Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Testimony in Depp v. Heard


 * 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 redirect to Depp v. Heard. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Testimony in Depp v. Heard

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

RandomCanadian (the content creator) claimed that this fails WP:NOTNEWS, so the article has been draftified twice. Then, the page was procedurally moved back to mainspace per WP:DRAFTIFY, so now an AfD is needed to justify deleting or draftifying for failing WP:NOTNEWS. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the trial, or the actors involved. More of a media circus than anything terribly notable for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm wondering about the extent to which WP:RUSH may apply. Editors have invested substantial effort into developing this content from the time it was presented on the Depp v. Heard page which has now been given effective WP:Transclusion from the main article.  I suspect the content was in part developed as a result of almost competition between sympathisers of Depp and Heard but, none the less, a lot of notable content was added.  My earlier thoughts was that there was value in presenting the content in the chronological order in which the legal teams chose to go through the arguments.  However, if this violates not news, then the policy ruling clearly carries.  I'd say that there was no rush for deletion and that, otherwise, the content could be put back into draft and certainly be given some direction in regard to it's encyclopaedic development.  There's a lot of notable material in there while there's currently disproportionately little content on the on the actual trial in the article on the ''Depp v. Heard trial. GregKaye 07:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect and do not merge – (Note: I have made significant comments on the talk page for Depp v. Heard.) The reality is that these minutiae are not deserving of their own article; WP:NOTNEWS strongly applies. See O. J. Simpson murder case, for example, which is rather long but isn't nearly as specific and detailed as this one. IIRC this article was created as a spinoff from the main article because it was growing too much, hence we should not merge. Ovinus (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't believe this article is in the mainspace. It fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:TMI, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE and I fail to see how the witnesses are notable enough for a standalone article. Callmemirela  &#127809; talk 02:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: clearly INDISCRIMINATE; one might as well look at the trial transcript at this stage. A boiled-down version of the most notable developments is better situated at the Depp v. Heard article. WP:RPURPOSE lists sub-topics as useful redirects, so a redirect to Depp v. Heard might be considered if that subsection gets fleshed out. Agree with Ovinus not to merge this article in its current form with Depp v. Heard since it's way too big. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 21:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Draftify, per creator: this was never intended as a standalone article but as a draft for a larger section on the parent (as that will probably not be necessary in anycase); it was moved to article space by Starship.paint, then reverted by a request at WP:RMTR, and then reverted again by El cid, el campeador. Lets move it back to draft space and allow the creator and other interested editors to continue working on it. If there is then a consensus to do so, they can merge it into the parent article. BilledMammal (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete (don't believe a redirect is useful as a target in this instance): Agree with Throast above that this is in violation of INDISCRIMINATE and basic good encyclopedia writing to boot. Individual witness testimony is the purview of live-blogging, not encyclopedia coverage (NOTNEWS). I don't really see where this should be allowed to incubate as a draft. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 23:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect/Merge to Depp v. Heard. I’d prefer a selective merge, since the claimed point of creating this page was to eventually merge it back into a section in the main article. At minimum, however, it may be the case that a redirect must be retained (or the page must not be deleted) for copyright attribution reasons as some of the modified content appears to have been copied back into some versions of the page available in its history. The closing admin should thoroughly ensure that they do not create a copyright violation when making the closure in the case that they choose to delete it. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2022 (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.