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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rugg v Ryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG.

Case has not even gone to trial yet and if no new precedent is set in the outcome of this case, then the court case certainly will not be notable in the slightest. The existence of this court action is best covered on the individual Wikipedia pages of those involved (which it already is).

Information on the page is also outdated. The interlocutory application has already been determined and if the article was updated to reflect the outcome of that application, the article would only be a few sentences long.

This page should be deleted until the trial is completed and if the outcome of the trial has significance, (for eg. if it sets new precedents on what is reasonable hours of work, or has an impact on the allocation of political staffers) then it should be recreated.

At the moment this article includes:

Outdated information Accusations that have already been dealt with A biased summary of the case (contains no negative claims against Rugg, but the author of the article was happy to include the claim that Ryan defrauded the Commonwealth, despite that claim (from her political opponents) being disproven.)

Just because a court case has received a lot of media coverage, does not mean it warrants it's own article. Simba1409 (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep: A simple google search of 'Rugg v Ryan' show an overwhelming number of sources that establish the articles notability. Controversial information is in quotes and is attributed to the party that said it + has ben given WP:DUEWEIGHT in accordance to media attention of the matter. And to this point–

  Just because a court case has received a lot of media coverage, does not mean it warrants its own article.

  –in most cases it does. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 02:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment there is a difference between something that receives a lot of media coverage over a short period of time, and something with ongoing coverage in the media. It seems this case made a big impact in March 2023, then almost nothing in April. Although some of the bias arguments are a bit confusing, Simba1409 makes a good point about impact - it could end up settling, or being decided on un-groundbreaking terms. Speedy keep doesn't seem to apply at all. I'm almost at delete or even draftify but will see if other editors have input first. Oblivy (talk) 03:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: For the reasons you provided I struck out speedy keep.
  Media coverage started in January and ended in March. From what I gather, the reason for the lack of coverage in April is because there hasn't been any new development as the case is sub judice. As it is now, I believe the article meets wiki guidelines, but it is almost guaranteed to receive further large coverage in future as it will go to trial in June/July (which will receive large media attention), is not currently undergoing mediation, and has a big potential to set a legal precedent (which will mean papers, citations, etc.) ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 03:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree this could escalate, but it seems to be too soon for an article. That's why I mentioned draftify, basically wait-and-see without dumping the article. Oblivy (talk) 04:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I also agree that it could escalate. If the case is ruled in Rugg's favour, this will certainly set a new precedent in terms of work hours (and perhaps political staffer allocation) and warrant a quite extensive article. Until there is a judgement though, this article should not exist. I wouldn't oppose draftify but it should be noted, in its current form, the article is not up to date and it would certainly be very out of date at the end of the trial. Simba1409 (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And tonight Rugg has drastically changed her overall claim, directly naming the Prime Minister. In the interest of Wikipedia presenting factual information to the public, it is best that an article on this case wait until there is a judgement. Otherwise, it will have to be rewritten and changed 100s of times. At this point, with the Prime Minister being named a settlement also seems more than likely as the Govt was previously the only barrier to doing so and if that were to occur, this case would likely have zero notability. Simba1409 (talk) 09:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify per my comment above this is a moving target right now, unclear if it will prove to be notable. Per GMH Melbourne the trial is likely to start (if it doesn't settle) in a matter of months, which will likely generate the kind of sustained coverage which supports WP:GNGOblivy (talk) 10:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This argument makes wikipedia less useful to readers. It suggests that the article stays as a draft all the case is in the news, when readers might want to look it up. Newystats (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The topic received further media coverage today ([1][2]), displaying continued coverage. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 08:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 08:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yes, because Rugg has changed her claim again. This further supports the reasoning that this article should be deleted or put as a draft until AFTER the trial, for the reasons I already stated above last night. Simba1409 (talk) 09:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of coverage - and the case raises questions about reasonable workload in parliament, with potential for longevity of interest. Newystats (talk) 01:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This court case is definitely notable, so I have rewritten and expanded the article's content with a variety of sources. I am also willing to commit to updating the article during the court case. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 10:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Even with your additions, the article is still out of date. Outside of potential precedents that this case may or may not set and noting that media coverage doesn't on its own make it notable, why do you believe this article meets notability criteria JML1148? I'd like to understand your argument. Thanks. Simba1409 (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Why are you excluding the possible precedents? Newystats (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not Newystats. My arguments above against this article are because it isn't notable as no precedents have been set. You can't argue notability in terms of precedents before they actually occur. The case can very easily settle (particularly now that the PM is named in Rugg's altered claim) or have a ruling that changes nothing. Simba1409 (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Even if we do exclude precedents, from the source assessment table below, the article is definitely notable under WP:GNG. I would encourage you to answer the questions that Oblivy has asked you on your talk page. From your edit war at Monique Ryan, to your actions on your talk page, to your comments here, it would be in your best interest to answer the questions honestly. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    While I'm here, I want to make it clear that I am also okay with a Draftify result, until the article is over. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I appreciate your comments, User:JML1148 and basically agree with everything that's being said here - nobody can seriously disagree this has the requisite independent coverage, but for other reasons it could be a close call. I'd ask everyone to consider two things:

    • what will this article look like if the case settles (or is otherwise discontinued before trial) on less-than precedent-setting terms?
    • would it be acceptable to have this information maintained on Monique Ryan and then added back into the article later?

