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 no consensus. We all know that AfD is not a vote, but with this many participants I must fall back on the automatic headcount as a first approximation of the outcome. It is: Keep: 50; Delete: 22; Merge: 13; Redirect: 4. This tells me that while a majority thinks that we should keep the article, we don't have a clear consensus to do so, particularly because (as Collect points out) many "keep" opinions are from relatively new accounts, which always raises some concerns. Because so many opinions have been offered, and the issues raised here are ones of editorial judgment (is this a significant enough event for a separate article?), I can't reliably assign determinative weight to one or the other's side's arguments. This leaves us with no consensus, allowing the article to be renominated after some time has passed and the lasting significance of the event, or the lack thereof, can be better assessed. Many people who voice other opinions point out that this might at some time be better covered as part of the article about the related book, Call me Dave, and it might be useful to discuss this proposal at the talk page before starting any new deletion discussion.  Sandstein  19:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Piggate[edit]

Piggate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Whether of not this comical brouhaha is worthy of a standalone article, there is nothing in the sources to suggest that the witless cliche 'piggate' has been used by even the most lacklustre of hacks. TheLongTone (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could be that you're living somewhere where they censor Internet. I've come across articles by various news sources, all containing the word "piggate". Fojr (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I live in the UK. I reiterate my comment about witless hacks.TheLongTone (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 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 WP:TOOSOON to tell. RichardOSmith (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a breaking news story, possibly stemming from Ashcroft's sour grapes at being passed over for a ministerial role by Cameron. It may be worthy of a mention in the main article about Cameron depending on how it evolves, but not its own article.Neiltonks (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete So far this is just a random allegation. If reputable sources later claim that the incident contributed to the Conservatives losing an election or something like that, then it might be worth mentioning in the article on that election or on Cameron's page. Despite the allusion in the name, this is not like the Watergate scandal where the story of the transgression was long and layered and had a serious impact on American life. Triangl (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an article on whether or not Cameron favours pulled pork. Its real topic is though a self-sustaining media story that has become massive in under a day: a monumental spat between one of the grandees of the Tory party and its current leader. Whether the allegation at the base is true or not doesn't matter to us: it may be either the basis of the biggest UK libel action in years, or else the biggest unanswered insult to a serving PM similarly. Pretty much every political commentator from serious moralists like Frankie Boyle to right-wing tub-thumpers like Suzanne Moore and Toby Young have chimed in today. Every news outlet except the BBC has been giving airtime to a particularly lurid allegation about the leader of the Tories and that is exceptional. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is becoming a major topic of discussion and deserving of its own article. It is certainly a scandal that a well-known public figure is making these allegations in a major news outlet and 'piggate' is the term that is attached to it more often than not. I found this article by searching by that term after finding that no mention of it was made on the main David Cameron article. Arianna the First (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/merge It's easy to find coverage in mainstream media like The Guardian and there's already a survey of the world's media coverage. A sensible way forward would be to make this an article about the book (which is clearly notable) and the resulting brouhaha. Andrew D. (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Have you seen the sheer volume of media coverage generated on this today? Nor that this will dissipate quickly. No objection to a rename as Snoutrage though. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like Snoutrage very much...does this mean Dave has been snouted?

