Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R v Brooks, Coulson and six others

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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

R v Brooks, Coulson and six others[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Most trials aren't notable enough for standalone article. I tried to redirect this to News International phone hacking scandal but got reverted. ...William 18:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions....William 18:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions....William 18:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions....William 18:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTNEWS, possible redirect to the actual scandal page if we have to keep it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that most trials aren't, but this one is hitting the headlines in Britain at present as a major trial, 4 of the defendants already have their own Wikipedia biography, 2 of them are associates of the Prime Minister. The article is short at present but is likely to expand quickly. See Sheridan v News Group Newspapers, HM Advocate v Sheridan and Sheridan and R v Evans and McDonald as examples of recent British trials with an article, the last survived a deletion discussion. PatGallacher (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The trial itself is inherently notable and will remain as a notable trial after the news feeding frenzy has abated. Coverage in WP:RS is assured, and sorting the wheat from the chaff will be a challenge sometimes, but the trial is notable, and will be whatever the verdict is. Editors need to keep the article in check an edit it tightly to ensure NPOV, but the topic itself is notable. Fiddle Faddle 18:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that actually 5 of the 8 defendants were notable enough to have Wikipedia biographies even before this trial started, quite possibly a record in Wikpedia's history, which I suggest confirms notability. Also there must be hundreds of articles under the super-category "Trials", if people want to start deleting non-notable trials this is not the best place to start. PatGallacher (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This trial is scheduled to last for five months with many revelations of permanent interest likely to emerge. Without this separate article, the deluge of reliable sources over the coming months may unbalance the articles on Brooks, Coulson and the others. It is quite possible the evidence will bring in other individuals with a significant role in the case whose putative Wikipedia articles would fail notability on WP:BLP1E grounds. Philip Cross (talk) 10:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unenthusiastic as I am for having articles written during the course of legal proceedings, the logic above for keeping this one seems sound. The trial will pass for notability once it is over. Possibly a merge down into the News International phone hacking scandal might be done eventually, but one important aspect of this whole affair is that whilst the trial is necessarily about the conduct of certain individuals some of the practices engaged in were allegedly and by admission widespread. Splitting the News International aspects from the wider topic of the scandal might be the way to go, but only after the dust has settled and all the many the legal proceedings are concluded. Piling yet more into an article that is already unwieldy is not helpful, and I entirely agree about the inappropriateness of putting this material into the BLPs especially as the defendants are being tried together. --AJHingston (talk) 11:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- While trial in this case has only just started, it is likely to remain a very significant one that will be referred to for years to come. I suspect that in due course we will want to rename it to something like News International phone hacking trial. We may even want to merge it back to the scandal, but that will need to be done when the trial is completed and we know its outcome. It is exceptionally unusual for newspaper editors to find themsleves on trial for the way they did their jobs. The case will be notable for that if nothing else. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While most trials are just news, and thus are not notable as legal cases nor as precedent, this appears to be an "exception that proves the rule". This is not only generating headlines, but may be the most significant of the trials about media spying in Britain this decade. Keep. Bearian (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2013 (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.