump saying it's happening, and newspapers reporting that Trump says it's happening. Statements that originate from Trump are not particularly noted for their reliability.
 * The Mueller investigation is not "almost certain to take place"; it is already in progress. Perhaps you mean Mueller's final summary of the investigation is "almost certain to take place"? That seems true - it certainly seems far more likely to take place than something Trump tweeted about - but unless I am very much mistaken, we don't have a page about Mueller's currently non-existent final summary of his investigation, either.
 * I cannot see that there is any content of value in this page that could not be added to pages related to the Mueller investigation. A note to the effect that Trump claims a "counter-report" is being prepared would suffice, if there isn't one there already. Once the counter-report exists, if it ever does, it would merit an article - perhaps even once reliable sources generally agree it will exist, and are willing to at least speculate on its specific contents. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I can tell and have seen numerous tweets by Trump that either occurred or foreshadowed what was to happen. And of course, I was referring to the conclusion of the Mueller Investigation. My apologies.
 * "we don't have a page about Mueller's currently non-existent final summary of his investigation, either." Because the conclusions will most likely fall into the Special Counsel investigation (2017–present) page. But if the conclusions are very lengthy and large, then a separate page might ensue. And the reporting of a counter report being in the works has been reported for close to half a year now. And the progress of the counter report has been reported too. I believe there is more than enough reporting and notability and information regarding the counter report for it to merit a Wikipedia page. Aviartm (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Even though it hasn't been written, I think the report meets the GNG, and if the Special Counsel investigation (2017–present) article didn't exist, it would be a viable article. But given the existence of that article, I think this should be merged with that one. Guettarda (talk) 04:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point Guettarda. However, we do not know how long the findings of Mueller are. As I stated prior, it might need its own Wikipedia page but we will have to see. And if someone is going to counter you, kinda implies that they are going to counter your main points and more. I believe further down the road, the Special Counsel counter report will need its own Wikipedia page. Those are just my thoughts. Aviartm (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree - I'm confident that report will need its own article. I believe that deletion would be inappropriate - the report meets the GNG, and almost certainly will eventually need to be spun out into a separate article. But for now, I believe it should be upmerged, "without prejudice", as they say. Once there's more to write, spin it back off into a stand-alone article. Guettarda (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright. So, how do we go about doing that necessarily? Do we do a full content or selective paste? Also, what will happen to the current page? Will it be temporarily be offline once there is more info or...? (E: It appears that we |"Delete all the text from the source page and replace it with..."with both procedures. If that is the case, maybe I should archive the current page to act as a template?) Aviartm (talk) 05:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait for the AFD to finish; and don't try and do the merge yourself, you'll make a mess of it. Pinkbeast (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The process is pretty straightforward. And yes, I am waiting until this concludes. And I am also waiting for Guettarda to respond. Aviartm (talk) 05:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're asking. If the conclusion from this AFD is "merge", I expect that the closer will either do the merge, or tag it for someone to merge. At that point, it's pretty much up to the person doing the merge, and editors on the SC investigation page. Guettarda (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright. Aviartm (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge into Reactions to the Special Counsel investigation (2017–present) or a related article per . AdA&D  ★ 15:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a section that I have made prior to this AFD on Reactions to the Special Counsel investigation (2017–present). Btw, it says in the AFD process..."After a discussion period (usually 7 days), an administrator then evaluates the response and takes action as needed." How extensive is this action? Just the conclusion or the actual merging of the 2 pages? I have not published the pages yet but I did the merging process if I can.Aviartm (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:02, 25 December 2018 (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.