Deletion of Death of Jenni-Lyn Watson

Comment: notable case. heard alot about it. it has reached beyond the |general notability requirements. --Special:Contributions/195.84.41.1|195.84.41.1
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per .  For an event to be notable it is required to have lasting coverage extending significantly beyond the event, or be a significant and well-discussed precursor to or result of another notable event
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Per ote. Unfortunate and tragic events like this happen all to often. With a body already found and an alleged murderer charged in such a short time, the only notability would be the swiftness the body was found and, while tragic, there was no notability otherwise. Comparing this case to Elizabeth Smart is definitely wrong. She was missing for how many years, turns up alive and brainwashed and her kidnappers alive and charged. I noticed there is already an addition into the missing white woman syndrome page. It should be updated when and if a conviction is made. This is not a  and we have no current way to show notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: The murder of any caucasian woman may be related to Missing white woman syndrome , so that is not any reason to keep this.  Per , we can't keep it based on the possibility it might get notable.  It seems a textbook case of  and , and we don't do that here. If the situation warrants restoration sometime later, so be it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:MEMORIAL||WP:NEWS)

Comment: The case is receiving a lot of press coverage, but |persistence is not yet clear
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PERSISTENCE)

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

Comment: Per otability (events): ''Editors should bear in mind recentism, the tendency for new and current matters to seem more important than they might seem in a few years time. Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance. News organizations have criteria for content, i.e. news values, that differ from the criteria used by Wikipedia and encyclopedias generally. A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article.''  Thus, even coverage is not necessarily enough to meet notability.  The question is:  a few years from now, is this event still sufficiently notable.  I don't mean to speak on anyone's behalf, but I think that this guidelines sums up the concensus of the people weighing in on the delete side of this argument
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: WP:NOTMEMORIAL not obituary  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: whilst I'm probably just sounding like an echo, as above editors have mentioned this article really isn't suitable for inclusion, Wikipedia is not a |memorial or |news service. The news coverage is, from an objective emotion-free point of view, not more than a trivial mention as television and print news outlets tend to publicize incidents such as this. This coverage does not establish notability and we |cannot predict whether there will be ongoing or new coverage that will establish long-term notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:MEMORIAL||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:CRYSTAL)