Deletion of Murder of Joseph Didier (2nd nomination)

Comment: no murder wshould be considered "unnotable" especialy when tere are hundreds of sources available proving that this alleged killing was notable. the graphic and grotsuque nature of the crime also makie it notable and gaurantee that is hsould be taken into consieration by many as being notable and erifiability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: I found it difficult to navigate through the fine points under , because, as written it is difficult to see if this person has or has not met the Wikipedia definition of notability.  I took a look at otability (criminal acts), which, while not yet a policy, deals directly with this article, and does so in a way that I think is wise.  If you look under victims otability (criminal acts)#Victims, it states that a victim of a crime in and of itself does not meet notability, even if they are the subject of a multitude of articles.  I suspect that someone is writing this policy to address this issue.  So, even if this article survives AFD, it may one day be in violation of , and get deleted anyhow.  My personal opinion is that it does not meet the guidelines to meet encyclopedic notability, even if there is some current loophole that might somehow let it on here .... for the moment
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:N||WP:N||WP:N)

Comment: per DCEdwards and #NEWS
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: The article is in better shape than the previous versions but notability is still not established. Almost all the references are to the local newspaper Rockford Register Star and almost all of them occur only around the time of the disappearance/search/murder. Evidence of some wider national coverage is needed to demonstrate notability. Coverage should also be spread over a longer period of time than the time of the murder and the search, to avoid applicability of #NEWS. To quote from #NEWS:"Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own." If it is correct, as
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOT)

Comment: As far as I can see, ALL of the "Delete"s above are based on spurious reasoning and a simple statement that the subject is not notable. However, '''Notability is established by multiple, independent reliable sources, which this article has'''.  and  are established. There is no other reason to delete this other than , which is not a valid reason for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: as Smith Jones points out, this seems to be more about looking for loopholes in policy than the actual notability issue.  I will counter by referencing otability (criminal acts)#Notability of criminal acts.  This section directly addresses the crime versus victims or perps.  There is a specific suggestion here that (in the event of a recent crime) to go to Wikinews first, and wait for significant national coverage.  Since this is not a recent crime, there should already by significant national coverage ... which based on the article there does not appear to be.  Unfortunately, this is not yet official policy, though I am concerned that inclusion of an article like this opens the door for supporting an article on virtually any violent crime that is significantly covered in the local press of any municipality in the world, no matter how large or small
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)