Deletion of Ron Goldman (2nd nomination)

Comment: nbsp; No argument for deletion.&nbsp; The  lede states, "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both."&nbsp; Does the nominator or anyone else see the word "deletion" there?&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E)

Comment: While this AfD does not meet any of the criteria outlined for a |speedy keep, Goldman is the subject of such extensive coverage that there is very little question, IMO, that this is a keep. I predict a virtual blizzard will close this case fairly soon. - SummerPhD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Speedy keep (WP:SK)

Comment: Why are we discussing ? I'd think  is more appropriate, given the murder was over 20 years ago. - SummerPhD
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:BIO1E)

Comment: WP is a tertiary source. We summarize secondary sources that are . There are plenty to summarize for this subject. Thus the article should exist
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: This is a ridiculous nomination.  clearly states that "we should generally avoid having an article on a person when '''each of three conditions''' is met." Not one, '''each'''. It's true that condition #1 is met. You could even make an argument that #2 is met, although that's up for debate. What's definitely not up for debate is that he doesn't, in any way, meet condition #3: "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." Obviously the event was massively significant, and his role was extremely well documented. As he was one of the people killed in the event, you tell me, was his role substantial
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)