Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swedish Judicial Authority v. Julian Assange


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. There is no consensus to delete or merge this article, and I see no compelling policy argument that would require doing so in the absence of consensus. Any undue weight and BLP issues can be addressed by editing the article.  Sandstein  08:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Swedish Judicial Authority v. Julian Assange

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Undue amount of scrutiny for a currently non-notable event. Recommend deletion and move to Article Incubator instead for now in case it eventually is notable. Avanu (talk) 12:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to be more clear on what I mean by 'notable'. Yes, it has recieved a LOT of coverage in the media, but ultimately what is it we are covering in this article? A man was accused of sexual indiscretion.

How notable is that really? Is he the first well-known person to be accused of something like that?

Is there something particularly notable about how the case has proceeded thus far? Assange claimed the US was out to get him, yet there has been no evidence of that in this article.

Ultimately what we have here is a rather commonplace event (so far), and really most other people in Wikipedia don't get this much attention. This is why it is currently not truly notable, and rather than delete it all entirely, that is why I recommend above that it be put in the Article Incubator. -- Avanu (talk) 12:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sources currently in article indicate that it meets the general and event notability guidelines.  -- Lear's Fool 12:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. 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. WP:BLP 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. Thincat (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Does this event have "enduring historical significance"? (see EVENT). Does it have "widespread (national or international) impact"? (I would say probably not, since it is simply about Assange, and if it does, why isn't that covered in the article?).

"Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, 'shock' news, stories lacking lasting value such as 'water cooler stories,' and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance."


