Deletion of Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case

Comment: This is foreseeable to have a big impact and already has had an impact on politics in France.  Absent a total retraction of the accusation by the alleged victim, this cannot be reduced to |an event.  One of the problems with  as wrtitten is the ambiguity of '''enduring'''.  With this case in mind, you may want to look at WT:NOT#Not News? and see if the wording of the policy can be improved
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEVENT||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Any problems with neutrality can be fixed through editing. It is true that Strauss-Kahn is innocent until proven guilty, and that his trial has yet to occur. However, that does not change the historical importance of the scandal, particularly in the context of French politics. Coverage of this case thus far has been in-depth and persistent;  is met here. The article does indeed need to be heavily patrolled to ensure compliance with , , and . However, that's not by itself a reason for deletion. Although Strauss-Kahn's alleged crimes are obviously more violent than perjury and obstruction of justice, I think a parallel with Bill Clinton is fair here. If Wikipedia was around in the late '90s, some of those advocating deletion here might have voted to delete the Lewinsky scandal article because of BLP concerns. I would have objected just as strenuously
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT||WP:BLP||WP:V||WP:NPOV)

Comment: This event is a ''man-made storm'' of world-wide impact, with the IMF, the presidential election in France, the reputation of the New York Police Department and Crime scene investigator|CSI's looking for DNA (forensic evidence) in the hotel room, etc. We don't delete/merge "Hurricane Ike" under ''"Bad weather"'' (or "North America"), waiting for the "news" to be over and people to "know" the impacts. Strauss-Kahn resigned from the IMF, and the French election has been affected. Typically, the next step will be determination of judge and New York district attorney to hold a grand jury (which happened), and Strauss-Kahn was indictment|indicted on all 7 criminal charges, based on the preliminary evidence. The next step is "trial by jury". Top American news sources will be extremely careful to fact-check their reports, so "news" from major U.S. 's should be very accurate, avoiding gossip. Deletion would lead to  detail placed back into his bio-page to note the level of forensic evidence obtained for trial of this case. If the CSI's find only minimal evidence, and that is withheld by WP as being  details (within a bio-page), then the result would be a -vio to omit how only marginal evidence was available for trial against him
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:UNDUE||WP:UNDUE||WP:BLP)

Comment: A scandal that brings down a man who's the head of the International Money Fund, and potential candidate for the French Prsidency? That pole-vaults over |being a normal news story and into being an encyclopedic topic. This is something that's already having heavy repercussions in French politics, and will probably, given the nature of the arrest, have ripples in French and American diplomatic relations. And yes, I'm guessing on the latter, but I think its a reasonable guess, given the facts at hand
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: WP:NOTNEWS is not valid here (as with 90% of the times it is used in AfD). This isn't routine news coverage and although it's an unfolding event but that doesn't mean we cannot have information on it. Details of climate change are still emerging, for example, but that doesn't mean we ignore it until there's a rainforest in the Sahara. Clearly meets |GNG
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Already, the article had been edited to try removing some 2nd sources, for each major point, to reduce the size of the article. However, the tactic of double-sourcing for each issue, with 2 independent sources, avoids the problem of including a one-report emphasis of details, and losing  verification if one source is judged to be non-. Typically, if an issue is stated in 2 sources, then it is less likely to be a one-person bias about the events, so the article has been expanded for double-sourcing of major issues. As for expansion, details can be added for the indictment on 7 reported charges, concerns of his legal rights (to appear in dress-code attire), and his terms of bail to house arrest ($1 million +$5 million bond), plus he was required to surrender his passport, and his United Nations travel document, known as a ''laissez-passez'', over the weekend. Perhaps some editors did not realize how, in New York City, a "news" case can go from arrest+Crime scene investigator|CSI+indictment in just 5 days, becoming official incarceration facing 15-20 years in prison. Long story short, all these issues (to be expanded) would seem to be clearly  details in the bio-page article, but essential to understand the 7 charges against him, the restrictions while awaiting trial, plus allow viewpoints of concerns about his legal rights as a French citizen
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: If it had no long-lasting event, then it could be a minor  like many political sex scandals. But it has an effect well beyond the simple act and accusation
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: per , and as a BLP minefield. If we only report what is justified by policy, this article will be unnecessary
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per , and as a BLP minefield. Unless he is formally convicted of a crime then it remains a violation to have an entire separate article on just an accusation, surely? ALso this article currently covers little more than the summary in his biography. I think that is enough for now
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)