Deletion of Clea Rose (3rd nomination)

Comment: the article is fully referenced and was a notable event for Canberra. It does not have to apply elsewhere - please remember that #PAPER|Wikipedia is not paper and there's room for fully-referenced well-written articles like this one. And this debate has been had numerous times, so it's bad faith by the nominator to try it again when this debate has been had time and time again
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clea_Rose_case&redirect=no Clea Rose case and '''Redirect''' Clea Rose to that article, rather than vice-versa as is the situation now.  It is the ''event'' that's notable, not the ''person''.  From #Specific examples of sources
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline|general notability guideline states thatA '''topic''' is ''presumed'' to be notable if it has received significant coverage in Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources that are Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources|independent of the subject.The extensive media coverage of Clea Rose in multiple reliable sources cited in Clea_Rose#References_and_notes clearly establishes a presumption of the notability of this person persuant to the criteria established in the Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline|general notability guideline.  While #MEMORIAL is often misinterpreted to imply that "subjects whose notability is derived solely from the manner of their deaths are not notable for Wikipedia's purposes", the plain language of #MEMORIAL clarifies its purposeWikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be Wikipedia:Notability (people)|notable besides being fondly remembered.Thus, #MEMORIAL is a mere restatement of the applicability of Wikipedia's notability guidelines to deceased subjects, and does actually furnish independent grounds for deletion.  The purely subjective assertions of non-notability advanced by editors supporting deletion of this article fail to outweigh the presumption of notability established via the Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline|general notability guideline through objective evidence
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:NOT)

Comment: I don't think #MEMORIAL is directed at articles such as these that clearly pass . It's meant to prevent "RIP Johnny, he wrapped his truck around a pole"-type articles
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:V)

Comment: as the nominator I contend this non notable article violates #MEMORIAL|wikipedia's policy against memorial pages. Previous discussions have focussed on the argument that the "case" is notable. Now that a significant amount of time has passed we see in hindsight that this "case" is not notable at all. No policy changed as a result of this death. No procedures changed as a result of this death. No controversy occurred with the sentence of the offenders
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: The events surrounding Clea Rose's death have sparked extensive debate about police producdues, and this is well documented in the article. As such, this is an article on a notable topic and not a memorial page. As for it being "of local interest only", Wikipedia |is not a paper encyclopedia so if a topic is notable and covers an issue of interest to a city of over 300,000 people there's no reason not to include it. The Canberra Times and ABC news are the two main media sources in Canberra, so there's nothing at all wrong with using them heavily in Canberra-related articles - indeed, not using them would be a major shortcoming
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PAPER)

Comment: Subject is notable, this is not a #MEMORIAL, article is well written and referenced.  I believe those crying "nn delete" for articles like this are ungrateful for the effort people put into them -  is not a reason to delete them
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:IDONTCARE)