Deletion of Harvey Weinstein sexual misconduct allegations

Comment: in order to keep it proportionate, reduce unnecessary duplication, and to keep the information in context with the rest of his life and career (this is now an essential part of that article, and it's not that helpful to have to leave the article to read about it on a different page). If the story develops such that the information becomes too large for the main article, that is the time to split it out per 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Splitting (WP:SPLITOUT)

Comment: Hugely significant coverage which has already gone far beyond the routine, and this seems unlikely to die down any time soon. The allegations are also the subject of police investigations in two different countries (see http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/12/entertainment/harvey-weinstein-london-nyc-police-investigation/index.html this article from CNN for example), and it is receiving international coverage. In the UK it's been one of the leading stories on BBC News for much of this week. It certainly meets  at the very least
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: It's one of biggest scandals in Hollywood. A lot of media coverage to support its 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: or failing that merge back. I think the separate article was created a bit too early, but the amount of relevant content we have now is already a   problem if merged back to the main article, and more content is very likely to be forthcoming. As to notability, the amount of international coverage this has gotten is more than enough for an article, meriting coverage similar to other scandals like Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations or Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:DUE)

Comment: There is plenty of information there and it probably does warrant its own article. However, I also suggest merging it because I do agree with what you said about  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST||WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: Consensus building may have been taking place on another article talk page, prior to the unilateral creation of this article, however that is not a legitimate reason to delete this article which most definitely passes . Also, this article goes way beyond news therefore I don't see  as a legitimate argument for deletion. The nominator has used ooSoon as an argument for deleting this article, however, based on the huge variety of already available sources and references, I don't see why we can't get on with creating this article already and adjust accordingly in the future
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:T)

Comment: Given the significant, in-depth global coverage and reactions this is not an example of . NOTNEWS prohibits original reporting and writing in news style. It also prohibits "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia"; this is clearly not an example of trivial or routine news reporting
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)