Deletion of Murder of Tessa Majors

Comment: per arguments by Levivich and Wikieditor19920. I acknowledge Bus stop's point that part of the added shock in this case is the perception that a new era of high-crime rates in the city has now begun. I would add that the suspects being of such young ages (13,14) brings a highly irregular element to this case (see 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill (WP:MILL)

Comment: The difference between this and any other murder, as is key with any event, is notability. Subject clearly meets . Tessa Majors murder has made national news since it occurred several months ago and developments on the case continue to make headlines. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/15/nyregion/tessa-majors-barnard-arrest.htmlhttps://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/16/nyregion/tessa-majors-barnard-arrest.htmlhttps://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/02/nyregion/tessa-majors-suspect-barnard-stabbing.htmlhttps://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/27/nyregion/tessa-majors-barnard-dna.htmlhttps://www.cnn.com/2020/02/15/us/tessa-majors-new-york-stabbing/index.html. A deletion discussion would likely have failed when the story broke in December, based on how it was seized on by reliable sources at that time
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCRIME)

Comment: per Levivich's comment regarding . As for the delete !votes that are directly or indirectly alluding to Missing white woman syndrome, keep in mind that we are not here to |right great wrongs. It's not our place to judge whether a particular event deserves media attention or not, we can only report on what has been published by reliable sources, and reliable sources have deemed this case notable enough to give it significant coverage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENTCRIT||WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS)

Comment: At some point, some teeth have to be put into , which other have noted is an actual policy, as opposed to notability guidelines. Missing white woman syndrome is a valid thing, and editors should be able to weigh sources that are simply piling upon one another in sensationalist fashion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: A good quality source says https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/16/nyregion/tessa-majors-barnard-arrest.html "Ms. Majors’s killing shocked the city, given that violent crime had fallen in recent years".  allows for the coverage of |"significant current events". I think the level of coverage in good quality sources suggests this should be considered a significant current event
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Crimes like this are bound to get a lot of coverage for a couple of weeks. This should not be used as a bypass for , rather  clarifies that in order to satisfy GNG requirements an event should have long lasting coverage
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:EVENT)

Comment: Statements like "if we had an article on every murder that occurred in the USA, we would have around 10,000 extra articles every year" and "there is absolutely nothing that shows why this murder is different from the murder that happened yesterday or before yesterday" erode deletion discussions and wastes everybody's time, because they comment on the topic, '''not''' its notability. Literally Monk-e-Mail|all Lady Gaga's meat dress|sorts Religious debates over the Harry Potter series|of nonsense gets covered on Wikipedia because there are '''professional sources''' talking about it. This is not debatable; the subject ENTIRELY MEETS notability guidelines and has surpassed being just 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: per SN54129 (
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per |policy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per , specifically clause 4 (emphasis mine): 'Routine kinds of news events (including ''most crimes, accidents, deaths'', celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – ''whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance''.' There is nothing currently about this story that gives it enduring significance. That it's been widely reported on is not relevant; a crime making the news does not confer inherent notability. There has to be something more. Something like the Lindbergh kidnapping makes the cut, not just because of who was kidnapped and the amount of books and material written about the case, but because the results of the act caused kidnapping to become a Federal offense. The disappearance and murder of Amber Hagerman, which was a motivation behind the creation of the Amber alert, doesn't even have her own article; it's a subsection of the Amber alert article. Currently there's nothing to indicate that this specific death even rises to the level of Hagerman's death. It's making the news cycle but . If that changes, the article can be restored, with proper emphasis on what about this event gave it enduring significance
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: This will be my last comment on the matter. A number of users have asserted that  unequivocally requires deletion because if it's ''in the news,'' it's somehow not notable.  simply means that it is ''not sufficient'' that a topic has received coverage in the news to indicate that it is notable. This most clearly applies to routine coverage, such as a tabloid or crimeblotter. That's simply the first step in the inquiry, not the last. What a user should then look to are |diversity and prominence of sources, |the level of coverage given, and |the period over which the incident continued to receive coverage in RS. I won't reiterate the arguments for those aspects of notability, because
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:DIVERSE||WP:DEPTH||WP:SUSTAINED)

Comment: murder"/"killing" happens in daily basis, clearly  applies here. We have deleted many articles with more much covarge from the media like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Najran shelling|here. Agree with Black Kite, "if we had an article on every murder that occurred in the USA, we would have around 10,000 extra articles every year
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)