    Oblivy (talk) 07:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    In my opinion, the article's contents could be condensed and merged into Monique Ryan and Sally Rugg, with more emphasis on each of their perspectives in their respective articles in the case that the case is settled. I'm not exactly decided on the latter question, so I'll leave that to other editors. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I was never engaged in an edit war JML1148. I've also stated that I am happy for this article to exist should the case set precedents, which should clear up any conflict of interest concerns that GMH MELBOURNE's projection may have caused. I missed the question on my talk page but I have now responded, thankyou.

  Media coverage doesn't in all cases = notability, so I'd appreciate JML1148 if you could explain in your view how this legal case is notable outside of media coverage and precedents that are yet to be and may not be set?

  My view as stated - if the case is settled or judgement is given that doesn't set a precedent or impact staffer allocations, then the case doesn't have any significance and therefore shouldn't exist. Simba1409 (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your direct response on your talk page regarding conflict of interest. These [3][4][5] is clearly edit war conduct, however I appreciate the third opinion provided. Regarding the case being settled, I think I have made my opinions clear in comments above. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 08:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  An edit war requires three reverts by an editor within 24 hours. I did not engage in an edit war, I directed the discussion to the talk page as was the appropriate thing to do. The person providing the third opinion then agreed with my assessment of the content. Simba1409 (talk) 09:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The 3-revert rule creates a presumption of edit warring, but overall conduct can be considered along with reverts. As things are not so heated now, I suggest we try to avoid focusing on editor behavior and instead focus on what would be a reasonable consensus exit plan for this AfD. Oblivy (talk) 09:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with this statement. I will lay out my opinions as to what should happen regarding the article, and I request @GMH Melbourne:, @Oblivy:, and @Simba1409: to do the same.

  • For the time being, the article should be kept in mainspace for the duration of the proceedings, as it quite notable and aligns with WP:GNG.
  • If the case is settled, the article should be merged into Monique Ryan and Sally Rugg with emphasis on their actions in their respective article.
  • If the case goes to trial and a judgment is made, then the article should be retained. Provided I can get sources for it, I may pursue a WP:GA nomination.

  JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That sounds absolutely reasonable, JML1148. I would only hope editors will avoid writing based on pleadings and single-sided coverage, per WP:Primary and WP:BALANCE. That doesn't mean everything has to be both-sides'ed, but often parties generate coverage by saying controversial things. Oblivy (talk) 07:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the article as a draft until the case concludes.

  Most of us seem to be in agreement that if there is a settlement, this article should be deleted/merged. This is surely an argument that the case currently isn't notable without a judgement that sets a precedent. Otherwise, the argument would be to retain the article no matter what.

  • If the case is settled, update the Rugg & Ryan pages to reflect this and delete the article
  • Ditto above if there is a judgement that rules with Ryan & the Commonwealth with no impact on staffing numbers
  • If the judgement rules in favour of Rugg (or has an impact on staffing numbers if Ryan wins) then the case justifies its own article
  • We should also agree (if the article is to exist) not to include political commentary from those with vested interests made for purely political purposes (such as The Coalition alleging that Ryan may have defrauded the Commonwealth) as these claims are made without basis. Simba1409 (talk) 12:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: A lot is being said in relation to the notability of this topic. It is pretty clear to me that the article meets the WP:GNG criteria (see below). In relation to the WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE policy, the topic has received persistent coverage over 3 months (and is guaranteed future coverage), its received "coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle", and has received "further analysis or discussion" following the initial reporting. P.S. Also note the notability is not temporary policy.

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-31/monique-ryan-sally-rugg-federal-court-injunction/101910838				✔ Yes
https://www.afr.com/rear-window/monique-ryan-taken-to-court-by-sally-rugg-20230130-p5cgh2				✔ Yes
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/03/sally-rugg-v-monique-ryan-court-documents-reveal-how-working-relationship-fell-apart				✔ Yes
https://theconversation.com/what-are-reasonable-hours-the-ryan-rugg-legal-stoush-may-help-the-rest-of-us-know-201093				✔ Yes
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/activist-adviser-sally-rugg-takes-former-boss-monique-ryan-to-court-20230130-p5cgi7.html				✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 00:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Significant coverage exists for the overall incident. The trial itself might be too narrow a topic for the article, so perhaps a rename is in order; however that is a separate issue to AFD. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:10, 3 May 2023 (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.