The result of the debate was keep. Looks like there might be some consensus to merge into one article, and I'll leave that to the editors interested in the article, but at the very least the consensus here is to keep the info. — Cleared as filed. 00:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete well-written and touching articles about two murder victims and their killer. That said, they're not encyclopedic, at least not based on what's written here. Nothing to indicate that the case broke new ground in the law, in the use of evidence, or to cause a law to be passed, all of which would certainly cause the articles to be encyclopedic. The event was certainly newsworthy, but it is simply not encyclopedic. Outside immediate friends and family, they simply will not be remembered becaused these deaths, as tragic as they were, had no impact on the wider community. Wikipedia is not a repository of memorials. Caerwine 21:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Looks like there might be some consensus to merge into one article, and I'll leave that to the editors interested in the article, but at the very least the consensus here is to keep the info. — Cleared as filed. 00:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete well-written and touching articles about two murder victims and their killer. That said, they're not encyclopedic, at least not based on what's written here. Nothing to indicate that the case broke new ground in the law, in the use of evidence, or to cause a law to be passed, all of which would certainly cause the articles to be encyclopedic. The event was certainly newsworthy, but it is simply not encyclopedic. Outside immediate friends and family, they simply will not be remembered becaused these deaths, as tragic as they were, had no impact on the wider community. Wikipedia is not a repository of memorials. Caerwine 21:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC) reply