Deletion of Patrick Knight (2nd nomination)

Comment: I would just say that in 16 months, the page hasn't been improved.  Most importantly, I think #NEWS and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information very much apply in this case
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Perhaps Scott Peterson was more of a household name, but the basic facts for both murderers are the same:  Each was a murderer, sentenced to death, whose trial, while not legally significant, was heavily covered in the news. The degree to which it was covered is a somewhat subjective decision on your part, Talmage. But I will not actually nominate the Scott Peterson article for deletion because I know that people will cite the same things you did just now as a reason for keeping, and likely accuse me of . It's a shame that a double standard such as that would exist if and when the Patrick Knight article is deleted and the Scott Peterson article stays -- but I'm not here to stir up trouble, just to offer my thoughts. I've presented my explanation of why this article ought to be kept thoroughly, and I truly have no more to say on the subject.  Therefore, I will extricate myself from this discussion and leave the rest to other users who wish to post their opinions, and to the administrator who will decide whether or not to delete. I appreciate the civil discussion, everyone
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: Perhaps I would be accused of , but wrongfully so, I think. My goal would not be to make a point; it would be to make sure that articles are not held to different standards unfairly after being nominated for deletion. Surely you would not say that articles should be held to double standards unfairly
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)