Deletion of Amos Yee

Comment: or '''Rename''' Originally the article was named Arrest of Amos Yee. It could be renamed to that with almost no other changes then would not be subject to rules about biographies and obviously pass . That aside, this person has been covered in media over time for multiple reasons. Most of their coverage is about their 2015 arrest, but in 2012 http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest+News/Singapore/Story/A1Story20120120-322935.html the person also went in the news for making a controversial video, and there is other coverage about this person's acting in a mainstream movie. It might be meaningful to rename this content and frame the coverage around the international news coverage of the arrest and its response if  is a concern
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: This is a tough one.  challenges the notability of the bio version of the article (it looks like most of the information about his other work are sourced to articles from the last couple days) while  and  require coverage that persists over time. We might consider  for an article about the video, but that too assumes coverage over time. It does ''look like'' coverage will continue, which inclines me to !vote weak keep since it seems like there's a notable topic in here, even if it requires renaming/refocusing. The problem is that it's conceivable, albeit far from likely, that the arc of the story dies off over the next day or two (for example, if all charges are dropped and no new videos come out). If that happens, it would wind up failing GNG/EVENT. That such a situation is possible makes me hesitant to say keep on a strict policy level (personal predictions of future coverage are not supposed to factor in). I will say, however, that the delete !votes above are particularly poor. {{ping|A.K.R.}} non-policy reasons are typically discounted by whoever closes this discussion. The idea that we should only cover a person accused of a crime if that person ''doesn't want'' us to cover him/her is seriously problematic per  (and ). {{ping|muckysock94}} what he did to become notable isn't really important and nobody has argued that "'he slandered...' thus he's notable", so you're burning a straw man. All that matters is whether there has been significant coverage in reliable sources -- coverage which persists over time. You should also be aware that arguing for deletion on the basis of no demonstrated coverage over time just means it'll be deleted for the time being -- it doesn't prevent it from being recreated as soon as that "over time" is satisfied. &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:EVENT||WP:GNG||WP:WEBCRIT||WP:NPOV||WP:BLP)

Comment: Notability is the issue here, not "historical" qualities, and not 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)