Deletion of Killing of Nabra Hassanen

Comment: Coverage of the crime when it occurred was anything but , for a day or two the world assumed that this was a hate crime, that a girl wearing a hijab had been attacked for walking-while-Muslim, drawing coverage in the national and international press - and op-eds and columns - that do not accrue to "routine" abduction/rape/murder cases.  Coverage did settle down once police investigators established that this was not a hate crime.  But there was follow-up, including Slate (magazine)|Slate: https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/06/nabra-hassanen-killing-one-year-later-was-it-a-hate-crime.html https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/06/nabra-hassanen-killing-one-year-later-was-it-a-hate-crime.html and 2 serious sounding books published the details.  Nom's perhaps hastily written statement is inaccurate, coverage has met , ,  and although it is not yet 2 years sine the murder (sentencing is scheduled for March,)  there has been 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill (WP:MILL||WP:GEOSCOPE||WP:INDEPTH||WP:DIVERSE||WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE)

Comment: does not meet ; sourcing is routine. No long-term significance or societal impact
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCRIME)

Comment: From what I can see on the page, this is a "road rage" murder by someone who was mentally disabled. I do not see how this can be notable encyclopedic content. Also, there was no sentence yet. This is  and ecentism
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:R)

Comment: Per WP:GNG. Per good referencing. And continued coverage. Also per WP:NCRIME. does not apply
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:G10)

Comment: defective nomination which ought to be withdrawn.  How can the nom claim "no coverage other than immediate news-wire coverage" when ''Slate'' went back on the anniversary and did an , for example?  Fact is, lack of doing a  is unacceptable and causes a waste of everyone's time; hopefully the closing admin will have something to say about the "immediate news-wire coverage" claim.  Clearly the case meets WP:GNG; see for example, the BBC coverage.  A keeper, if there ever was one
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:INDEPTH||WP:BEFORE)

Comment: As a violation of  edging on  territory for naming a non-convicted suspect in a non-notable tragedy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLPCRIME||WP:G10)