Deletion of Disappearance and murder of Jessie Davis

Comment: Maybe I'm not reading the  closely enough, but I just can't imagine a situation where this woman isn't notable. It seems as though some folks who oppose this article's existence may be a little too concerned about an editorial decision concerning Missing White Woman Syndrome. Using the argument that this article raises questions about whether it should be in WikiNews brings up other questions about whether some are motivated to strike this article from Wikipedia because they think it gives an unfair syndrome credence. That's wrong. This is clearly notable, for whatever reason the media has decided to blow up their coverage about it. It's not for Wikipedia editors to decide whether an article here lends credibility to a very poorly understood and little researched "syndrome
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Why is this topic being debated again?  Didn't we already have this very same discussion when the article was simply entitled "Jessie Davis"?  In any event, I agree with what Night Gyr says above.  The question presented is whether or not this event is notable.  So ... 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 four criteria is not being satisfied
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:notability||WP:notability||WP:notability)

Comment: Notability not established per . WP is for a global audience. This page is full of comments making the assumption that American public = entire world. This might be newsworthy in NA, but elsewhere? Should we all start including local news in WP
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: IMHO the arguments for deletion far outweigh the arguments for keeping. A plethora of sources (news media in this particular case) is an '''indication''' of notability, '''not proof''' of it. That this has had long-standing news coverage |simply means that it is newsworthy and puts it on a par with every other sensationalist murder that has ever happened. This is not encyclopedia material and is better suited to Wikinews. Wikipedia is not a news archive
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: I agree that it is helpful to have all information on this case collected into a single, well-referenced article, rather than scattered across several, but I still think that it would be more appropriate to host information on this case on Wikinews. I just think that the standard of notability needs to be something more lasting than only widespread media coverage, because many topics which make the news at local, national, or international levels don't get articles. Looking at List of victims of the Columbine High School massacre, only two of the people killed have their own articles, both of whom have had books written about them. The Reena Virk and JonBenet Ramsay murders have each been the subject of a book and are still being discussed 10 years later. However, #CBALL|Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so I don't think that we can make any determinations about the notability of a case that's currently less than a month old. I think we should wait and see how this case develops, and, if after a couple of months, it does not/no longer meets the basic requirements of notability, we can renominate it for AfD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: It is sad that a missing woman turned up murdered, and that she was pregnant. 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. Since #NEWS|Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and it is not "MissingWhiteWomanPedia" 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: Press coverage ''does'' make notability -- the definition of notability at  says so
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: per otability and specificially the "Notability is not temporary" section thereof. This article was created prior to notability being assured and is therefore not ripe for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Leaving the article and ''hoping'' for notability is speculative |crystal ball gazing. If the coverage continues through the trial phase, the quality of the coverage increases, and something develops that leads to being able to say a single new thing about the topics of murder, domestic violence, missing white woman syndrome, or any other notable topic, we will have notability and a reason for there to be an article on this topic here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:CRYSTAL)