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   speedy keep. As per the nominators comment after my request to him/her and their response here User talk:Off2riorob - I am closing this as speedily withdrawn. The main consideration for withdrawing the nomination was that it is only a couple of days since the last AFD was closed as no consensus and it is just too soon for another AFD discussion. (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Swedish Judicial Authority v Julian Assange

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This page continues to suffer from point-of-view creep, which only seems to be getting worse as more gossip-style material is continuing to be added. My recommendation again, is to place this page in the Wikipedia Incubator area, or to merge it back to its parent article, with substantial trimming, or to simply remove it entirely. Avanu (talk) 04:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.


 * Speedy Close previous nomination ended a few hours ago. AFD is not for editing issues, only notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Richard, may I draw your attention please to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion
 * This deletion nomination completely fits the guidelines listed. It is a content fork, a potention POV fork, a potential BLP breach, and potentially not encyclopedic.  In addition, I provide several suggested alternatives to deletion of the material, and support those as fully, which is also a AfD guideline (Alternatives to deletion). -- Avanu (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep AFD is not cleanup. Qrsdogg (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * From WP:NOTCLEANUP "With that said, if an article is so bad that it is harmful in its current state, then deleting now, and possibly recreating it later, remains an option." My contention is that it is harmful and getting worse, and needs to be removed or cured. As Huey Lewis said "Sometimes Bad Is Bad." -- Avanu (talk) 05:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying, I'm glad to see that you have a policy reason in mind. I happen to disagree with your view, however. Qrsdogg (talk) 05:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the reply, and no worries, I don't mind considering and debating our views to reach a decision. I'm simply concerned about the direction I see this article taking, and am seeking solutions to remedy it, and I would welcome your thoughts on that also. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 05:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a bit of a paradox, the "rules" say that AFD is not cleanup--but usually the best way to improve an article is to bring it to AFD. I don't usually edit in this area, but now I'm thinking about it--so you never know. Qrsdogg (talk) 06:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The article seems to be acceptable. --Arendal janitsjar (talk) 05:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Last AFD just ended no consensus, POV creep is not a reason to delete an article. This has received extensive global media coverage. It clearly satisfies the requirements for an article. Once the subsequent legal proceedings occur, it may be appropriate to merge this into that future article, keep it unless that happens. Monty 845 (talk) 07:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete just like last time. Extradition cases are not the source of notability.  The notability is in the legal case against Assange in Sweden.  Some of the content in this article might be a footnote in the future article on Assange's criminal case but that case hasn't happened yet so. 09:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLA (talk • contribs)
 * Keep - Why is this article put up for Afd again so soon? Its a definite continued keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * note - as there are supporter and objectors this is just going to go the same way as the very recent AFD, it really is a bit soon, I will suggest the nom to withdraw the nom, we don't need this again already. Off2riorob (talk) 13:03, 12 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.