Deletion of Swedish Judicial Authority v. Julian Assange

Comment: with biography article. Meets  and  criteria, certainly in Europe. Has contributed to make European Arrest Warrant|the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) more widely know to European media and public. FYI: European Arrest Warrant|EAW is quite recent, designed to facilitate inter-EU prosecution of criminal offenses, affects EU citizens and residents, has come into criticism because of extraditions for minor offenses, e.g. from UK to Poland. In 2004, the UK extradited 158 persons under EAW scheme, in 2008 already 615 person, now more than 1000. Assange recently tried to jump on criticism bandwagon. He is the first prominent figure to be hit by an EAW
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:WELLKNOWN||WP:GNG)

Comment: Meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: and do not merge (although a merging discussion would have to take place elsewhere anyway).  I created the article so perhaps I can shed some light here.  The coverage of this case in the media has been disproportionately large, and as a result the section on the allegations in the Julian Assange article was getting a ridiculously large an thus violating  and .  I don't like deleting cited factual material altogether from the encyclopaedia so I decided to create a separate article for the material so that I could delete the material from that article.  This is not |content forking (this refers to situations in which the same content is dealt with twice in two articles such that the two article substantially overlap) but instead a conventional application of .  The ''existence'' on an article is never , only the disproportionate representation of a particular opinion or event ''within'' an article.  For example, it is  to include alternative fringe theories in the article for the mainstream theory, but the fringe theories still get there own articles where they are described from the NPOV of reliable sources.  This is true of any verified but  material.  You don't simply deleted cited factual material altogether from the encyclopaedia but instead you merely delete t from the article after finding a more appropriate place for it, creating a new article if necessary.  We can't delete it because it meets the notability criteria, and we can't include all the material in the Julian Assange article because that would violate  and also we would be worse off in terms of .  If it were to be merged, it would have to be with some "Notable European Arrest Warrant Extradition Cases" article, but the fact of the matter is that there is an extensive amount of factual material that has been reported on this case and it would simply take up too much room as a subsection of any other article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:DUE||WP:BLP||WP:CFORK||WP:UNDUE||WP:UNDUE||WP:UNDUE||WP:UNDUE||WP:DUE||WP:BLP)

Comment: as a Wikipedia:Content forking#POV forks|POV fork and a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight|WP:UNDUE with continuous  violations. The information certainly meets  and that's why it was included in Julian Assange and given it's due wieght. This artcle was forked from the original and greatly expanded thus giving it increased weight. A similar article was created Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 17#Assange sex charges and trial|and deleted when this event started. The Assange article has been the focus of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive102#Julian Assange et al.|repeated BLP problems in recent months and has only been under control after http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/watcher/?db=enwiki_p&titles=Julian_Assange 291 people watch listed the article. This new article has http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/watcher/?db=enwiki_p&titles=Swedish_Judicial_Authority_v._Julian_Assange less than 30 and has had repeated BLP problems as noted on the Talk:Swedish Judicial Authority v. Julian Assange|talk page including an Talk:Swedish Judicial Authority v. Julian Assange#Focus of this article|RfC just to detemine what the article should be about. I think we should generally try to avoid another Siegenthaler incident
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:GNG)

Comment: In Wikipedia, notability depends on third-party coverage, not on a philosophical concept of notability or on an ethical view of what ought to be notable. Third party coverage by reliable sources is considerable, and referenced in the article.  aspects are relevant but unless so much material needed to be removed on BLP grounds that the remaining article lacked notability, the article should not be deleted. I see no requirement for mass removal of information
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: Meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Sources currently in article indicate that it meets the |general and |event notability guidelines.&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:EVENT)

Comment: as a |content fork, I initially felt that it would be possible to re-position the article to cover the extradition which is the only part that can be sensibly reported in detail at this stage. But this was heavily resisted; instead the article is bypassing established consensus at Julian Assange over certain aspects of this event. And now there is an effort to force in highly problematic material previously soundly rejected at the JA article. It is far too soon to be writing this article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:CFORK)

Comment: Meets more that  and has more content that can not all possibly be merged and there is still much more to come as the case will go on for a while. I would say that has already got at least the same attention as Silvio Berlusconi underage prostitution charges and Roman Polanski sexual abuse case
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)