Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Jennifer Dulos
In addition to my Keep vote above, I wanted to comment on some of the policies invoked in this discussion because I've found them to be commonly misunderstood.  does not require that the victim have a "large role in a historical event."  is concerned with whether the victim should have their own article, independent of the crime itself. Such a policy would be very relevant if the AfD was for Jennifer Dulos; but it's not.  is a more specific restatement of , which is another widely misunderstood policy. This does not address whether the crime should have an article; that's handled by . NCRIME states, in it's entirety, {{tq|Articles about criminal acts, particularly those that fall within the category of "breaking news", are frequently the subject of deletion discussions. As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources. The disappearance of a person would fall under this guideline if law enforcement agencies deemed it likely to have been caused by criminal conduct, regardless of whether a perpetrator is identified or charged. If a matter is deemed notable, and to be a likely crime, the article should remain even if it is subsequently found that no crime occurred (e.g., the Runaway bride case) since that would not make the matter less notable.}} I think this clearly meets NCRIME criteria as evidenced by abundant national-level coverage
— User:May, 13:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:CRIME||WP:CRIME||WP:BLP1E||WP:NCRIME (Wikipedia:Notability)