Deletion of 2007 De Anza baseball players rape case

Comment: I think we've agreed before that not every news event is worthy of an encyclopedia article and this is no different. We do not have an article on every alleged rape happening worldwide; its unfeasible and not in line with the goals of this project.   This incident had no lasting significance that would indicate needing an article here and in its current state is little more than a |coatrack for maligning the players and prosecutor.  I believe that  also falls in here as we are obviously doing harm to several living people as
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:BLP)

Comment: I agree, a proper article could be written, but  considerations are to my mind so paramount that this should be deleted, or at least returned to a stub w/ the references intact, and start over. First, the title "rape case" has to go. There are is no charge of rape (only the prosecutor can do that) and there is no "case." We should not associate that term with any identifiable group of people. The NPOV problems are significant as well, as there appears to be an underlying assumption that the assault occurred (as it very well may have, but it isn't WP's place to make that case).  For this type of article to work, each and every line needs to be sourced, and someone needs to watch to make certain that the sources state exactly what the article claims they do. This is bad enought that I plan to try to spend some time fixing it when I get off work
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: Notability has clearly been established but the article needs a very serious rewrite to cover the  problems. Give the article a chance to address the issues it has, relist at a later date if they aren't
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: I'm not certain of whether this article will have lasting notability or not, which was mentioned in the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_De_Anza_baseball_players_rape_case&diff=176958240&oldid=175261292 original prod as a reason for deletion. There doesn't appear to be a lack of verifiability (the article has 92 separate references, though some, such as http://www.mercurynews.com/crime/ci_6031160, appear to be duplicated as different refs, rather than using "ref name"), but there is certainly an issue with the quality of the article. Indeed, my only involvement in the article prior to notification of this AfD was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_De_Anza_baseball_players_rape_case&diff=prev&oldid=175261292 adding a tone tag. Pretty much the entire article, in general, from its tone, to the wording of the headlines, appears to be more reminiscent of the free tabloid that anyone can edit. The timeline section, for example, quickly stops being a timeline of the case itself, and becomes a timeline of all news stories about the case, with the story headlines provided after the date, which is misleading. However, I also realise that poor quality is |not really a good reason for deletion, so I am relatively neutral on whether the article should be kept or deleted. If it is kept, however, it would probably need stubbing temporarily while being rewritten
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:PROBLEM)