Deletion of YouTube cat abuse incident

Comment: As much as it pains me to say it, this meets  and . Should this be notable? Not by a long shot. However, there are enough sources that meet  to get it through 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V||WP:RS||WP:N)

Comment: Violates  and is stuff that's more suitable for Wikinews
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: or '''Merge''' into Internet vigilantism. - Per , we've got to "get it right", and the article will need to be watched closely for violations. (Yes, both articles are now on my watchlist.) Still, it meets the criteria, and the arguments for deleting seem to me to boil down to .  Whether or not we like it, this is an event that is shaping and defining how we relate to the Internet in the 21st century, partly because of what happened, and partly ''because it's getting so much attention''. A comparable event in a year won't get the same media attention, and would likely not meet our notability standards. For now, this is what it looks like when new cultural ground is broken. Freaky, huh? I don't remember anything in my childhood comparable to "U.S. cat abuser punished by the internet".  Whenever the histories of the Internet are written, and this event is put into a historical context, then we'll deal with it in those terms, but until then, I think it passes muster. What I don't understand it what would make a kid want to do that to a cat
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: Russia Today, The Sun, The Irish Times, The Daily Telegraph. This is no Boxxy, these are solid non blog sources. Meets  by a longshot
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Wikipedia is #NEWS|not the news. Some of this should be moved into the main 4chan article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: transient 4chan meme,  minefield. Might just belong at Wikinews if anyone still cares
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: This incident made international news (was reported in papers from Ireland, the UK, France, Russia, and Australia at least) and seems to have gotten a great deal of publicity. It meets , , and  because it is well-sourced and describes what is already said elsewhere in reliable references
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NPOV||WP:NOR)

Comment: The mass propagation of the video and the fashion in which the video was analyzed toward the identification of an alleged perpetrator make this a remarkable case, more notable than a usual news event otherwise of this sort, toward which see the broad and non-trivial coverage in international publications the incident has received; even under the most restrictive interpretation of |NOTNEWS, then, and surely under the construction of NOTNEWS for which a consensus exists, this merits encyclopedic treatment
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: There seems to be a consensus to keep such articles with much 3rd party mention, even if the issue may well be forgotten in a decade or so (or very much sooner).  There was recently a snowfall in the UK which hit Wiki's front page.  If Wiki is a repository of the world's knowledge, it could also be an archive of such events, even if there might be some issues with ethnocentrism.  I would say keep as per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPAPER)