Deletion of Jessi Slaughter cyberbullying case

Comment: WP:BLP1E, , and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:DECENCY)

Comment: this is what happens when users blindly follow  and  without respect to any common sense or anything else
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: Fails  and . As animate has said, this will disappear from peoples minds in a few weeks
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: question): Is her own will known? A professional Wikipedia article can help her situation (turning the possible moralizing / victim-blaming attitudes of mass into a broader view), but an article of that quality may require expert supervision. An article can be both a #Avoid_victimization|nuisance and a great relief for her. Knowing her own will would make the decision easier. Is anything known about this, or is any way of checking this possible? (In the Hope Witsell and Ryan Halligan cases of :Category:Suicides due to cyber-bullying|cyberbullying-induced suicides, this question is not more valid, but Jessi Slaughter is |living, and viewing from legal aspect, she may turn out not to be a public figure, although I lack knowledge to judge it
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:LIVE||WP:LIVE)

Comment: for now. Notability is not an issue, its been firmly established. That said, I honestly wonder if this doesn't fall under . The problem is, that at least right now, its too difficult to know without a crystal ball, whether this will be a blip on the news radar, or something with lasting encyclopedic merit. So I say leave it for now, and come back in a month or two and re-examine. If there's no further coverage than this initial current burst and any minor followups, then deletion might be warranted
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: at least for now.  The best argument I see put forth is  which does raise the question of "will this still be notable two years hence?"  At the present time however it's something of a hotbutton issue, has received coverage on Good Morning America and several print and online news outlets, etc, so notability in the present is virtually beyond question.  The article could use some sprucing but is surprisingly not that bad, relatively free of bias, decently sourced, etc.  My only reservation is that this could die down to sheer nothingness at any time and if that happens I would end up likely supporting deletion, as I do not believe something that merited a few days of minor news coverage is truly noteworthy - still I support keeping at this time since prematurely deleting it is jumping the gun
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: I think this is covered by  and . It's a news story this week, no one will remember it in a few
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: An article on the bullying of an 11 year old girl would be great in a Page Three newspaper, but the current article has zero encyclopedic content (apart from "girl acted her age without any thought; girl got bullied; news outlets exploited the situation"), and has no place here. Glorifying 4chan idiots is not part of Wikipedia's role. Delete per  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: yawn, , a blip with no lasting significance other than to tug at middle America's think of the children heartstrings.  Whiny tween mouths off on the internet, attracts the wrath of the Killer /b/'s, hilarity ensues.  Her encyclopediadramatica article is a hoot, though
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: as classic examples of  and . Currently. I do appreciate that the creator delayed the article creation and took some care with it, but we don't need an article until it is clear that there is significant, longer term impact. This is an encyclopedia not a gossipy thrill-mill
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Textbook BLP1E. Re-create if notability persists beyond this event. I wouldn't wager too much on it though, and I don't trust your |predictions to the contrary
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)