Deletion of Murder of Seth Rich

Comment: per all the other arguments. There is lots of discussion about it that make it seem notable, even if they are mostly conspiracy theory-themed. But we must be careful about how we treat this article. |Wikipedia is not a crystal ball
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL)

Comment: this until more details are known. This is news, more information about which could develop soon, and any deletion should be postponed for a while as per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:RAPID)

Comment: Per  and . I think
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCRIME||WP:CRYSTALBALLING)

Comment: Clearly notable: tens-to-hundreds of thousands of results on google news / google search for "seth rich murder" and variants thereof. Plenty of reliable sources on the details of the murder; the existence of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories does not take away from the verifiable information out there. The real question is whether or not this article gets disqualified under section 2 of the "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" subpolicy of . I don't see this article as merely a "timely" incident analogous to celebrity gossip, and am thus firmly on the side of keeping the article. I suggest that the article be renamed to simply Seth Rich, as it really covers both (a) biographical information and (b) details of his murder
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: WP:NCRIME 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: WP:NCRIME,  this appears to be an unremarkable robbery gone bad (botched robbery). It is so unremarkable that the police reported this is the fourth such type of mugging-robbery - and of course the police have much experience
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENTCRIT)

Comment: this horseshit per  and . No policy-based reason has been advanced by the SPAs for trying to keep a fledgling conspiracy theory afloat through Wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCRIME||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: The ''murder'' does not pass . The ''conspiracy theories'' pass , but Conspiracy theories about the killing of Seth Rich could not pass  at this point, and Rich's  status (see ) and family's appeal http://www.businessinsider.com/dnc-seth-rich-wikileaks-politicize-2016-8, http://www.ibtimes.com/seth-richs-family-shoots-down-conspiracy-theories-about-dnc-staffers-murder-after-2400026 make the latter page definitely inappropriate
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENTCRIT||WP:GNG||WP:PROFRINGE||WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE||WP:LPI)

Comment: per  (see trend line https://www.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%203-m&gprop=news&q=seth%20rich) --- I know there are quite a few people that love conspiracy theories but as of today there are no reliable sources stating that this was anything other than a DC murder (he was walking home around 4 in the morning). If something comes to light over the next few months it's not hard to recreate an article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: WP:NCRIME. Also see  . IF there was substantial indication of a link to the Wikileaks nonsense then maybe. But there isn't and this article's purpose seems to be just to fan the flames of conspiracy theories. (Also, I'll repeat my earlier comment, that a brand new account with the username "TradingJihadist", knows precisely how to create a brand new article, nominate it for DYK and then navigate DYK criteria and process. Obviously not a brand new user
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: The fact that the death is notable for stupid reasons (viz. conspiracy theories) does not somehow negate its notability. It has received extensive media coverage, and I don't see how BLP1E/BDP comes into play here, since the article's about his death, not about him, and there's nothing in the article which reflects negatively on Rich or his family and friends. Now, obviously this article should not be kept so that it can be used as an incubator for  conspiracy theories coming from |SPAs and POV-pushers. But I see no problem with it being kept as an article that |neutrally describes the detail of the investigation, as well as the conspiracy theories regarding it. (If POV-pushing remains an issue, |ARBAP2 discretionary sanctions can certainly be imposed.) If it comes to pass that the conspiracy theories become far more notable than the murder itself, then I can see the case for moving to Conspiracy theories about the murder of Seth Rich or such, per USer:The Four Deuces|TFD's quite insightful comments here.''' —&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE||WP:SPA||WP:N||WP:ARBAP2)

Comment: Just a reminder  would not apply to this article because the article is about THE event (murder) not a biography. Why we have articles on the events of Murder of JonBenét Ramsey and Suicide of Amanda Todd but not on the person, they would most certainly not pass the one event rule but the event passes GNG. Right wingers are using this as a conspiracy theory but that alone is not a case for deletion either infact all their coverage adds on to passing GNG which is the ONLY criteria for a event
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)