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS with perhaps a one or two line mention on the Page for Cameron - fun though this is I can't really see it lasting. Also all the other names for it are funnier. Artw (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep, as the media turning on Caneron does not seem to be a thing that is going away and the roots of that have some depth. Would not be against the merge/rename at a later date thought. Artw (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This event may become significant, particularly as David Cameron will not stand for election again and Piggate may be his political epitaph. The international reach of the coverage has been significant. Review the decision after legal action (if any) from David Cameron or the release of the book. Grumpy Marmoset —Preceding undated comment added 20:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - you're arguing for a move, not for a deletion. Take it to the article's talk page. —Ashley Y 21:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/merge This will definitely become notable. The sheer volume of coverage already within the first twenty-four hours will ensure that. However, depending on what other revelations are made in Ashcroft's book, I'd be open to it being merged or renamed. Peaky76 (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Ashcroft's polling was shown to thorough and reliable. If he published this allegation he probably has the pictures. Piggate is a good term for it. We should be wary of Conservative interns seeking to bury the story.Reluctant Corrector (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Very notable event, huge amount of coverage true or not. 73.152.128.104 (talk) 05:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 'Piggate' has been a topic of discussion in multiple major national daily newspapers including The Guardian, The Times, The Daily Mail, The Sun, The Daily Express and more, including hitting the front page of multiple daily newspapers. As such is not a matter of petty low level rumour or gossip, but a serious matter of discussion in British politics (despite the humour being made of the situation) as it affects the way the British public view David Cameron as a Prime Minister. This page should chronicle the allegation, noting heavily at this moment in time that is an allegation where evidence has not emerged yet, discussion of the allegation, the impact of the allegation, and criticism of the allegation in a neutral fashion. This accusation, true or not, has and will continue to affect David Cameron's reputation, and thus this deserves to be an article. This would also be a topic of discussion if David Cameron decides to stand for prime minister in a third election campaign. Adhoc1914 08:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/merge Lord Ashcroft's book should have an article and piggate can be part of that.Mongreilf (talk) 07:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - Extraordinarily notable, with a plethora of coverage. As the "Time" article on this very subject says, "David Cameron’s ‘Pig-Gate’ Scandal Isn’t Going Away". Even the Russian Embassy is getting in on the act. (Incidentally, somebody needs to add #snoutrage] to the article). The article easily meets the notability threshold and we have an obvious precedent in the Lewinsky scandal. It would be silly to delete this article and, given the world-wide coverage, it doesn't need to be merged either. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 08:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Second that "this event may become significant, particularly as David Cameron will not stand for election again and Piggate may be his political epitaph." Of particular interest has been the international media attention and the item has been trending for over 48 hours now in the UK. I do not favour the comments that such an event have been humorous - indeed I do not consider such a personal attack to be funny by any means. Nevertheless, the event will need to be recorded for reflection and analysis. An alternative idea may be to add it to the main David Cameron article.—Preceding undated comment added 12:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhzuckp4 (talk • contribs)
  • This is actually in discussion on Talk:David Cameron. One problem is that article is ridiculously long already, and this may or may not be significant in the context of a whole life. At present there's one line about it - David Gerard (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While this is a disputed political page it is still a relevant event that is being discussed in the UK and abroad. At a push it could be renamed 'the piggate incident' but scandal is what the newspapers are using when reporting what happened. The other hashtag used is #Hameron but this is more of an 'urban dictionary' style however should be included in the article. I feel that the flagging for deletion is primarily for political reasons. marcusbm (talk) 11:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the Reliable Sources are all over this one, in considerable detail - David Gerard (talk) 11:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, without prejudice to revisiting the issue in a few months time if the story develops. Wikpedia is not a news site. Also concerned about giving undue prominence to unproven salacious allegations about a living person. WJBscribe (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirect to Call Me Dave, where the topic can be adequately covered in the context of the book to which this relates. Stand alone article is not needed, and it doesn't look like there's any content worth merging. WJBscribe (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Yesterday I'd have hesitated, but the indications are that this topic will have some longevity. Deb (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The number of articles is not necessarily a good reason to create or keep an article. There is a scandal or controversy of some description pretty much every week in public life these days. Remains to be seen whether this will be major, especially as other "revelations" from this book are still being drip-fed ahead of its publication. The title alone is very dubious. Mezigue (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• A Modest Proposal by nominator This is clearly a notable story. However unlike many blahgates, the source of the brouhaha is not really capable of sustaining a standalone article..."immature overprivileged arse does something witless while drunk in Oxford shock horror...NOT" & I would suggest that the article should be redirected to an article on Michael Ashcrofts biography of Dave: the book is surely notable. I am rather puzzled by the fact that Ashcroft's biog as yet makes no mention of this highly entertaining affair, btw. And ints either PigGate of Pig Gate or Pig-gate... making it clear that there are two gs in the pronunciation... something that undelines the clumsiness of the term. TheLongTone (talk) 13:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. 