Deletion of Emily Sander

Comment: Eventually it will have to be deleted anyway, and probably sooner rather than later. #MEMORIAL|Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Blanchardb
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per  and #NEWS. Although having a brief appearance in the news, the subject is not encyclopedic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:NOT)

Comment: the verifiability thing is obviously a non-issue and I do believe this person is notable per  guidelines
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: I couldn't find the article, it appears to have been replaced with a |breaking news story/|memorial
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:MEMORIAL)

Comment: The murdered individual was not notable prior to her unfortunate death and fails . Delete per #NEWS. Delete because Wikipedia is not a memorial site for the unfortunate deaths of young people. A brief flurry of news articles following a violent crime  clearly shows that the crime is newsworthy but not necessarily that it has the notability needed to justify a permanent place in an encyclopedia. In any event, articles such as this should be titles "Murder of Emily Sanders" because it is the crime which has the news coverage, not the 18 year old woman. Before her death she was clearly not notable as a nude model
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:NOT)

Comment: Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline|general notability guideline states thatA '''topic''' is ''presumed'' to be notable if it has received significant coverage in Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources that are Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources|independent of the subject.The extensive media coverage of Emily Sander in multiple reliable sources cited in Emily_Sander#Notes clearly establishes a presumption of the notability of this person pursuant to the criteria established in the Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline|general notability guideline.  While #MEMORIAL is often misinterpreted to imply that "subjects whose notability is derived solely from the manner of their deaths are not notable for Wikipedia's purposes", the plain language of #MEMORIAL clarifies its purposeWikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be Wikipedia:Notability (people)|notable besides being fondly remembered.Thus, #MEMORIAL is a mere restatement of the applicability of Wikipedia's notability guidelines to deceased subjects, and does actually furnish independent grounds for deletion.  #NEWS has also been advanced as an argument for deletion.  Whatever the merits of ever raising #NEWS in any deletion discussion without claiming serious  issues#NEWS was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not&diff=prev&oldid=134171531 added to  during the controversy surrounding the events considered in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff, admonishes editors to "keep in mind the harm our work might cause", and advises that "While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news."  The extent to which #NEWS ''ever'' applies to ''any'' articles other than biographies of living persons that present a substantial risk of causing serious embarrassment, humiliation, or other harm to their subjects is therefore doubtful.  Archetypical of the sort of article that clearly qualifies for deletion under WP#NOT:NEWS would be a biography of a person whose sole claim to notability is an arrest for driving while intoxicated, where the event was only covered in two local newspapers., #NEWS clearly does not furnish a valid rationale for deletion here.  Indeed, #NEWS expressly states that "topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial"; the massive media coverage of Emily Sander cited in Emily_Sander#Notes would therefore suggest that this person is, indeed, an "encyclopedic subject". The purely subjective assertions of non-notability advanced by editors supporting deletion of this article fail to outweigh the presumption of notability established via the Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline|general notability guideline through objective evidence
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:BLP||WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:NOT)

Comment: OT#NEWS|Wikipedia is ''not'' a news source. This would be appropriate for Wikinews, but not for here. Nothing that shows the ''person'' is notable (the case may not even be notable as there is no evidence it caused any major changes in existing policies). The sources are about the ''case'', not the ''person''; |notability is not inherited
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: I can see both perspectives, but this is maybe covered by #NEWS: "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events... Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right." I think only the loosest assessments of "historical notability" could sway for inclusion here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)