Deletion of Suicide of Amanda Todd (2nd nomination)

Comment: As above, nothing mind-blowing has been presented/occurred since the first nomination — is there a procedural close for this? Almost like a , just for AfDs
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: While it clear that the nominator simply |doesn't like the article, the fact remains that Todd's suicide received significant coverage across multiple news sources, sufficent to pass the |notability guidelines of Wikipedia. Canuck89
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:GNG)

Comment: Per . It was heavily covered in the news for two weeks or so but that does not justify the creation of an article. The reaction on Twitter and Facebook also does not justify this. Todd is not the first teenager to commit suicide as the result of cyberbullying. The notability hasn't endured for very long, it's not a hot topic anymore. This suicide is not more significant than any other suicide. We shouldn't create an article for every suicide
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: The arguments in the nomination are weak, largely a lot of , but to the extent that they include the idea that there is insufficient sourcing, or insufficient enduring interest within reliable sources, I don't think that the page really supports that characterization. In the discussion above,  is also cited, but it does not really apply here because that's a part of , whereas the page is about the event of the suicide, not about the person
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:ONEEVENT||WP:BIO)