Deletion of Alex Andrew Kelly

Comment: Nom is misreading , I believe.  "Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves ... If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event ..." plainly refer to a (notable) event in which the person has no notability beyond being a participant; X random 9-11 passenger, for instance.  Here we do not have an "event" in which Kelly was a casual, non-notable participant; he was the convicted perpetrator and fugitive from justice in several felonies, and received considerably publicity for them.  The article itself is poorly written, but that's not an AfD matter
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Maybe we should keep all Wikipedia tabloid-type articles and change #NEWS instead, because we obviously have no intention of following this passage of it: ''matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article'' Clearly this isn't anything but tabloid journalism and editors so far have no intention of deleting it despite that fact. If there's no consensus for enforcing it, the policy should be changed to reflect the actual consensus
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: I agree that someone is who is notable for |one event does not have a wikipedia article, particularly if all the sources are news. Given through that a Telemovie (Crime in Connecticut: The Story of Alex Kelly) was made on the subject, a book (Saint Of Circumstance: The Untold Story Behind the Alex Kelly Rape Case ISBN 0671014374), some coverage in another book (How Can You Defend Those People? By Mickey Sherman) and there are considerable reviews of the Telemovie I think that the notoriety of the case has made it permanently notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: No offense, but I find this interpretation of  odd.  Surely this portion of the policy is aimed at individuals who no one is going to write about, or want to read about, once they have been rescued?  If an individual has ongoing press coverage, if there are ongoing updates, after the first week or so of sensational coverage of a singular event, then surely they no longer meet the criteria of "one event".  Further updates show there is likely to be an ongoing need for the wikipedia to cover the topic.  Even if, for the sake of argument, that ongoing press coverage is largely sensational, there is likely to be some central core to the story that can be covered from a neutral point of view and cite reliable sources.  Readers who read a sensational story might want to look to the wikipedia to see whether there is any central non-sensational aspect behind sensational headlines.  Suppressing coverage of material based on this interpretation of  seems to me to be a serious disservice to our readership
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:BLP1E)