The result was delete. The strongest arguments-based-on-policy made here were made with respect to WP:NOT (policy) and WP:EVENT (guideline). As a "matter of law" WP:EVENT is an intentional exception to (or, in an equivalent framing, a clarification taking precedence to) WP:GNG (guideline), and as such, I did not find arguments based on GNG to be as persuasive, particularly where it is in conflict with NOT.
As is often the case, the difficulty of the application of the WP:PERSISTENCE clause of EVENT, without the benefit of a time machine, was fairly noted. This is a difficulty raised most eloquently by a couple of the neutral participants. There is no simple solution to the problem of a priori application of PERSISTENCE, in the end, with continuing events, we are forced to rely on our best judgment and experience. --joe deckertalk to me 18:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It has been nearly two months since the last AfD was closed to allow time for potential evidence of non-routine coverage. Since the initial burst of media coverage, nothing more has happened to establish this event as one of lasting notability and so this article should be deleted per WP:NOT#NEWS. The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]