Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HM Advocate v Salmond

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 Alex Salmond. There is a general consensus against keeping this page with the view being that it is TOOSOON. However, it does seem at least possible that at some point this content fork may merit a stand alone article. Additionally the title is a plausible search term. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HM Advocate v Salmond

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per talk page discussion, no reason for a separate article to Alex Salmond and nothing to merge as content is already there. RhinosF1 (talk) 06:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No good reason to have standalone article duplicating two sentences of content already merged to Alex Salmond, exactly where readers of the encyclopedia will actually look for it. An article title starting with "HM Advocate" is an unlikely search term for this event, so a redirect does not make sense. That leaves delete. Bakazaka (talk) 07:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same as TP consensus here that I closed. RhinosF1 (talk) 07:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TOOSOON and having a specific page on this may invite BLP issues. b uidhe 07:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alex Salmond' WP:TOOSOON and a duplicate of existing content. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 08:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We are probably going to have to create this sooner or later, so we may as well do so now. PatGallacher (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In its current state though it is a duplicate of a section in the Alex Salmond article. Should it not be deleted until if/when the section gets too big. There was no consensus to split the articles. RhinosF1 (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: User:PatGallacher is the pages original creator. RhinosF1 (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per others above. At some point, a separate page may well make sense. That time is probably months away, at best. I don't think it helps any having a stub until then. Bondegezou (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that it is appropriate based on how the issue is going. Since it will become more controversial as it progresses, I think a new article should host it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edo6209 (talk • contribs)

But under sub judice laws, there isn't going to be any reporting on this for ages until a trial starts, surely. Bondegezou (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Bondegezou's comments if/when the section becomes too long then a decision should be made to split the articles back, I would also support a requirement of a Full discussion to decide in future if the article should be re-WP:SPLIT RhinosF1 (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with the Keep-side on this. This article should stay. This is clearly needed already.BabbaQ (talk) 18:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BabbaQ: Can you explain how you came to this conclusion? RhinosF1 (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The content is duplicated on the main article. RhinosF1 (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a matter of pragmatism and because, technically, this case does not exist. We all agree this article will be born, assuming the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service decide to prosecute, but it's hard to see how it can have much useful encyclopedic content at the moment, and not until at least the preliminary hearing if not the trial (should they take place). So in the mean time it's just going to be a magnet for trolls and suck up editor energy, not to mention its potential as a platform for illegal activity. Can't see how it's worth all that. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I can definitely see the "too soon" rationale, but this is a fairly high profile case against a fairly high profile individual. It will almost certainly become notable if it's not already. NickCT (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately at the moment, it looks to duplicate existing content and probably has a bad title. Wouldn't a split once it becomes notable for the full scandal be better. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 21:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON I also agree with the comments of Deacon of Pndapetzim. --Enos733 (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.