Deletion of National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts

Comment: Plenty of |reliable sources establish notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: usual  case
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: if this case makes legal history in copyright law or otherwise achieves historic notability, then keep. Until then it's a legal dispute between two organizations and there are a thousand of those a year. We do not keep articles on every dispute, every death, or every other item that gets news coverage while it's ongoing. Any future potential is far from certain as well.  Categorical #NEWS and  - this is just routine news, in encyclopedia terms
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: serious neutrality issues aside, Wikipedia is |neither a news source nor a news aggregator, nor has this event even been in the news long enough to establish notability. Show me one other cease and desist letter that has garnered enough notability to warrant an article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: as a blatant POV fork. This legal action, which hasn't even reached trial, does not even warrant a separate section in the main museum article yet, (but is does deserve a mention, per the recent poll). The current version of this fork article is just a badly written self important navel gazing essay/blogroll about copyright law and free content, |coatracked on a small piece of noteworthy news, the only decent content herein just duplicates the Wikinews article which presents it as what it actaully is, a news item. It is not yet by any standard, not even NOT#PAPER, a plausible topic for an encyclopoedia article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: It appears that the three arguments for deleting the article are a failure of |the general Notability guideline, |the policy on Biographies of living persons, and the policy on OT|What Wikipedia is not with relation to being OTNEWS|News reports.'''(a)''' The article seems to handily meet the nutshell description of the GNG ("having received significant coverage in Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources|secondary sources that are Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources|independent of the subject"), currently citing ''BBC News'', Reuters UK, and ''The New York Times'' among nine others.  '''(b)''' While this is not strictly a biographical article, the information that does pertain to a |living person ("Derrick Coetzee") is all cited to the |reliable sources referred to above (to the extent of every sentence mentioning the LP).  '''(c)''' Lastly, OTNEWS doesn't offer any hard and fast criteria, but the section pertaining to this article appears to exclude "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism"; reading the article, I find it neither meets those criteria nor is of 'transient notability' by judgment and as evidenced by those commenting here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:BLP||WP:NOT||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:BLP||WP:RS||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Markedly non-|neutral. Examples follow. See also other policy issues, below
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: In my opinion this violates . The part that says "not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own" sums it up pretty well. The information in this article can serve its purpose in the History of Wikipedia article or some other place. Just because something has a lot of news coverage doesn't mean it should get its own article. This is an encyclopedia; we want encyclopedic content. The AfD for Michelle Obama's arms showed that abundant sources do not prove something is encyclopedic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: The subject of the article satisfis both the Verifiability and Notability policies. It has numerous, non-trivial, reliable third-party references. That is all that matters. It is currently factual and appears to be neutral. Even if it weren't, it could be improved. Threshold for including is  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:N)

Comment: Multiple RS and a clear pass for .  The claim that the NY Times article is a humor piece is absurd, "funny" is used here as synonymous with "odd".  BLP concerns are misplaced.  And oh, all the drama
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: WP:SNOW.  Legal disputes are plainly an encyclopedic subject.  The sourcing for ths one clearly establishes the formal baseline criteria notability.  #NEWS is about trivial news of the day.   is, likely, something to keep us from covering trivial issues simply because they affect Wikipedia.  This is a significant issue involving two of the more prominent players on opposite sides of the issue - WIkipedia and the NPG.  It is pretty important to people interested in artwork and copyright.  Nevertheless, after a small spate of significant coverage the matter grew quiet as a news item, and has received relatively little attention in the days that followed, which may in fact suggest it is just the news of the day.  If the dispute gains ongoing coverage that would argue for keeping - an actual lawsuit would probably get a lot of coverage; if it diminishes into obscurity via uneventful resolution or lack of coverage I might change it to a weak delete.  I don't see much fuss either way.So what's the fuss
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NAVEL)