Deletion of Killing of Dave Oren Ward

Comment: This is an article based on poorly-sourced negative content about a living, non-notable person, and as such, that content must be deleted if higher-quality sourcing is not available.  calls quite forcefully for negative BLP content to be handled with extreme care; the expectation is that sourcing for such articles, especially as regards the negative aspects, must be impeccable. Instead, this article presents as its sources: an obituary for Ward (which confirms that Ward was stabbed and died, nothing else wrt the crime being notable or the BLP subject being involved), a New York Times CV of Ward (the entire content of which is four film names), a New York Times film review (which mentions Ward's name once, passingly noting he was "crew" on the film), and an article from The Guardian which appears to be a dramatization of the killing.Of these, the Guardian article is the only one which approaches a substantive mention of the Ward's death, and it relies heavily on apparent personal opinion and gossipy dramatization. Written largely in the present tense, as though the author is at the scene, the tone is deliberately breathless and one-sided, rendering it, as {{u|Risker}} phrases it, more of a human-interest piece than a reliable source. For example
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: Per Fluffernutter. Minor event with no encyclopaedic significance. Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT)

Comment: Good lord, even {{U|Neptune&#39;s Trident}} was blocked for SOCKing! I still stand by my statement below (which it seems few have read entirely), but being an Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians|Inclusionist only goes so far.The article is sourced and covered by several Wikipedia projects. It started as a pair of BLP articles that were the target of outright  that involved multiple instances of ry and a ridiculous amount of posturing over what should or should not be Notable on Wikipedia. I find the fact that so much effort has gone into deleting this information, is reason to be suspect
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CENSORSHIP||WP:SOCKPUPPET)

Comment: per nom, I agree with {{user|Risker}}. Some of the article is covered by citations from reliable sources, but even if |verifiability could be met, I agree with previous arguments that it is not relevant enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Sources contribute to establish, but do not guarantee |notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:N)