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 delete. → Call me Hahc21 02:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths of Lawrence and Glenna Shapiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sad though it is, this seems to be "just another murder". I don't see how this case is any more notable than the thousands of murders that occur in the USA every year. The case seems to be ongoing, and there is substantial and I suspect unwarranted use of primary sources that may severely impinge on WP:BLP – court evidence etc whose use in these articles may need to be examined by someone with more US legal knowledge than yours truly. Most of the article is the almost exclusive effort of an IP editor, who I suspect may be somewhat connected to one or more of the victims, and it's highly likely this was meant to be a shrine of justice to the victims – there was a biography section that I have now excised.  Ohc ^¡digame! 09:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

user confusus has now been following me around trying to deleberately cause trouble this is obvious HARASSMENT and can have no other purpose - the article in question refers to the a serial killer in Arizona who amoung his victims includes the past president of several medical establishments - SHAM ON YOU confusus that a war over your erroreous use of date linking in INSTRISICALLY DATE-ORIENTED articles should escalte to your own personal vendete whereby you would attempt to bring dishounor to all those who tirelessly work on wiki--68.231.15.56 (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Neither a notable nor a high-profile crime, fails WP:N/CA. The excessive detail about the deceased is bordering on WP:MEMORIAL. WWGB (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a classic example of what NOT NEWS was intended for. It's a local story, There's no broader interest. Thee's nothing exceptional, or even particularly sensational it's written with absurdly excess detail for an encyclopedia. This is what newspapers are for, and they do it well. I have often opposed deletions under NOT NEWS for subjects where there is any degree of lasting or general interest or significance, but this is not one of them. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Note about the excess biographical details: yes, the nominator removed it, but it has been restored by the page creator, 68.231.15.56.[1] Incidentally they also removed the afd template,[2] for which I've warned them. Bishonen | talk 10:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. I'm sorry, but this is a local story with insufficient evidence of national or international coverage (WP:GEOSCOPE). The article itself rather confirms this by stating "The Shapiros' homicide was a shock to the Phoenix metropolitan community ...". The claim of "widespread attention in the national press" does not hold up: references to cbsnews.com and foxnews.com are simply repackaged local and agency reports. – Wdchk (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete does not meet WP:VICTIM. LibStar (talk) 11:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, subject to re-creation if the convictions are appealed and overturned, or the case otherwise receives significant legal scholarship/commentary, case law, or statutory responses. This was a shocking, horrible murder. However, the news was entirely local, with the exception of concurrent Fox News and WCBS-TV stories in 2012. Many of the sources from 2013 are primary, such as minutes of the Maricopa County courts. There are virtually no secondary sources about the court case. WP:VICTIM requires "persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role", which is missing here. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC) ... P.S. If even one co-defendant's conviction is overturned, the current article is practicially screaming "BLP violation!" Bearian (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.