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 (19:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)): this event fails WP:DEPTH—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". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Merge to a Call me Dave; more overarching article on the reaction to the Ashcroft book with more information released today, it's not just about the pig any more. Though that's the funniest bit. Black Kite (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just because it is in national newspapers does not mean it is a big story - there is no need for a standalone article for this Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's nonsense to say that this is "just another tablois scandal on a slow news day"; it involves the Prime Minister rather than some "reality TV" nudnik.TheLongTone (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Just look at all the references. Aethyta (talk) 14:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because of all the notable references. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 15:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC) - There are two other language versions of this article on Wikipedia, also named Piggate. One is in French, and it was, probably yesterday, substantially enlarged. So you cannot eliminate this topics. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 09:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NEOLOGISM for a start. Also WP:NOTNEWS, 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. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into David Cameron, or something like List of scandals involving UK Politicians or something. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or List of scandals involving pigs which would be part of Pigs in popular culture. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep This isn't about Cameron and what he did; this is about a major media storm across all print and broadcast media. Piggate has been associated with this, probably on the grounds that every scandal now gets 'gate' added to it. --AlisonW (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, this is a very very minor and insignificant scandal. Although, more than Piggate, it should actually be known as Pigmouth. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep significant news story, plenty of sources reporting the story. Uhooep (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as this appears to definitely meet WP:GNG. --Rubbish computer 16:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if Plebgate gets its own article, so should piggate.--Autospark (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  @Autospark: this is not a good reason. Anyone can create articles on any topic, but more importantly, Plebgate incorporates ~60 sources which span across two years. This '-gate' is two days old. Do you have any points to make regarding Piggate itself? — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. 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.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this excellently cited article. It is a credit to wikipedia. Stroller (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/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. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/merge, textbook case for WP:NOTNEWS, "reactions" paragraph is an actual trivia section and the remaining lines can be merged to other articles, namely David Cameron and a yet to come page about the book itself. --Vituzzu (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Is already mentioned on main Cameron article. Trivial content describing social media reactions to a sensationalist claim that is obviously untrue. Apparently people think these reactions are clever,e.g. "Swine 9/11", as utterly hilarious as this is, it doesn't need a separate article.--Reaganomics88 (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteAlready !voted. 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 WP:UNDUE 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. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you think the act is fictional. But the surrounding furore is not fictional and many reliable sources are discussing the act, its legality, its ramifications for trade, motivations of the principals, and so on. Given that, your recent removal of cited sources is an attempt to preempt this AfD. The fact that you think an article should not exist is not a valid reason to remove cited information from it. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anameofmyveryown: Discussing the legality of something that is only alleged and for which there is no actual evidence would exhibit WP: UNDUE.

@Reaganomics88: It's not me who's discussing it, it's the sources.

@Reaganomics - I know it's expecting a lot from someone with such a blatantly POV username, but your repeated blanking of significant and sourced sections here is unacceptable in an article, and especially so during an AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: However emotionally frustrated you may be please keep in mind civilty when interacting with other users. As for the part of your comment that focuses on content rather than other users, sourced or unsourced, WP:UNDUE is WP:UNDUE.--Reaganomics88 (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a government and PM who have taken a strongly moralistic tone with the plebs. The illegality of the claimed photograph here is based on laws which they introduced. To discover that the PM behind them has been involved in their breach is highly relevant. Besides which, the legality of porking the pork is some essential background to any informed discussion of the issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is widely described in the mainstream press and it's definitely a significant story. bogdan (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep On notability grounds, and as mentioned by a fellow editor above, might define Cameron's political career when he stands aside at the end of this Parliamentary term. Additionally, this scandal has become an interesting reference point for several articles such as one claiming a significant amount of work time lost yesterday due to people being distracted by the unfolding coverage. Also, because it's hilarious (I know that's not really a valid reason to keep an article). --Topperfalkon (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The loss of working time is a reason to keep it - at least when the Independent ran an article today specifically discussing it "harming productivity". Andy Dingley (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep I think many editors misunderstand WP:NOTNEWS, 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 WP:GNG. See this discussion for another WP:NOTNEWS based deletion rationale, which resulted in a SNOW keep. Needs to be improved and I don't oppose an appropriate rename. AusLondonder (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If it leads to his downfall, and if it's too large to cover in his article, then there'd be a case to retain it. As things stand, it's at best a redirect (and then only if it's retained in his article). Bromley86 (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep It will determine Tories' policy for at least five years and influence the 2020 elections, no matter what provenance it has. Then, wikipedia cannot defend any interests of any political party, no matter how crystal they want to be perceived. Kicior99 (talk) 23:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Support keeping this article, and have created a separate article for the book Call Me Dave AusLondonder (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM, 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. