Deletion of Stephen Charlie's prostitution of a child

Comment: per .  I think the indication of the merit of such an article lies in the "Responses" section at the end of the page. For this article, there are a couple of quotes from a police officer, but nothing regarding changes in laws, government policies, public opinion, or anything else that suggests the event has had a notable impact
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT)

Comment: per . Routine crime reports. Clearly a POV and unencyclopedic topic to boot
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: As a one-time event. 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP: NOTNEWS)

Comment: WP:EVENT, specifically , refers to "crime logs," not "routine crimes" as stated above. (And a crime may be typical but not routine - this one was, and so was the beating of Rodney King.)  is totally irrelevant.  is clearly satisfied. The only other policy that has been brought up as a reason for deletion is . As for this one, condition #1 clearly does not apply here as this is not a firsthand report. Condition #2 asks for enduring notability and excludes routine news such as announcements, sports matches, and celebrity gossip. This article continues to get about 10 page views per day, so is certainly still of interest to people, evidence of its continuing notability. Multiple stories were written about different aspects of the case; it is not routine news. Condition #3 is a reason not to have a separate article on the perpetrator (just like 1E). Condition #4 doesn't apply at all. So, in spite of the overwhelming number of delete votes, I can't see that there is any policy-based reason for deleting the article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE||WP:1E||WP:GNG||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: That this article passes  seems obvious to me. The national interest in this event is not impinged upon because external reporters were not sent in for additional coverage; what is relevant is that several of Canada's most major news outlets decided that readers across Canada would want to read a full article on the subject of this event.  is not relevant to this case; the closest thing that  guards against is articles based solely on crime logs, which this article clearly is not. There isn't anything else in  that suggests that we should ignore the applicability of  in this case. As has been amply demonstrated above,  is not relevant to this article as this article is not a biography but is about the event itself. Because a significant number of the "delete" comments above cite one of these inapplicable guidelines, and because of the canvassing concerns raised above, I would urge the closing administrator to be especially judicious in weighing the arguments and not the number of !votes on either side
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ROUTINE||WP:EVENT||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Definitive 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: This story was covered by multiple news sources over a period of months. The arrest was covered, the consequences of the arrest, and finally the sentencing. This meets Wikipedia's standard for . Some reviewers are saying that this is , which is a policy giving the example of news about an interesting animal in a tree. The persistence of coverage over months, updates on developments, and opinions presented from multiple perspectives make the coverage more than routine. Calling this typical news or a single event is a divergence from precedent on Wikipedia, where "one event" rules come into play typically when there is one story at one time, typically from only one perspective. The sources cited feature the concept for this Wikipedia article as their own subject, so they meet  criteria
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ROUTINE||WP:RS)

Comment: An archetypical instance of  involving a perp who isn't independently notable. 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E||WP:NOTNEWSPAPER)

Comment: surely uncontroversially. It's hard to credit that people are really suggesting that something purporting to be an encyclopedia should include a lengthy entry on an individual criminal act and subsequent trial, under this ungainly title, simply on the basis that it has been reported on primarily in a couple of contemporaneous news-in-brief stubs in local papers – and, by implication, that every such incident should have its own WP entry. Those who, as so frequently happens in AFD debates, are simply saying "Keep – meets GNG", presumably on the basis that "it has sources", need to read a little deeper and think a bit harder both about actual policy and this topic. GNG is simply a broad statement of the minimum standard for notability (and in any event requires "significant coverage", which is defined as "more than just routine news reports"; a further qualification states, "Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage"). And even if a topic is deemed to reach the standard under that broad guideline, it still has to not fall short of the policy , which explicitly says "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". Then, even if that hurdle is cleared, we still only have a "presumption" – not a "guarantee" – that a standalone article is merited. Further detail and clarification is provided at , especially the section CRIT, which explicitly says: "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, 'shock' news, stories lacking lasting value such as 'water cooler stories,' and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance". Subsequent subsections clarify how the geographical scope, depth and duration of coverage, and whether the incident had wider lasting effects, affect notability. Can anyone seriously read those sections, review the pretty sparse coverage being relied on for this article, and say those requirements are satisfied here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:EVENT||WP:EVENTCRIT)

Comment: as 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE)

Comment: Weak Delete''' - Don't know. Looks like there are a lot of references from reasonably high quality  which would seem to indicate it would pass . However,  is pretty clear here with "''Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes ... are usually not notable''". Funny policy question really, b/c it seems like  and  will probably conflict at times. But then I guess conflicts probably won't be too uncommon. As a side note here, if we do keep, the title of the article has to change, b/c at the moment it seems a bit ridiculous
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG||WP:EVENT||WP:GNG||WP:EVENT)