Deletion of Mosley v United Kingdom

Comment: However,  states "''All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred''" and "''Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place''". This article is clearly |verifiable, due to the excellent numbers and quality of the |sources. It is most certainly of wide enough interest, since it could greatly affect the privacy laws of the UK. It fulfills the |notability guideline and is entirely certain to take place. So, regardless of crystal balling, the subject matter of the article is still |notable enough to be included on Wikipedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:V||WP:RS||WP:GNG||WP:N)

Comment: The article skirts around crystal ball by making statements like ''"Mosley is also intending to challenging the state of English privacy law and"'' should be re-written to "Mosley has also stated the intention of challenging the state of English privacy law and" with a CITE at the end. I think as is the case passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: The nominator has now changed the title of the article away from referring to the case, breaking title requirements for . I shall |assume good faith, but this seems to me to be an attempt to affect the outcome of this AfD by changing the title to reflect the nominator's argument, furthermore, not following what appears to be consensus (though the closing admin shall have to corroborate this) to keep the article as it is
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article titles (WP:TITLE||WP:AGF)

Comment: or '''Merge'''. The case certainly ''does'' ; "the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred". This is not possible to determine yet, since it may well set no case law. As such, the best option here is to remove the article until it can be shown that the case is important. It also fails Wikipedia:Notability (events); on the first point, "lasting effects", there is (obviously) no evidence this has led to anything important or groundbreaking. "Depth of coverage" is key here; "'''Media sources sometimes report on events because of their similarity (or contrast, or comparison) to another widely reported incident'''". This case is only considered important by the news because of the previous cases; as such, it should either be deleted until some kind of importance can be shown past a brief flurry of news coverage, or merged into the main article on the previous case. This is merely an extension of an other case, and in many cases it is more appropriate to include the information in the original article than a new one
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: sufficient coverage in  to meet 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:NOTE)

Comment: per Mkativerata. In particular the  ''policy'' trumps the  ''guideline
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:GNG)

Comment: I have tagged this article for |rescue
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (WP:ARS)