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge necessary content with newly created article on the book Call Me Dave. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a major world event, is part of a shift in perception of the party, and has resulted in unique coverage. This is not just any scandal; this is a major world leader with a particularly bizarre accusation. The Bill Clinton haircut controversy is considered notable (yes, I know Wikipedia:WAX), and had comparable coverage over a comparable period. Obviously there is no way to know how notable the subject will remain in the long run, but this is presently more than just another news story. Jbbdude (talk) 06:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Clinton article was recently nominated for deletion; that discussion came to the conclusion to keep the article, for reasons similar to those cited here. Jbbdude (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There's an even closer parallel, which is commonly linked with the topic in question – Ed Miliband bacon sandwich photograph. Andrew D. (talk) 06:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This story continues to grow and there is no other easy reference for the background. Endless newspaper and news magazine coverage (Foreign Affairs, etc.) makes it essential to have an overview that is readily available. Nlight2 (talk) 08:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's too big to sweep under the rug. Whether we like it or not, this allegation by Lord Ashcroft about the UK Prime Minister is a part of history. It has generated a life of it's own with it's own name. 99 percent of UK homes (at the time of writing this) know about this event and will talk about it long after Cameron leaves Number 10. And when the next generation hears about this "Piggate" thing then they look it up, I just hope they get the facts first from Wikipedia and not The Sun. Pounamuknight (talk) 10:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Andrew Davidson. I've always wondered if I could ever say that. Now I can. Begoon ^talk 11:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It could have been just one of millions of spurious character assassinations made against public figures, but it's spiralling into a life of its own, and isn't going to disappear very soon '''tAD''' (talk) 11:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Call Me Dave. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but that's an article that will be speedy deleted under CRYSTAL once Matthew Parker gets to hear of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a scandal affecting the leader of an important Western country. It is almost comparable to the Watergate scandal that affected the U.S. in the 1980s and Wikipedia has an article on that so I believe an article should exist on this topic also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghfdjh57895689589jgfh (talk • contribs) 12:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't disagree with your opinion, but the difference was that Watergate made Nixon resign. That made that example significantly more important '''tAD''' (talk) 13:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There seems to be extensive coverage on this, and I suspect it will be referenced a lot in the future when people are criticising Cameron. --ERAGON (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Rename - the response has made this a notable event, not sure is Piggate is the best title though. Maybe something like 'Michael Ashcroft's allegations about David Cameron' would be better.Jonpatterns (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also open to the idea of merging with Call me Dave.Jonpatterns (talk) 10:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 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 WP:BLP 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. Collect (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree, this has a just become a channel for everyone who has every had a gripe with Cameron. Is sufficiently covered already.--Reaganomics88 (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer At latest count, 7 of the "keep" votes are from people with extremely few edits, and another 5 are from people with under 250 total Wikipedia edits. It is likely that some might well be deprecated in any close. Collect (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Full details omitted. You have only mentioned the 'keep' voting editors with not many edits, but omitted the 'keep' voting editors with many edits. Also not mentioned is the edit statistics for delete voters.Jonpatterns (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK then -- of all the delete votes, none are from "new users" with very few edits, and only one has under 250 edits. If anything, I think your request reinforces the disparity being obvious. For "very few" edits the count is 7 to nil for Keep, and for under 250 edits, the count is 12 keep to 1 delete. I am sure the closer will note this <g>. Collect (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that one delete voter attempted to vote twice. Tanbircdq (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now and merge into bio and book article, once the latter is written. --Anthonyhcole (talk • contribs • email) 15:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Call Me Dave. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of scandals with "-gate" suffix Deku-shrub (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the tone is neutral and free of speculation about orgasm, romantic attachment, erect v. flaccid, ejaculation etc. I salute everyone involved in this fine article. FivePillarPurist (talk) 15:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this is not a legitimate rationale for deletion and a pretty obvious failure of WP:BEFORE given the numerous mentions of "Piggate" and "Pig-gate" in reliable sources.[1] Hack (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well sourced article about a notable event Deku-shrub (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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 WP:UNDUE 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. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE doesn't mean what you think it means. WP:UNDUE states that the opinions of a tiny minority should not be given the same weight as more mainstream opinions. The concept that David Cameron placed a private part in the mouth of a dead pig is no longer the opinion of a tiny minority.