 * What I am asking above is 'How does this truly have significance?' I understand that a lot of people assume that notability is somehow automatic after there is a bit of news coverage in big media outlets, but really that ISN'T the standard. -- Avanu (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're ignoring the fact that this "event" (a strange word to use for ongoing proceedings; it's a legal process unfolding, not a car crash) centers on a notable person who is receiving significant international attention right now because of his connection to WikiLeaks. You could view the extradition proceedings as a split-off subtopic of Julian Assange if that makes it easier on you, similar to how O. J. Simpson murder case and O. J. Simpson robbery case were "split off" of O.J. Simpson.  If Assange were not notable, then it's not likely his extradition would get much attention at all, from the news or Wikipedia.  postdlf (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That's really my point, Postdlf. Yes, this is a legal process, but really there's little actual substance here.  So instead, we have this excruciating play-by-play of legal minutiae and press coverage that really doesn't have a point.  The posts below who say offhandedly "This meets WP:GNG" ... I'm not sure they are seeing the point I'm asking about.  I'm asking where the substance is.  What makes this really worth having in Wikipedia.  Sure it has gotten press, but what is the real story here, and can we focus on that instead of the pointless... and if we can't or there really isn't a story, then lets just prune the thing out. -- Avanu (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the problem with articles of this type is that they overemphasize what is, in the long run, only one segment of a broader notable story. The extradition proceedings were brought pursuant to a criminal investigation and allegations, and so are part of that larger story, and if he is brought to trial in Sweden then that will diminish the relative importance of the extradition phase even more.  All of which is to say the article should probably be renamed, and that's more of a talk page discussion than an AFD, but I think that kind of context and framing issue can affect perceptions of notability and so merited a mention here.  postdlf (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with you, postdlf. -- Avanu (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me agree too despite my "keep". This would not be in my world encyclopedia until some broad conclusion was reached and then the matter would likely be a footnote. However, it seems to me that this article reaches enwiki standards of notability. Thincat (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, though I didn't frame it in terms of a !vote, I think my comment boils down to "keep at least for now, and then we'll reevaluate where it should go once this has developed some more." postdlf (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:GNG. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Has received significant international media coverage warranting an article on its own under notability guidelines. StuartH (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:GNG. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Its a major issue of international attention, and not merely because a notable person was involved Monty845 (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * When you say it is a "major issue", could you point out more specifically what part of it you mean? I'm looking for a description of what makes this "a major issue of international attention", in order to maybe clarify the article down the road, if it is kept. It seems as if many of the commenters feel it is sufficient to say nothing more than WP:GNG and pass on.  But I would hope we all recognize the difference between something that is worth news attention and something that is encyclopedic.    -- Avanu (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that he has alleged (and the allegation seems to have traction in the press) that the prosecution is politically motivated as a result of his position as the public face of wikileaks. Whether you believe the prosecution is in fact politically motivated or not, it has become part of the broader wikileaks story. If the allegation is true, then it would be a really big deal, either the US influencing Sweden, or Sweden doing it on its own. Of course like any good conspiracy theory, it would be very hard to prove or disprove, but the media is still giving it a lot of attention. Actually, it really seems more like a question of whether its appropriate material for inclusion in an encyclopedia, as to me the notability is clearly established. Let me draw an analogy to the Watergate break-in, alone it is just a burglary, hardly notable, but when placed in context, including the actors, victim, and reaction, the break-in becomes not just notable, but appropriate for inclusions in an encyclopedia. Monty845 (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I *COMPLETELY* agree and this is really the point I have been hoping others would see. Please forgive me for using the word 'notability' in a somewhat layperson's sense, instead of the strict Wikipedia definition.  To me, this event really lacks enough substance to be here right now.  Without the political and unproven conspiracy (or whatever term might be best), this is just another criminal investigation.  If it is really being done for political reasons, then the article needs to reflect that (or just not exist). -- Avanu (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe the reason people are paying attention is because they are reading between the lines, and seeing it as politically motivated, which would weigh in favor of keeping it, but how do you include that in the article while remaining encyclopedic? While your argument makes a lot of sense, I just think that in light of the extreme notability of the event as indicated by press coverage, that we should err on the side of keeping the article, at least for now. Monty845 (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Although that makes sense for a tabloid or conspiracy website, we're supposed to follow a different standard. The idea of a political plot is something that is clearly biased for Mr. Assange and so I'm not sure if that would be viewed as a neutral viewpoint unless some facts came forward that lent credence to that.  Having Mr. Assange or others simply assert it and we include it doesn't strike me as being the right approach. -- Avanu (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Dude, The New York Times, The Guardian, The Economist, Time magazine, The BBC and about 300 other news organizations have articles on the proceedings according to Google News. They are reliable sources, not tabloids. We don't have to have a reason why they are covering the legal proceedings, but when they do that defines notability in Wikipedia. Maybe you can show some respect and withdraw your nomination at this point, and Monty845, please don't feed the trolls, they just keep come back for more, your legal editing skills are in great need and the more you reason with Monty845 the less time is spent where you are needed. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't implying that the New York Times and others are tabloids. One thing these reliable sources have covered (almost to a fault in some cases) is the timeline and how suspicious some of it seems.  Like Monty845 suggested, there is a lot of reading between the lines.  I'm not averse to changing my opinion, but it is with the help of editors like Monty that *we* come to consensus.  Naming people 'trolls' is not.  If there have been any comments of mine that seemed uncivil in the least, I apologize; there was no intent to trivialize other editors, and I would hope you might show the same sense of decorum.  Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Why was this even put up for Afd?--BabbaQ (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge into a page about Assange and then later split it out into the legal cases vs Assange as this extradition case is a very minor episode in the overall legal story. I hope we aren't considering extradition cases themselves to be notable as it is the actual criminal case that is where the real notability lies. MLA (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep He's being extradited to Sweden so this article refers to an actual case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wing gundam (talk • contribs) 01:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as a POV fork and a violation of WP:UNDUE with continuous WP:BLP violations. The information certainly meets WP:GNG 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 and deleted when this event started. The Assange article has been the focus of repeated BLP problems in recent months and has only been under control after 291 people watch listed the article. This new article has less than 30 and has had repeated BLP problems as noted on the talk page including an RfC just to detemine what the article should be about. I think we should generally try to avoid another Siegenthaler incident. -  Hydroxonium  ( H3O+ ) 06:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom, what Hydroxonium  said. Not sure how this is playing out in American and Australia, but there is considerable chatter about a set-up, about reprisal, and lots of people like to link their names and faces with notorious figures and are willing to hop in bed with them. Remember the history of this sordid incident. Let's keep this in balance without WP:UNDUE weight. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge with biography article. Meets WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:GNG criteria, certainly in Europe. Has contributed to make the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) more widely know to European media and public. FYI: 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. KathaLu (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete There is just insufficient factual reporting to justify this article - it can be adequately covered in the Assange article, if one excludes the spin and speculation from the various involved parties. Even if this article remains, the extradition proceedings will still need to be discussed in the Assange bio. If and when the case comes to court, it can be properly reported, but for now this all seems too much like tabloid journalism, and of little lasting significance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - article expansion and forking off is creating a partisan editing environment with supporters of Assange attempting to protest his innocence and add all sorts of opinionated content as in the whole thing is some CIA feminist plot and undue coverage of issues as yet not even at trial. Off2riorob (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Julian Assange. Certainly a notable event, but can be covered within Mr. Assange's article. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete 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. --Errant (chat!) 13:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Julian Assange. We don't normally have separate articles on every criminal conviction against a celebrity, and in this situation the subject has not yet been charged with a crime. Furthermore, this proceeding deserves to be placed in the context of Mr. Assange's other activities, which have greatly angered most of the world's governments. --agr (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per [wikipedia:summary style (WP:SS), according to which sections may be spun off to own article per WP:CFORK to avoid WP:UNDUE. See Silvio Berlusconi underage prostitution charges and Roman Polanski sexual abuse case for analogy. walk victor falktalk 20:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Victor, do you feel the substantive parts of this have reached the point to necessitate a fork? -- Avanu (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets more that WP:GNG 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 IQinn (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Hardly non-notable. See HM Advocate v Sheridan and Sheridan as another example where we had an article on a current court case without hitting serious problems, although there were concerns raised at the BLP noticeboard at one point. PatGallacher (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep 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 WP:DUE and WP:BLP.  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 WP:UNDUE.  The existence on an article is never WP:UNDUE, only the disproportionate representation of a particular opinion or event within an article.  For example, it is WP:UNDUE 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 WP:UNDUE 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 WP:DUE and also we would be worse off in terms of WP:BLP.  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.  Gregcaletta (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To quote you, "the section on the allegations in the Julian Assange article was getting ridiculously large". I completely agree, and after reading this article again in its entirety, I still wonder why we *need* all of this.  We don't even have a substantive reason for having it except that the media spent time covering it.  The media has a different goal/motivation than an encyclopedia, but if that is what we want to strive for, so be it, I suppose. -- Avanu (talk) 06:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.