Deletion of 2010 Duke University faux sex thesis controversy

Comment: I've already cast my WP:!VOTE|!VOTE above, so I won't do it again. I just wanted to acknowledge (as the principal editor of the article) that all those making the  argument have a legitimate point in that the majority of the references are from just two days: October 7 and October 8. I have therefore http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2010_Duke_University_faux_sex_thesis_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=397898177 just added a reference from October 29 saying that there was a forum held at the university about the controversy. According to the reference, this is the first of several forums about the topic.On a related matter, one option in such tough cases is to make a redirect, so that if/when additional information surfaces up, it would be easy to resurrect the article. Unfortunately, I don't think this option exists, as I cannot think of anything that this article would redirect to. The likelihood that more will develop is strong, as http://voices.washingtonpost.com/blog-post/2010/10/karen_owens_duke_thesis_may_la.html has been speculated in the Washington Post she could make a lot of money if she wrote a book about it. I am well aware of the  policy, and I'm not advocating that the article be kept just because there exists a potential for the story to develop (I've already gave my KEEP !VOTE). All I'm saying that given all the people involved in the controversy: the author, the three friends who received the faux thesis, and the 13 sexual partners, it is very likely that one of them will come out into the limelight some time in the future, bringing the controversy back into the headlines and then  will definitely not apply
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:CHRYSTAL||WP:NOTNEWS)