I think it's safe to assume at this point that this AfD has failed, so the question now becomes "do you want to help improve the article?". If you prefer to perform AfD-by-proxy by removing sourced material then there is little anybody can do to help you. Conversely if you accept that the article will continue to exist then a balanced article becomes possible. If you believe that the act is fictional then obtain reliable sources stating that belief and put them in the article: something along the lines of "The veracity of the act has been called into question (sources)". Would you like me to do this for you? There are many sources making statements about the veracity of the act, the techniques of denial, the propriety of publicising an act without also publicising the corroborating evidence, and so on. I can go thru these and collate sources that would enable a balanced article to be written. That would be the best way to approach it.

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC) (Anameofmyveryown (talk) 18:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Also, voting twice does not help your cause either. Tanbircdq (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep – 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 WP:GNG. 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.

'Piggate' is the most common and widely used term that is attached to it. It is not low-level rumour or gossip, but a major world event and scandal of a well-known public figure that is a major topic of discussion in British politics and abroad as it affects the way David Cameron's reputation as a Prime Minister is viewed by the public. The indications suggest that this topic will have long-term significance.

This event may become especially notable as David Cameron will not stand for election again and Piggate may be his political epitaph. Alternatively, this would also be a topic of discussion if David Cameron decides to stand for prime minister in a third election campaign. Either way it will determine the perception and policy of the Conservative Party for at least five years and could influence the next general elections in 2020. Tanbircdq (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, it could, but then it could not (and probably won't). Making guesses based on what's likely to play a role in the 2020 general election sounds like crystal-balling to me. Robofish (talk) 00:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep as per Tanbircdq. Autarch (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep- this is a scandal that seems to have garnered enough attention in mainstream media to warrant an article. However, we don't know yet whether it will become well-known in future or whether it's just a passing news fad that isn't notable long-term. Best to keep the article for now in my opinion, but the outcome of this AfD may need to be revisited in future. Chessrat ^{(talk,contributions)} 18:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete WP:NOTNEWS for goodness sake. Rcsprinter¹²³ (gab) 19:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rcsprinter123, have you read WP:NOTNEWS? AusLondonder (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Is there any reason not to assume it is David Cameron's people who are pushing for deletion? Whether or not the allegations are true, this has become another piece of Twitter #gate history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadethesage (talk • contribs) 20:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we comment on content, not on the contributor. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And because we assume good faith, and because most of the people who want to delete the article have hundreds if not thousands of edits, while some of the keepers (like yourself) have none or barely any outside of this AfD. Is there any reason not to assume that you're one of Lord Ashcroft's "people", or working for Labour etc. because you're pushing to keep? — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 06:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep A major news story with widespread implications, and the source is highly reliable. Wikipedia pages exist for events such as Lewinsky Scandal and similar, therefore I don't see a reason to delete this one. Powermugu (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response the Lewinsky scandal was an actual scandal (even though Clinton denied it to start with). There was an actual story, complete with facts. 'Pig gate' is an unsubstantiated rumour (for the minute at least). Wikipedia should not jump on bandwagons, nor have the attitude that it should get a new article out and published as soon as possible. Once facts have been established, either way, then it might be time to look at the inclusion of a separate article regarding this gossip (that's all it currently is).
