Deletion of Kermit Gosnell

Comment: Very significant international coverage. Easily meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CRIMINAL)

Comment: This very deletion request is a  violation. This story has been supressed, and needs to be brought to light
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: Article in its current state contains many violations of . These should be immediately removed. &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: I'm assuming good faith.  I find it difficult to see how this doesn't meet .  Extensive, extensive media coverage worldwide.  Any issues raised by  should be covered by editing the facts of the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BIO)

Comment: This is not a minor criminal matter, but an alleged multiple murder that has had significant media coverage and has important policy issues.  The editor who nominated this article for deletion should read up on .  If an article contains errors, it should be edited to fix the errors, not deleted
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD)

Comment: WP:GNG is met due to the nature of the alleged offenses.  advises: "Editors must give serious consideration to '''not''' creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." However, the "unusual" details of the "execution" of the alleged offenses meets notability criteria. Under no circumstances is ''deletion'' warranted here; at best, moving the article to one which is not a bio of Gosnell. However, the current criminal trial has focused on Gosnell. The article could be renamed to something less useful like, "Trial of Women's Medical Society employees," but the attention of the courts and what coverage there has been is clearly on Gosnell, so what point does that serve, except to abide by a Wikipedia guideline while violating its spirit
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CRIMINAL)

Comment: There is |plenty of coverage about this subject. I could see renaming the article, possibly, but the way to handle any  issues is to ''edit'' the article, not ''delete'' it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BIO)

Comment: as  clearly advises "A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." Article can be recreated if a conviction is secured
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CRIMINAL)

Comment: with appropriate rewrite) The article is not about a particular person who has been accused of a local crime of transient notoriety but about the well documented facts surrounding the involvement of a person in the ensuing investigation of an event of demonstrable historical significance and international notoriety. Whether or not there has been a "suppression of information in the media" is irrelevant to this purpose; this type of allegation itself should not be speculated upon or even mentioned unless it is otherwise independently verified and well sourced (a perceived lack of coverage in a segment of the media or on any regional scale does not itself invalidate the notability otherwise proven). The issue is not about "bringing a suppressed story to light" () but the encyclopedic documentation of the enduringly notable person and event ("Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)