Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Jennifer Daugherty (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. postdlf (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Murder of Jennifer Daugherty
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. No lasting effects or national/global scope.

In the previous AfD, a few people said it was too soon to tell whether this was notable or not. But now that the trial is finished, there hasn't been anything that suggests this is more than just murder. Transcendence (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete this is just a news article there is no attempt at encyclopaedic analyse in the article and cant find any sources providing any.  LGA talk  edits   09:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 02:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Delete Horrible story, but not an encyclopedic event per WP:NOTNEWS. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, persistent coverage for years, meaning this is not a routine event, thus passing notability guidelines. No clear advantage to readers or the encyclopedia in removing well sourced, policy compliant information. -- cyclopia speak! 20:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - per persistent coverage.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  23:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Both notable and persistent.  A good article could be written about this, and there's plenty of sources available. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep this is not routine news. Particularly atrocious murders do remain of permanent public interest. &#39;DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.