Deletion of Patrick Knight

Comment: I disagree with your premise that the story is notable now.  My point was that deletion would likely prevail in the future because many of the people recommending that the article remain do so because of recent media blurbs.  However Wikipedia is not a newspaper (#NEWS).  Once the dust settles I believe the AfD request will be seen more objectively since it will be easier to put the subject's relevance into proper perspective
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: The crime and court case had no significant impact; they raised no significant questions, are not addressed in law journals, and had only minimal coverage at the time.  Death row convicts have no inherent claim to notability.  Thus, the only "claim" to notability is a death-row grandstanding event that didn't actually happen.  Media coverage or not, I'm simply unable to see how  can be stretched to include someone known for ''not'' telling a joke
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: As  asserts, covering his death as part of a wider article on the death penalty in the US would be better. Just because he made it on the Recent Deaths list does not mean that there should be a separate article about him per my above arguments
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: WP:WAX|Other stuff exists is not a valid reason for keeping an article. Routine murder victims are also not newsworthy, and sevveral memorial articles or True Crime Reports about them are deleted every week despite being in news reports. A murderer got convicted and executed. This is not a landmark case, and no evidence shows effects on society or culture or the legal system, or which were noted by commentators, playrights, sociologists, beyond simple news coverage. Newsworthy but not encyclopedic.  Wikipedia is #NEWS|not a tabloid newspaper or a crime blog, and things that are newsworthy, or "water-cooler stories" like the condemned man asking for a good joke to tell as his last words, are of only transitory interest
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Essays may be cited in deletion debates. Essays become guidelines by this way, because it eventually may show that the essay reflects consensus and practice. There is no formal procedure for an essay becoming a guideline, such as a vote or ratification by some legislative body. It is also not a valid reason for keeping an ephemeral article, as I said. #NEWS is, however policy "News reports. Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to appropriately contextualize events. Additionally, extant articles should not carry daily reports of things such as game summaries of sporting events or musical performances by a band or group unless the events themselves are noteworthy. Timely news articles, however, are welcome on our sister project Wikinews
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: I am not taking a stand for or against the death penalty, and I could care less about the person in the article itself, but in terms of notability, he absolutely passes .  For the people who are trying to cite OT#NEWS, please read it carefully...it says ''does not automatically qualify''.  That means it does not ''exclude'' someone because they were in the news for a short period, but rather does not automatically justify someone being ''included''.  Furthermore, there is sufficient sources for him to pass notability requirements, and the article should be kept
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NOT)

Comment: We have been over this before today but okay. The only source given that does not concern the internet fame part is a link to Amnesty International. That article is neither impartial nor reliable given the clear agenda of Amnesty International in this case. In addition to that you have not been able to provide any further reliable sources as I discussed above. Furthermore  supercedes  in this case so notability is not only a matter of satisfying  but also of satisfying  in particular the part of it I pasted above
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:N||WP:N||WP:BLP)

Comment: We don't keep articles |for that reason
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS)

Comment: Unfortunately, if murder victims are notable because their deaths have been covered by multiple reliable sources, then so is he. Passes  easily
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: I was citing  which in turn cites #NEWS. What  says is that brief press coverage does not in it self warrant an individual article.  also applies in that regard. I would support merging parts of it (not the blantantly POV parts) into a more general article on capital punishment in the US. There is an ArbCom case about this at the moment, the majority of the arbitrators are favoring a more strict approach towards these biographies based on internet fame
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:NOT||WP:BLP||WP:UNDUE)