Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piggate (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 16:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Piggate[edit]

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

The previous debate was closed as no consensus; I believe that enough time has passed to show that this was merely a small bubble swirling around on the top of the political cesspool and is not worth a standalone article. We live in a world that is truly beyond satire. TheLongTone (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep satisfies WP:GNG. Contrary to the argumnt WP:NOTNEWS, the issue is not just a temporary splash and still discussed, as Google News shows]. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same as before. Yes, it's not complimentary to an ex-PM. No, that still isn't a policy-based reason to delete it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I,m certainly not propsing this for deletion because it shows Cameron in a poor light. He has, after all, done many more dreadful things. I simply think that this was a remarkably short-lived sensation.TheLongTone (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are you proposing it? Because it sure ain't GNG. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, WP:NOTNEWS.TheLongTone (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a notable enough political scandal (even if it might have been a false allegation). The article seems to cover all the aspects well, especially the apparent non-coverage by parts of the media. Shritwod (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly a political scandal. A couple of days of sniggering and eyeball-rolling,; the rest is silence.TheLongTone (talk) 13:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is a part of a much bigger story. if anything, it should have it's own section in the article about David Cameron. The source of the story is uncorroborated with little to no proof Morganglick (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the article, or are you just reacting to what you think it says? Yes, the source of the story is uncorroborated. Why does this matter? There is nothing in this article, about the story and reactions to it, which is equally unsourced. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as unfortunate as this supposed story/scandal is/was, it is widely and well sourced with nearly 50 good sources. We can't just remove the story because it's unpleasant. It has high level politicians, presenters, comedians and news outlets reporting and speaking of it, as well as officially published biographies. Could be improved but has to stay. Slashmire (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No solid reason for deletion, previous keep arguments stand. Artw (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Misgivings about the title of the piece notwithstanding, this is an easy pass of GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is well sourced, satisfies WP:GNG. CBS527^Talk 02:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 04:46, 6 December 2016 (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.