Deletion of Suicide of Katelyn Nicole Davis

Comment: per  and .  The topic of Child suicide is certainly notable (I'm amazed to see that's a redlink), but individual ones are not, regardless of the amount of sensational press they generate
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:10YT)

Comment: Pretty much every policy reason given at the original AFD was wrong or at least dubious:  means you name the article after the event, not the person (which has been done), and is not anyway primarily a delete rationale. The assumed legal problems with this article do not actually exist, neither in the US nor in the EU. There are questions about the persistence of this story but no doubt that it was widely covered at the time, so saying that it fails  is at least questionable. So why am I still voting delete on this? Because I support USER:Collect's viewpoint that it is simply irresponsible to maintain an article on this subject so we should  and delete
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:GNG||WP:IAR)

Comment: As noted already, per , and without sustained coverage, it is not notable. The argument for keeping it is essentially , which by itself is not a convincing argument. It's possibly worth a short mention in Social media and suicide, but by itself it's not an article suitable for an encyclopedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:OTHERSTUFF)

Comment: per  and . The fact that an event got significant coverage during a short spate of media interest does not mean we can have an article on it. For that it needs to have sustained coverage. The only source cited in the article which was not part of the initial flurry of media interest is an article published by an Irish tabloid five months later in which it is briefly mentioned, this is not evidence of sustained coverage. In the linked DRV discussion there were a couple of links to books which mentioned it in passing as an example of a modern social phenomenon, I don't think that's sufficient either. I'm happy for the topic to be covered as part of an article on Facebook and suicide or suicide and the internet but we don't seem to have such a thing.There is also a serious BLP concern with the article. It makes several very serious accusations against living people. While it doesn't name names any more it is clear from the wording that only a few people could have done what is alleged. Per  we shouldn't be doing this in the absence of a conviction. The article does say that the police opened an investigation into these accusations, but it doesn't say what the outcome of it was, presumably because it's too low profile to be reported. As a result the suspicion of guilt is left dangling in the article indefinitely
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SUSTAINED||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:BLPCRIME)

Comment: The subject, while meeting , fails . The only references to this individual or event after the immediate period are in passing when news articles discuss similar occurrences. Some have noted this is borderline, and though I dispute this I will note that as a sensitive subject I feel we should err on the side of not notable in such cases. I will also note that while I sympathize with the concerns brought up
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:SUSTAINED)