Deletion of Disappearance of Joanna Yeates

Comment: Massive amounts of coverage well beyond anything  covers (that's a prohibition of basing articles on ''routine'' coverage; wall-to-wall coverage of this disappearance and murder investigation are not "routine"). If you actually read  you'll find it advises against early deletion nominations, and points out that recent events are not automatically non-notable (that would be a perverse position). If the coverage dies away you can consider alternatives like a selective merge to List of unsolved murders in the United Kingdom, but this mania for nominating high-profile investigations has to stop. It's ridiculous, you make Wikipedia a laughing stock by doing this
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:EVENT)

Comment: Sure, maybe it'll be enduringly notable, but two days after it happened, we have no way of knowing. "Keep" votes that cite coverage in reliable sources don't understand what  means. Delete without prejudice to re-creation if it remains notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per pointless reasons against deletion given on talk page. So what if it is on the headlines? So what if you don't like the |policy? I don't think the disappeareance of a nobody should be on the encyclopedia, at least not until the complete case is '''''known'''''. Do we have an article on the recent Cecilia Julio Bolados murder and disappeareance? Or the massive killings by a psychopath in Alto Hospicio? Or the 1998 Jorge Matute Johns Case? No guys. Come on. Special:Contributions/El Muñeco Shakes It Up, Baby|Diego Grez (EMSIUB
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: There is nothing remarkable about this local case. Its the usual '''Missing white woman syndrome''', and that's all. Wikipedia should not stoop to the level of #NEWS|breathless reporting on such events
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Seems like there's been a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malcolmxl5&diff=prev&oldid=405225885 wee http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lord_Roem&diff=prev&oldid=405216071 bit of |canvassing going on here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Canvassing (WP:CANVASS)

Comment: I've read the arguments here and find the keep arguments more convincing.  lists examples like "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia" as things not to be included in Wikipedia. I'd leave it for now: if it turns out that the story isn't as important in a few months, it can be deleted then
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: It's been quite a tragic death I know, and there are plenty of appropriate and relevant citations. Maybe that's why some people want this kept. But there is a reason why I'd prefer to delete it: It is a death of a non-notable person as per , and when I tried to create Death of Alize Mirza|this article, it got prodded per  and eventually got deleted. However, I'm absolutely sure that there is an article on Wikinews based on this
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Clearly more than routine coverage for anyone who's actually bothered to read 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: So far it is not clear at all whether this case is going to have historic significance. Of course murder cases are in the news, as is the weather, the local soccer results, and a lot of other things that |do not belong into an ecyclopedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Now this has become a murder investigation it has achieved greater notability. However, we may have to look at it again in a few weeks as more information becomes available. If it turns out she knew her killer then it may not become a significant case in the long run, but if it turns out to be linked to other crimes (as mentioned in the article) then it will have significance and we'll probably end up merging the relevant information. Also, I know |other stuff exists but I can think of other crimes which received much less attention and about which Wikipedia has articles
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: First, using  to have an argument/discussion in an AFD is very hard.  I strongly recommend using  instead, since it goes into considerably greater detail.  The key thing that I get out of the event notability guidelines is that many news sources reporting the same thing about an event does not lead it to be notable.  It needs lasting effects, depth (not breadth) of coverage, scope, duration, or something else to distinguish it to be included in an encyclopedia, and not just in a news source.  I don't see any of those things in this event, and I have no reason to think that any of them are particularly likely
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:EVENT)

Comment: as per Gnfnrf good comments,  applies here. this happened recently so there is no surprise there is recent media coverage. if it gets coverage 6 months from now then it may qualify for an article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT)