Deletion of Columbia University rape controversy

Comment: as per |GNG. (A very timely cautionary tale and societal marker, IMO, I must add
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: this article is regarding the case presented plainly and fairly, with accusation, defense, outcome, reception. The goal is to present the events leading to the Mattress Performance neutrally. Nungesser has been vocal in defending himself publicly, releasing both lawsuits and having multiple interviews with news media outlets such as The Daily Beast. As per NPOV we must present both sides with neutrality, at the end of the day he was found "not responsible", his views must presented otherwise the BLP violations will always exist. I do not feel Mattress Performance is the best location for the details of the case. There is more than enough information to warrant a 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Splitting (WP:SPLIT)

Comment: per above, this clearly meets  because of its extensive coverage in the news, so the only question is whether it is a POV fork. I don't think it is, because the article that some have proposed merging this with, Mattress Performance, is clearly focused on the performance art aspect more than the incident and legal issues, which are the focus of this article. It seems likely to me that someone searching Wikipedia might want information on just the legal issues, not the performance art, or vice versa. Therefore, two separate articles seems reasonable to me
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I find it ironic that this article is being labeled as a  (pushing a particular point of view) when the other article, Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight), clearly has a POV Title about her senior thesis project, which is http://time.com/3910621/emma-sulkowicz-mattress-columbia-rape-video/ about what she considers to be the poor handling of her rape allegations by university authorities. That's ''her'' POV and the article is titled with that point of view. And it has also accurately been pointed out in  that - ''The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article.'' Here, the "certain subject" is her senior thesis project, the alleged rape and the way that the University handled that allegation; the facts and major points of view surrounding her senior thesis project are adequately represented in that article. But, let's not forget that Nungesser was also accused by two other females and a male of sexual misconduct, and those "facts and major points of view" surrounding those allegations are not reflected in that article. Indeed, Nungesser's rebuttal to those allegations are not even mentioned. In addition, the facts and major points of view surrounding his Title IX lawsuit (Columbia discriminated against him “as a male.”), are not reflected in the Mattress Performance article either. And finally, I don't understand what the issue is with naming the "accused student", when he has publicly spoke out - http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/nyregion/accusers-and-the-accused-crossing-paths-at-columbia.html The New York Times, http://www.newsweek.com/2015/12/18/other-side-sexual-assault-crisis-403285.html Newsweek, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/03/columbia-student-i-didn-t-rape-her.html The Daily Beast
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:POVFORK)