• Keep, WP:GNG is met. Darmokand (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Objectively written article based on numerous credible references. JJARichardson (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep with a view towards a likely Future Merge with Call Me Dave. "Piggate' is simply the reaction to an allegation made in a (indisputably notable) book, which also has its own article, complete with a "reception" section. Neither article has much content yet, but it's difficult to see any encyclopedia-worthy content for Piggate that isn't fundamentally a description of reactions to the release of that book. It is possible that "Piggate" will evolve into a substantial and sustained phenomenon separate from the book (e.g. Cameron repeatedly facing embarrassing questions from notable people, being followed around by people dressed as pigs or an actual photo appearing and further hilarity ensuing). Since the articles could develop in substantially different directions over the next couple of weeks I think voting for deletion at this stage would be premature. But I think it's far more likely the term should ultimately be a redirect to the Wikipedia page for the book, as suggested by various others. Dtellett (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Call Me Dave, or else Delete. It's an amusing story, but we don't need articles on transient Twitter jokes (Anyone remember Ed Balls (Twitter meme)?). There's little reason to think there's going to be more to add here, or that this will have a lasting impact. Some of the 'Reactions' section could be merged into the article on the book, but should be kept in proportion with the rest of the article and the more newsworthy material. Robofish (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as has attracted worldwide coverage and has probably put everyone off of Pork for life!, Anywho meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 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 WP:UNDUE, 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. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Whether or not this allegation turns out to be true. Or will eventually become merely a footnote in the row between Lord Ashcroft and David Cameron, the fact remains this is part of Twitter #gate history and should be kept. Little Panther (talk) 10:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC) (moved from Talk: Andy Dingley (talk) 10:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep - The term has been used throughout the media both domestically and internationally. IJA (talk) 10:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - This shouldn't even be a question. This is a major news story concerning the elected leader of one of the most influential nations in the world. As such, it has been covered and reported on by a staggering array of news outlets, ranging from the "upper crust" to "your mom's blog". There really is no question that this belongs on Wikipedia. Sprhodes (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's not going away, has lots of reliable news sources. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - Borderline new-ish, but seems worthy enough an event and is sourced; whether the claim are true or not, it at drew enough attention and reflects on either the accused and/or the accusers. Aaron Schulz 04:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unsubstantiated gossip doesn't deserve its own article. Should be (and has been) mentioned in the article about Cameron, perhaps, and on Lord Ashcroft's article. Revise if evidence actually turns up. --98.122.20.56 (talk) 04:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Its absence would be more notable than its presence. This has dominated political conversation.Wikiditm (talk) 07:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Michael Ashcroft's book makes a number of allegations, the most substantial of which concerns Cameron's knowledge of Ashcrofts residency status. The business about where he allegedly put his dishonourable member is merely the most lurid and amusing. In view of this it seems right and proper that coverage of the affair belongs in Call Me Dave; in point of fact the existence of an article on PigGate and another on the book (which would surely be incomplete without discussion of the topic) risks a POV fork at worst and a substantial duplication of content at best.TheLongTone (talk) 13:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible, but also WP:CRYSTAL. We can merge the articles as and when the possibility you describe becomes a problem. But for now, all that's getting media coverage is Piggate, Piggate, Piggate - David Gerard (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Absolutely astonished that this is even being considered for deletion. It is vital to democracy itself that Cameron be held to account. Piggate has dominated political and much other conversation all over the UK if not the world. Deleting this would simply suggest that David Cameron, Rupert Murdoch and their greed, selfish, evil superrich friends control everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.178.144 (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the book. This is the right call, although it will take a strong closer to make it during the hoopla. Carrite (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to an unpublished book? A book with less sourcing than this story? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is so far the bit of the book that's actually achieved notability - David Gerard (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An unpublished book certainly, but it would be futile to say that it is not notable thanks to this affair.TheLongTone (talk) 13:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely to become a notable book, but if this one story is enough for the (unpublished) book to inherit notability just from this, it's a non sequitur to think that it would then make the lead story non-notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep It is a legitimate article about an event that occurred. It is perfectly valid in every way. Huritisho (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Call Me Dave. I must confess this particular scandal largely passed me by as it's been a busy week during which I've tended to get most of my news from the BBC. But reading up on this event I really don't think it's notable enough at present for a standalone article, and could be sufficiently covered in the article about Ashcroft's book. No doubt it will turn out to be one of many claims made by the author about the Prime Minister, so let's focus on making Call Me Dave a comprehensive article once it's published. Piggate is currently less than a week old, and may well become next week's fish and chip paper. If that doesn't happen and it continues over several weeks/months then we can always create a separate article on the topic later. This is Paul (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This looks like like a political attack or satire, makes wikipedia a laughing stock and has massive BLP issues as well recentism issues. I can see no reason to keep, half a paragraph in the Cameron article would have sufficed. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 00:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just how does this make Wikipedia a laughing stock? It's not Wikipedia with its willy in a pig's mouth. As for BLP issues, as is made clear, it is clearly stated that it is an unsubstantiated allegation.

