Deletion of Disappearance and murder of Jessie Davis

Comment: the nominator has not made the case for deletion; it is certainly meets ; it is way beyond the typical murder which receives little press other than locally.  I am usually a big proponent of deleting wikipoliceblotter junk.  However, the amount of press coverage and media whoopla over this is reminiscent of Laci Peterson case.  I particularly do not agree with the recency of the events as a reason to delete doesn't "wiki" mean "quick" as in we quickly react to current events so that our encyclopedia is as up-to-date as possible - we even have a template and a section for current events on our main page!  As a tool against recency, WP may decide to have a waiting period for things to be written about - don't think it's ever been seriously discussed - but this is not the place or time to enforce such nonexistent guideline
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: There are numerous statements being made here that the topic is not notable, but no one can say ''why'' it doesn't meet |our guideline on the subject.  This is a high-profile murder case, and high profile criminal cases all have ''unique'' facts of the case, which this article outlines.  All of the arguments being made against it here are a matter of subjective distaste.  I think the case has been disproportionately covered in the media relative to its importance, but it's not appropriate to exclude it entirely.  We're being entirely appropriate by presenting a neutral description of the pertinent facts of the case.  What we have here is anti-recentism, where the notability of present events is being dismissed in ignorance of guidelines and policy, in favor of some idea that coverage of current events is automatically inappropriate news.  We're not news, and the article is not a news report, it's an encyclopedic summary of the facts of a case with wide media coverage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)