Deletion of Jessie Davis

Comment: Yeah, Wikipedia isn't a news source, but this is very notable. While I realize that most murder victims aren't kept here, this is notable, ''and'' it doesn't fail  because it is all encyclopedic content that can, will, and is possibly already covered by independent |reliable sources. I live in Canton, Ohio, and this is very notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:MEMORIAL||WP:RS)

Comment: She falls under notability standards, but many of the arguments here are indeed raising a good point: she is only notable for being a murder victim by her SO's own hand and being found days later.  So her case isn't all that unusual, but even then, ''unusual'' is not unto itself a criteria for inclusion.  My own thought is that, since she's well covered, it ''is'' |notable enough for our standards and therefore should be kept.  I say "weak" though, on account that there's not much to work with right now - but then again, it is still a current event.  A side note, her family has my condolences
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: It is sad that a missing  woman turned up murdered, and that she was pregnant, and that perhaps she made an unfortunate choice as to the father of her children. But she was eminently non-notable before being murdered, and Wikipedia is neither a memorial site to write a nice article about people who got murdered, or a true crime story archive, or a newspaper. There is nothing encyclopedic about some non-notable person disappearing and being found dead. It happens millions of times a year. Per #NEWS|Wikipedia is not a newspaper this may be deleted even though she was a missing white woman who gained some coverage on the news channels, and even though the story appeared in several newspapers. There is also the  consideration for her surviving 2 year old who may have witnessed the crime
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:BLP)

Comment: Is the Jessie Davis murder case "notable"?  Per : "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."  ...  So, (1) significant coverage? yes; (2) sources? yes; (3) reliable? yes; and (4) independent of the subject? yes.  Since the Jessie Davis murder case satisfies all four of the notability guidelines, what exactly is in dispute here?   further defines these four criteria as: (1) "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive. (2) "Sources" should be secondary sources or otherwise provide objective evidence of notability. The number needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred. (3) "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability. (4) "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.  Furthermore,  states: "Satisfying this presumption of notability indicates a particular topic is worthy of notice, and may be included in the encyclopedia as a stand-alone article."  So, once again ... what is in dispute here?  Which of these 4 criteria is ''not'' being satisfied
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:notability||WP:notability||WP:notability)

Comment: I have been '''Extremely''' |bold here, and restructured, merged, and retitled the article to be about the event, rather than have any pretense of being a biography.  It is now at Disappearance and murder of Jessie Davis, and it includes descriptions of all the facts of the case, though more information on the scope of the media attention needs to be added, and the redundant article on the boyfriend has been merged in.  I'd like to ask that everyone who was opposed to this for being a 'biography of a non notable person' consider it as what it really is, a documentation of a notable event
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Be bold (WP:BOLD)

Comment: Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a memorial.  There is no long-term notability, and doesn't rise above any of the other missing or murdered persons.  Fails  and .  Never fails to amaze me how many people want to keep articles liek this "just because
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:N)