Deletion of Anna Svidersky (2nd nomination)

Comment: per , , and . Notability is established by "''significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject''", and that clearly exists here. Even though it appears that the only reason she is notable is because of the internet response to her death, she ''is'' nonetheless notable. In addition, the  guideline gives another criterion for notablity: "''The person has demonstrable wide name recognition''"; and this is the case with Anna
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS||WP:N||WP:BIO)

Comment: I grieve for the loss to the world of this young person, slain by a psycho a week before her 18th birthday. Had she lived another 60 years or so , who knows what good she might have done? But I cannot find that the article is more than a memorial, and per , Wikipedia is not a memorial. God bless her and grant her eternal peace
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: When an article is |notable and |verifiable and |not original research and written with |reliable sources and someone still invokes "unencyclopedic" as the reason to delete, how do we possibly dispel that bogeyman other than to say, this ''is'' encyclopedic.  If it's too much of a memorial, if it needs a rename then thrash it out on the talk page.  But the level of sourcing makes it abundantly clear that this article is valid per our standards.  Don't buy the rationale that it's about "mourning sickness"?  Well, sorry, the sources in the article already made the call.  And so what the nomination really comes down to is 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE||WP:V||WP:NOR||WP:RS||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: This was discussed at length at the previous AfD that resulted in a Keep, as well as on the Talk page. The notable element in the article is the so-called (and reliably sourced) 'mourning sickness' phenomenon, where thousands of strangers around the world went into mourning over someone they didn't know, simply because of the communication power of the Internet. We are not aware of any comparable event before or since, and it is properly sourced. So we have both |notablity and |reliable sourcing, all that's needed for a WP article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: per #NEWS.   Almost every murder in a country with relatively low crime rate will receive lots of attention, but that does not mean it should be mentioned here.  There is no historic notability in this case
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)