• Redirect to Call Me Dave for now as although there's plenty of sourcing for this, there may not be enough for a separate article such as Watergate itself and it may be best connected to the book. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect to an appropriate article. Pretty much textbook WP:NOTNEWS. At present there is nothing to suggest that this will be of any lasting significance. A Twitterstorm does not create notability. Also there is the concern about poorly-sourced and salacious details about living people. Kahastok talk 10:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Call Me Dave, which appears to be the only source of the allegations. Other sources are just recycled comment and opinion. . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Much as I hate all scandals automatically being called "whatevergate", "piggate" or "#piggate" is what this is called as far as most people are concerned. And it is a very real thing and has caused a great deal of difficulty for UK broadcasters as they had to carefully explain the whole sordid matter in news broadcasts without falling foul of the broadcasting guidelines, laughing or throwing up. So the name has to remain, although a redirect would be sufficient if it gets merged elsewhere, and our coverage of this event has to be retained in a complete but not excessive way. I find it hard to say whether it should be merged as it is hard to tell how much substance there is to the core allegation and how much is just an unsubstantiated allegation made by, um, lets end that sentence here shall we? So I guess my !vote is keep or merge+redirect as you think best but definitely do not delete it completely. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this has been mentioned by multiple major news outlets, just a google news search for Piggate shows articles from the Daily Mirror, the Guardian, the Daily Telegraph, the Huffington Post, Russia Today and even the Sydney Morning Herald from the other side of the world. This could also be David Cameron's bacon sandwich photo moment, of which the photo has its own article. This photo also definitely swayed some peoples' opinions of Ed Miliband during the election period.  Seagull123  Φ  18:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - merge with Call Me Dave. Brythones (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the consensus has shifted away from deletion as the case went on- after seven days most of the later debates seemed to focus on whether or not to merge with the book, rather than a full-on delete. The only real delete arguments are the not news, notability and truthfulness lines- but I think the notability one has been achieved through the sheer volume of journalism that has gone on, and the truthfulness of the allegations is actually kinda irrelevant as far as we are concerned. It is a debate which, true or no, has had an impact on the reputation of one of the world's top leaders, and that is that. Is there an admin in the house to make a final decision on the matter? I am in favour of flat out keeping, but if people want to keep for now and start a merger request that is also fine.--ERAGON (talk) 09:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Naturally there is a lot of excitement about such a titillating (prickillating?) topic, but WP:NOTNEWS says that current twitterings should be ignored until something of enduring significance happens. If a political figure were to resign, or even if they took a hit in the polls which reliable sources attributed to the "scandal", the topic may have encyclopedic significance. Meanwhile, it is just prattle. Recreate the article in three months if reliable sources still refer to the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 10:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - 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 WP:GNG. NickCT (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete/merge - 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 WP:NOTNEWS. Unclemilt2 (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS: "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 WP:GNG: "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." JohnCD (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2015 (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.