Deletion of Patrick Knight (3rd nomination)

Comment: I decided on keep. for this one. crimes in itselfs and criminals can be notable on there own. even if no groundbreaking law change or other event has occured. numerous evidence of that on Wikipedia.  hmmm.. wikipedia is filled with news.. so that doesnt really count in here. does infact pass 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:BIO)

Comment: as he doesn't pass . Also, I think we should remove Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Knight (police officer) from the box up there. Unless these are the same person (which I doubt), it is not useful to the discussion... not to mention comparing a (unpopular, admittedly) police officer with a convicted murderer
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CRIME)

Comment: Per . Fails  and specifically .He was not a notable person before the crime, and the motivation and method of the crime were not unusual. A murderer got convicted and executed. The life and death of the man, and the unfunny "joke" he delivered before execution have been largely forgotten. This is not a landmark case, and no evidence shows effects on society or culture or the legal system, or which were noted by commentators, playrights, sociologists, beyond simple routine news coverage. Newsworthy but not encyclopedic.  Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper or a crime blog, and things that are newsworthy are often not encyclopedic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:BIO||WP:CRIMINAL)