Deletion of Jessica Yaniv genital waxing case

Comment: This article absolutely passes notability; it has been covered by mainstream media in not just Canada, but in the United States, Australia, the UK and across Europe. It is false that it has only been picked up by "right wing sites" - major publications from both sides of the political spectrum are covering it (The Guardian, for example). Topics that receive far less media coverage and legal significance have Wikipedia articles.  Sorry, but this seems like a case of ' because 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CENSOR||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: with British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal per , and if it gets enough coverage in the future it should go in a BLP
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: the article passes  &  or consider moving to "Jessica Yaniv waxing case|Jessica Yaniv
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:GEOSCOPE)

Comment: per . Coverage lacks depth and duration. An article on tribunal case without a released decision is going to inherently tend toward sensationalism. Revisit once the decision is released and we actually have something to write an encyclopedia article about
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT)

Comment: as non-notable single event (). I've not been shy about my deletionist attitude to event articles (especially terrorist/shooting incidents). This is in the same vein; I doubt this will be notable 10 years from now let alone 10 weeks. If I'm wrong, then it deserves an article at that time (). Otherwise this is just another news story that's made waves but lacks  notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:TOOSOON||WP:LASTING)

Comment: various comments gyrate around a perceived lack of .  Observe this is only because of a mass campaign of deletions of the following major news sources, all documented on the TP
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: per nom; (the way the article is set up and titled seems like an effort to get around BLP1E, but) the subject simply doesn't seem to have recent enough |significant coverage to have its own article even in this presentation. Failing deletion, at least merge it back into the article where it was formerly covered until the recent BLPN thread led to its being trimmed (namely, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal article), with significant cleanup of the content (the edit history of the BCHRT article provides a starting point for a better summary of what RS have given weight to
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: Good example of how Wikipedia is not good for covering some kinds of ongoing stories in the news. Problems for  as well as  and , which requires lasting significance. Lots and lots of opinion pieces, tabloids, and other kinds of sources that would be problematic for any article, let alone a BLP. No prejudice against recreation of an article on the case down the road if there's lasting significance. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:N)

Comment: and consider moving to "Jessica Yaniv". The case has been widely covered enough that I've known a lot about it for the past couple of weeks, despite having little general insight into either Canadian legal events or the debates around transgender issues more broadly. There's something notable to be discussed here. If there's any serious  objection, I'll look up sources, but that I don't think notability should be contentious. The BLP1E issue is really about how to structure Wikipedia's coverage and I think an article about Yaniv herself is the best way. It's the cleanest way to incorporate relevant biographical detail and the only alternative title I can see would be whatever the official title of the case before the BCHRT is. I don't see any advantage to choosing that and it isn't the "common name" in the sense that anyone will be searching for it. Any worries about the current state of the article, rather than the question of its existence, should be answered through improving edits rather than AfD. ›&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Changing my !vote to speedy delete on the  A10 and G10 criteria
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD)

Comment: per the  and  concerns raised by various !voters above
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: for now.  I agree with Trystan that this doesn't meet , and it also raises  concerns.  It reads like a tabloid story that has received some sensationalist coverage.  If the story does demonstrate lasting coverage, then I would start with a section in British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal first
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: or else '''merge''' to British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. Who created the article and the poor quality for some of the previous sources is irrelevant now. We do not  notable/noteworthy events because . I have no idea where this talk of 'She Who Must Not Be Named' is coming from; RS and the legal case use her name and so can we. Seems like a selective misapplication of BLP. It is also inappropriate to claim that an RS's own source is a bad source; that is not our job here and we do not know all the sources for reputable journalists
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CENSOR||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: with British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal per . Until the case is closed at polytburo and its effect, and coverage, can be assessed by RS, it falls into news category
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: The subject of the article has had their birth name salted due to repeated re-creation dating back to 2008. I'm convinced this fails  and is an end-around to a . If kept, the article needs to be renamed to the name of the case and turned into an actual legal article, as opposed to one that borders on salacious or transphobic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: per . Of course this is going to have significant coverage by the media. This single event is being reiterated by the authors of these so-called "reliable" tabloids who just want to enforce their personal views, and this community is letting them per . Can we not warp Wikipedia into a medium for the news
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:ADVOCACY)

Comment: This a well covered subject on multiple mainstream  about a topic that will have precedent in Canadian law for sure
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)