Deletion of Murder of Seth Rich (2nd nomination)

Comment: one can only acknowledge that there are plenty of reports in reliable sources about this murder. However, newspapers don't have a  policy, and we do.  And as someone recently dead, content about Seth Rich falls under BLP - and his living family does as well.   This article is a violation of BLP-driven snippets ,   and 1E, and .  ''In addition'', ,  and  apply here - this is 100% driven by election season internet-echo-chamber ridiculousness,  and if no further information comes to light, no one will even remember this except for nutjob conspiracy theorists (and of course Rich's friends and family
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE||WP:AVOIDVICTIM||WP:BLP1E||WP:NCRIME||WP:SENSATION||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:CRIME)

Comment: As others have said, there has been more than enough coverage to pass the |general notability guideline. Here are more sources from non-US, mainstream publications: https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article157665347/Assange-Interview-befeuert-Clinton-Verschwoerungstheorien.html, http://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2016/08/10/wikileaks-s-implique-dans-l-enquete-sur-la-mort-d-un-jeune-salarie-du-parti-democrate-a-washington_4980875_4408996.html, http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/assange-mord-kan-vara-demokrat-lacka/, http://www.leparisien.fr/election-presidentielle-americaine/presidentielle-americaine-comment-wikileaks-empoisonne-la-campagne-de-clinton-11-08-2016-6032591.php (though this last one could probably dismissed as a passing mention). I find that some pro delete arguments are particularly weak or irrelevant
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Notability for this topic is derived from coverage of the WikiLeaks reward ($20,000), during the middle of July. However, the actual topic, "Murder of Seth Rich", pertains to a non-public figure (or subject) who became temporarily noteworthy as a result of someone else's actions, which indicates this fails , |WP:Event criteria, and . This also means, the sourcing for notability pertains to one topic, while the article purports to cover another topic and is essentially |WP:Synthesis
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E||WP:EVENTCRITERIA||WP:BLP1E||WP:SYN)

Comment: I just posted about this discussion on relevant article and WikiProject talk pages, which is appropriate per . Removal of any of these is probably inappropriate per alk and . Please keep the deletion discussion open in hopes that we can more input from other editors (broadening the deletion discussion). Thank you
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Canvassing (WP:APPNOTE||WP:T)

Comment: but give serious consideration to a rename and/or eventual merge, if the appropriate namespace can be found).  By even the most conservative interpretation of  this easily meets our community guidelines for notability, with substantial coverage in  that run the gamut of local, nation, and global press.  Reasonable concerns have been raised about not misrepresenting the victim, but that goal is not in any way mutually exclusive with having an article on this notable topic, nor with presenting the whole story of how the murder became caught up in the political spin of the election cycle.  We simply need to exercise the utmost care in how we present and attribute the relevant information--which, with the number of eyes the article now has, will be a more sound process.  This story is out there, and trying to stifle coverage of it/pretending that's not the reality Streisand effect|just will not work, and actually is directly counter-intuitive to the notion of preserving clarity on the topic.  Whether your interest is to protect the victim from being maligned or just to present accurate coverage of the topic, the way forward is with a well-crafted, well-sourced, neutral article--not an effort to cull a notable topic, however sordid the facts surrounding it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:reliable sources)

Comment: as single event per spirit of  (although he's dead, BLP allows for reasonable circumspection in recent deaths). Moreover... it's a quite poor and uninformative and actually weird article which the ''usual'' remedy is to fix it... but we can't. It's impossible to fix for complicated reasons but if you're familiar with the article, you might have an idea.They only thing that might -- I say might -- be notable about the event is the conspiracy theories around it. But we can't mention those! The article is under discretionary sanctions, is partially controlled by an RfC, and has a constellation of dysfunctional interactions attached to it. Look at the length of the talk page, for such a new on article on a tiny and (probably not even) marginally notable event
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)