Deletion of R. v Evans and McDonald

Comment: the more I read these comments the more I'm dismayed. The nominator gave no evidence based rationale for deletion and many of the comments have been along the line of "merge and delete" which is not possible - I don't think this article should ever have come to AfD, deletion is and always should be a last resort. The article itself gives numerous sources which indicate it's widespread notability. Other commentators have stated that there is no individual notability for the trial itself, i.e. it's only notable because of the famous people involved, but is that really a valid argument, after all there are still hundreds of reliable sources that discuss the trial, regardless of why it passes  it does still pass it, a point that commentators arguing for merge acknowledge. Further reliable sources are available in the aftermath of the trial in the wake of twitter activity condemning and identifying the victim - this demonstrates wider impact. We must go with what the sources say
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The primary question here seems to be  of coverage, and I can understand why some editors feel that that bar isn't met--we wouldn't usually count a cluster of articles at the time of a crime and another at sentencing time as "persistent", and rightly so. However, the Twitter-related arrests, and their likely continuing is another matter. That, while recent, includes some coverage of this case past the routine. Perhaps to put it more clearly, when the Home Secretary gives quotes to the media to discuss the social implications of a side-effect of a case, some degree of lasting  and notability has been, in my view, evidenced
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PERSISTENCE||WP:EFFECT)