Deletion of Prostitution involving Vatican City

Comment: Of ''course'' there are reliable sources, people just haven't bothered to look for them. in the four "delete" votes so far, I've not seen anything from -REASON to justify getting rid of the article. 'TLIKEIT just isn't strong enough grounds for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DEL||WP:IDON)

Comment: Fails  
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COAT||WP:RS)

Comment: There are multiple |reliable and independent sources regarding the scandal
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: per  as 2010 Vatican employee sex scandal.  I'd strongly suggest a '''move protection
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY)

Comment: ping|Bearian}}, {{ping|Jersey92}} and {{ping|United States Man}}, I strongly suggest you read up on what constitutes  and what sources and content is acceptable on wikipedia. Frankly it is worrying that not one of you spotted that the content was acceptable and contains multiple top newspaper sources but was simply under the wrong title. The 2010 Vatican sex scandal was highly publicized and a notable scandal. There's plenty of reliable sources to prove this is the case. Let's ''not'' censor the RC church and wikipedia from covering it, as I can't think of any other valid reason why you'd want to delete it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Agree that it fails  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COAT||WP:RS)

Comment: under its new title.  The former title was indeed poorly chosen.  Negative comments above were probably based largely on that inaccurate choice.  With the new more precise title, it no longer fails 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COAT)