Deletion of Wreathgate (2nd nomination)

Comment: Per  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTSCANDAL||WP:RECENTISM)

Comment: political scandal with INDEPTH international news coverage, which is having a political impact.  2 hours ago = The Guardian (a pro-Labour newspaper)  published this: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/14/labour-frustrated-as-message-drowned-out-by-corbyn-wreath-row  Labour frustrations mount as Corbyn wreath row drags on. passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: Unlikely to be of any lasting significance per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: to Jeremy_Corbyn#Foreign_affairs where it is already covered in roughly the same detail as the article. As we see over and over with Donald Trump and other high-profile politicians, countless events attract a ton of news coverage over the course of a news cycle or two. One one hand, GNG requires lasting significance such that we stay away from //. No evidence of lasting significance yet. Regardless,  is pretty clear that even when we do have a lot of sources, it's absurd to create separate articles on each and every sub-topic of things we already cover. This looks like a great example. What we're debating isn't whether to cover this subject, but whether we need to duplicate content across two articles such that it's covered under Corbyn's foreign affairs or needs its own article. To me this seems like a pretty clear-cut case of . I would say Merge, but it's already all there in the Corbyn article. &mdash
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:DELAY||WP:NOPAGE||WP:NOPAGE)

Comment: but probably change the name. There is clearly plentiful coverage that satisfies notability and . It isn't an evident attack page, though I'm sure it might get some edits that move that way, they should be handled in-article. It is a significant enough event that it is a legitimate CONTENTFORK. Amazingly this isn't a pile-on !vote, given the number of delete/redirect !votes, most of which I would say are at best over-reacting and I believe unjustified. I would say the only thing that I am unsure about is what is a good alternate name
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LASTING)

Comment: it is basically a political attack against a living person, as such is in violation of wikipedia core policy - 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: As per the others - it's a relevant event which is getting  and is far more likely to develop further than it is to go away.  The article title needs changing to something more neutral, and the article itself is rather unbalanced at present, but both of those things can be resolved by improving it, and aren't reasons for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: Subject has received significant international news coverage, and  is not a reason for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: Relevant and sourced. A deletion is definitely not justified. diting policy#Try to fix problems
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:E)