Deletion of Mix FM (Ottawa)

Comment: because it appears to have non-temporary notability because of the rare strong enforcement of Canadian unlicensed radio law.  (I am not an expert in Canadian radio law, so if this is actually more common than I make it sound like, feel free to mention it.)  In spite of Canadan laws about minors, the number of sources here seems to meet  to me; I don't know how many are blogs, but I see a several mainstream : about 6 (1 not yet recovered in archives) ''Ottawa Citizen'' after disregarding duplicate refs to the same articles; 1 CBC News; 1 CTV News.  For those that consider Quebecor Media a reliable source, we also have 1 "QMI" Agency via canoe.ca; 1 ''London Free Press''; and 1 for the tabloid ''Ottawa Sun''.  If it turns out to be trivial in retrospect, it can be nominated again later.  But one has to determine it now one way or the other based on what we already know.  From what little I know of Canadian radio history, this seems to have ''already'' passed a threshold that will make it notable in future long-term coverage of Canadian radio, rather than depending on likely future events (i.e. 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS||WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: with the latest court case, this subject has gone well beyond BLP1E/NOTNEWS and the story (and its notability) obviously isn't going away. The drawn-out nature of this situation has made this an unusual milestone in Canadian pirate radio, and speculation that the notability is going to disappear fails , As for the supposed loss of sources, current stories on the case can legally (in Canadian terms) reference much of the station history without specifically identifying the party involved; in any case, offline sources have traditionally not been considered a show-stopper per  (WP:V). Also consider Wikipedia:General disclaimer#Jurisdiction and legality of content. Deletion is an excessive (non-)solution to a solvable problem here, though we may have to tread a bit carefully with the content
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:SOURCEACCESS)

Comment: in addition to my keep vote above: If suppressing sources (that name the child) would cause the article to dip below  threshold for notability, then the sources should be left in, at least to the extent necessary to meet the same Wikipedia guidelines the article would have met otherwise.  The same goes for any other local speech laws that end up having a domino effect on applying Wikipedia guidelines.  It is one thing to give courtesy deference to local privacy laws in an article about that place, when it doesn't endanger content's ability to meet Wikipedia guidelines; it is another, and quite unacceptable, to allow local laws to insert alterations in the application of Wikipedia policy (erifiability/eliable sources/otability) to its own content, and as a result, for example, effect the deletion of the subject itself from Wikipedia when it would not have happened otherwise.  In short: Canadian law should not be allowed to push a Wikipedia article into failing  or any other Wikipedia policy
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:V||WP:R||WP:N||WP:GNG)