Deletion of Craig Thomson affair

Comment: I'm undecided on whether the article should be deleted per : while the article is no longer the total disgrace it was and is on a clearly notable topic it still sucks. However, it obviously needs a new title - this scandal is about the Health Services Union, and not just Thompson (though he's obviously a key figure in what's been alleged to date). It's worth noting that this matter a) concerns living people so WP:BLP applies b) is currently under investigation by the police and c) is certain to result in civil court cases and possibly criminal cases, so it needs to be very carefully written
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: What's your opinion on a  deletion, followed by a neutrally renamed version
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: or '''greatlly abridge & merge''' - Article comfortably fits here → 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SENSATION)

Comment: as nominator: if consensus does turn to "keep", I advocate that it should still be given a  deletion because of the indisputable attack-page status that this had at one point
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: Passes GNG by a million miles so the only question is does it violate anything in ? It's not "just news" - it's been going on for several years now and may have serious implications. I can't quite see how anyone could suggest this is not a notable topic. The only qualm I have with it is that while the investigation is ongoing, there is an element of  about a lot of it, and of course  must be carefully followed. But non-notable? Seriously
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:BLP)

Comment: to something along the lines of "Health Services Union expenses affair". This is obviously something that will need to be watched closely, but as Yeti Hunter said this passes GNG with flying colours and is clearly a notable event. It is, however, wider than merely Thomson, and restructuring the article to express this would counteract some of the (justified) concern about  violations and attack tendencies. GenericBob above, however, is very much on the mark; this needs close monitoring for crystal-balling (although we do, in fact, have an article on Utegate, for what it's worth
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)