Deletion of Anna Svidersky (3rd nomination)

Comment: A notable, in fact unique case, which gained international coverage. The memorial argument is false: a memorial is where people express their feelings and pay tribute to the deceased. This is neither that, nor salacious: it is a factual record based on reliable sources. The argument that there is factually incorrect information about the assailant is a reason to amend the information, not to delete the article. In fact the information has been amended. However, the very minimum of research on google would have brought up reliable sources that say the information is correct.http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22David+Barton+Sullivan%22+%22sex+offender%22&meta= It is stated specifically in ''The Guardian'', ''Sydney Morning Herald'', snopes and crimelibrary, amongst others. The argument that it is not remembered in Vancouver is blatant |orginal research.  The significance is its international effect. It is inaccurate to classify it under "Mourning sickness", as it is equally about the internet, particularly MySpace and Youtube. This article has a stronger case to exist than Mourning sickness
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)