Deletion of 2010 East Texas Church Burnings

Comment: Not everything that is currently making the news is barred by .  I think it meets the criteria of coverage outside the local area, such as in the ''New York Times'' http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/us/10texas.html, the ''Washington Post'' http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/10/AR2010021004138.html, ''USA Today'' http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-02-10-church-fires-texas_N.htm, the ''Wall Street Journal'' http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703455804575057612462847940.html?mod=googlenews_wsj.  The ''Post'' is an AP report, the NYT, USAToday and WSJ are all from their own correspondents
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per /CA. Has received independent coverage in multiple national news sources: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/11/texas.church.fires/ CNN, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-02-10-church-fires-texas_N.htm USA Today, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/us/10texas.html New York Times, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703455804575057612462847940.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Wall Street Journal.  I think some people have an overly expansive notion of what OTNEWS forbids; it specifically notes that "''routine'' news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" (emph. mine) is not sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia.  It does ''not'' say that any subject suitable for a Wikipedia article must have sources outside of news media
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Ugh. The ATF comments do lend some credence to the idea of an arson spree, as opposed to a series of similar events - so I can see the notability. But the article in its present form does fail , in that it draws connections between the incidents where the sources do not. So, we should rewrite the entire article, in the form "The 2010 East Texas Church Burnings are a string of arson incidents focused on churches in East and Central Texas." then a section about the series and the investigation, then a section about the incidents themselves (perhaps with a bulleted list). The caveat - we need stronger sources than a four-line article about the ATF comments, and those sources are thin on the ground. The ATF mention is this morning's, though - perhaps more sources will come out during this debate
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)