Deletion of Cody Legebokoff

Comment: and possibly sanction BlueSalix for a  violation (don't argue that Philg88 pushed you to do it). A rose by any other name is still a rose, and an article titled in such a way to not be a biography can still violate |BLP
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:BLP)

Comment: BLPCRIME applies to people, not their alleged crimes. Regardless of the amount of coverage pre-trial, Legebokoff is innocent until proven guilty. Since nobody can predict the outcome of the trial, the premise for the existence of this article is |pure speculation. Content like who he was dating at the time of his arrest is |in no way encyclopedic. If (and only if) he is found guilty the article can be recreated, subject to the usual requirements
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:TABLOID)

Comment: per  and .  The existence of a media circus does not mean we should lower our BLP standards
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLPCRIME||WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: As per /CA "media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act." This is not a routine alleged crime but a major, headline-grabbing trial of an alleged serial killer that has received a wide amount of national and international press attention over a period of three years. The ''National Post'' alone has run 14 separate stories on Legebokoff. The CBC has run 39 stories in three years. Reporting has occurred in the U.S., Britain, and Australia as well, consistently and over a period of time. '''Even if the accused is acquitted,''' his arrest and trial will still be a notable event (frankly, it will be even more notable if he's acquitted, but I'm not gonna crystal ball that
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: A prosecution of someone for being a serial killer can be encyclopedic, when like this one there are multiple reliable news sources having significant coverage. Renaming the article to be about the trial rather than the individual is an improvement. Ideally the article would be about the crime or crimes rather than the alleged perpetrator, but the news stories used as refs do not provide such a common name for the set of killings. It would be a longish title if we moved the article to The killings of Jill Stuchenko, Cynthia Maas, Natasha Montgomery and Loren Leslie,.  It is reminiscent of the awkwardness of titling the article about the three young women kidnapped in Cincinnatti.  But apparently the police and the media did not nickname the series of killings,or the killer like BTK Killer or Hillside Strangler. Lacking a Jack the Ripper or Boston strangler title, an article about the trial seems the best option. The  language calling for discretion is clearly not a ban on articles mentioning the names of those arrested or being tried for crimes. Wikipedia is not under the Sub judice requirements of British law preventing media mention of the accused. And even when the trial results in an acquittal, it is appropriate to have an article about it if there has been sufficient coverage to make it encyclopedic, such as George Zimmerman and State of Florida v. George Zimmerman and O. J. Simpson murder case and  Death of Caylee Anthony, to mention but three notable acquittals. In fact, Wikipedia has an entire category of "People acquitted of murder" which presently has 158 entries.  It would not be appropriate or encyclopedic to try and hush up all acquittals, any more than to stifle coverage of notable trials and crimes
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)