Further 
It's quite rude to delete a discussion half way through, when the other person is still drafting a reply to your last comment. Anwyay, it was too good to waste, so here it is:

Wow. You mean after three days, with absolutely no updates from the police, it's now dropping down the order of the news? What a really convincing, well thought out, and utterly persausive point to make, to defeat the argument that for the last two days, the arrest was front page news on all serious, credible, international websites. Except Wikipedia. A point made on your talk page. Where nobody will see it. After you closed the section asking for reasons why this was rejected. Yes, I can see why someone like you is going to be baffled by all sorts of things that happen in the real world. You better stick to Wikipedia, I'm thinking this is probably the only place where anyone takes you seriously. It's pretty obvious how you're operating here - you really shouldn't be using word like consensus, not when there are far more appropriate words to describe the way you're trying to influence things here. It's quite clear you personally don't think it should have been news, so you're doing everything in your meagre powers to make that happen. I suppose you can succeed because there just aren't enough honest people here to monitor such things. As we see, asking why certain arguments were apparently listened to, even though they were patently false, gets people nowhere. Certianly not with you around. I'm thinking maybe I chose the wrong poster boy, I think you fit the bill more than 331dot does.