Deletion of Diane Schuler

Comment: just another DUI. If historical notability crops up that passes #NEWS, fine, but there's nothing here that makes it stand out
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per Themfromspace. This is a clear clase of #NEWS
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per #NEWS.  This is a sad event, but its not likely to have any longstanding notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: not because the incident was especially tragic, but because it was especially ''weird'' and as a result, has received tons of press and public attention, much more than the average fatal collision. The argument that the article should be deleted for having ''too much detail'' is ridiculous, as that's a) wholly a content dispute and b) goes to bolster the incident's notability, since these details would not have been reported if a wide number of media sources didn't think them of interest to the public. (The accusation that the timeline was "lifted" from the Journal-News website is both false and inexplicable; the timeline was built gradually and currently cites at least fourteen different sources.) The argument that it should be deleted because reporting on the incident has tapered off, even allowing the benefit of the doubt that that's a true assessment, is still baffling, but I would hope a link to |Notability Is Not Temporary resolves that. Coverage of this incident was not limited to a one-time burst of reports that "an accident happened", but has extended to new reporting whenever a new development has arisen in the investigation of the event
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP)