Deletion of Piggate

Comment: per , and redirect to David Cameron for now, and later to an article about Lord Ashcroft's book. Not everything needs a freestanding article, and the charge can be better covered in broader context in other articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEOLOGISM)

Comment: I also wouldn't be averse to merging this article eventually with the article on ''Call Me Dave''.  No doubt there's a lot more interesting and pertinent material within the book that may ultimately flesh out its article.  Until that point, merging all of this text without loss of information might violate , and it remains the case that this particular narrative about a major public figure occupied large portions of the world's serious press for several days
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: Twitter frenzies are not worthy of a separate article, the allegations have already been mentioned in David Cameron. The construction of a separate article gives  towards the controversy. In addition the title is disgraceful: to compare this to Watergate is both ignorant and morally dubious. While we have to accept that Twitter is a vessel of ignorance, Wikipedia should not be
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: The topic has received significant coverage in numerous relevant non-trivial, independent, third party and secondary sources. It is a very notable event with a large amount of mainstream print and broadcast news media coverage generated in multiple major daily and national newspapers, and news magazines, therefore meets . In addition, the worldwide, international media coverage is also significant. The article is well-sourced and there is clearly enough information and coverage for it to stand-alone and does not need to be merged
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: delete''': there might be 26 sources in the article, but they can't possibly establish the |notability requirement of "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time" (emphasis added) because the 'scandal' is currently two days old. I'd say there are enough reliable sources to include information on this topic in the article David Cameron, any future articles about Ashcroft's book (or perhaps in Michael Ashcroft) and maybe even The National Anthem (Black Mirror), but at this moment in time I do not think this warrants its own article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: WP:NOTNEWS. This is just a tabloid scandal on a slow news day. Even when there's no news, the papers still have to fill the column inches and this is the kind of thing they fill them with. Moreover, all the news reports are simply recycling the same allegation that is ''apparently'' made in a book that has yet to be published; there has been no independent corroboration of the allegation and the text of the book could change significantly between now and publication. The combination of BLP issues and lack of verification mean that at the very least we should wait until the book is published, and then these allegations should be discussed in an article about the book rather than in a stand-alone article. Addendum (): this event fails —there is no depth to the coverage (just rehashing of the original claim, reaction to it, and reaction to the reaction), because there is no depth to the story; all we have is a sensational claim. On the comparison with "Plebgate", Plebgate caused the resignation of a cabinet minister and later led to criminal charges against several police officers, libel proceedings, caused long-term damage to the relationship between the government and the police, and raised concerns about the politicisation of the police and the police's role in society. Nothing remotely like that can be said for this "controversy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:DEPTH)

Comment: per . Yes, this is all over the papers, but so are lots of things, and we don't add an article for every single story that appears in the news. If this is still a thing in several month's time (as plebgate was), then I might reconsider, but for now it's of no encyclopedic value. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: I also live in the UK and thought that "piggate" has been made up, but it turns out to be a trending twitter tag for the story and, yes, there is some news coverage of the claim (much without reference to the term "piggate"). However, the term is a |neologism and |Wikipedia is not a news outlet. The story is not proven and is hardly the "scandal" that the article claims. The real story may well turn out to be a rivalry between Lord Ashcroft and David Cameron and ''perhaps'' this episode may be worthy of passing mention in a discussion of that. For now, it's  to tell
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: I think many editors misunderstand , which states "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events". Clearly meets . See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Davis (county clerk)|this discussion for another  based deletion rationale, which resulted in a SNOW keep. Needs to be improved and I don't oppose an appropriate rename
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:GNG||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: WP:NEOLOGISM for a start. Also , and not notable in and of itself. If there are ramifications to this incident, then they could be added to the Cameron BLP. This could also fit in an article about the book - but it can't stand on its own two feet
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: this is not a legitimate rationale for deletion and a pretty obvious failure of  given the numerous mentions of "Piggate" and "Pig-gate" in reliable sources.https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=au&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=piggate
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: As much as Piggate may be a ridiculous smear campaign which doesn't deserve any attention, it is a ridiculous smear campaign which has received significant coverage in RS; hence, it probably meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Very temporary and quickly subsumed media coverage. No international interest (every non-UK country on Google Trends has an index of 0 on "piggate"). Subject matter itself is obviously ridiculous, and is only covered by media outlets tongue-in-cheek. Even we regard it as news, refer to 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: as this appears to definitely meet 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The idea that Wikipedia is a good repository for such dross is something one well ought take a stand on.  The allegation is weakly sourced (single book) and as such is not something favoured in any  article.  As for being "almost comparable to Watergate" - that sort of claim is sufficiently absurd than anyone closing this should weigh it precisely for what it is worth
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: per : "''Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events.''" Yes it has been in |all the papers, but it is a typical storm-in-a-teacup short-term media frenzy that will be forgotten in a month or two. Wikipedia is an |encyclopedia, not a gossip sheet. To those saying "meets the GNG", please read the fifth bullet-point of : "''significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates |what Wikipedia is not
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:109PAPERS||WP:ENC||WP:GNG||WP:NOT)