Deletion of Roșia Montană Project

Comment: The topic itself is undoubtedly notable; it is a huge commercial project with great significance for the Romanian environment and economy, and the subject of a big political controversy. It may yet the subject of a http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-02/europe-s-biggest-planned-gold-mine-may-face-romanian-referendum.html referenmdum.A search of Gnews finds https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ro%C8%99ia+Montan%C4%83%22&tbm=nws&tbs=ar:1 tons of Romanian-language sources, and there are also plenty of English-language sources, e.g. Spiegel Internationalhttp://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/romanian-mining-plan-sparks-mass-national-protests-a-923625.html, BBChttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23865805, Business Reviewhttp://business-review.eu/featured/romanias-parliament-to-hold-final-vote-on-rosia-montana-bill-by-november/, The Guardianhttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/17/romanians-mobilise-gold-mine. So far we had a version which was very biased towards the company; then the edits by Bogdangiusca added a lot of valuable material from a different perspective. Bogdangiusca's work may have tilted the article too far the other way, but that's often the way things go as editors arrive to expand a topic and achieve a balance.  The article clearly needs more work, but that is nothing unusual, and there is plemty to build on. Editors should improve the article rather  the work done already
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)