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. WP:BEFORE reveals stories well into 2005 and one into 2011. The arguments of those in favour of keep and WP:N/CA remain supported while the arguments against have not changed, if not weakened, since the last AfD. (non-admin closure) Mkdw^talk 03:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Zamora[edit]

Diane Zamora (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)

BLP of a person convicted for murder which appears to be a classic case of only being notable for one event. Not a significant case in terms of law. Limited press coverage. No long-term press interest.

I stubbed this article back because it was written from an obviously slanted point of view and lacked references for almost all of the claims made. It may be worthwhile to look through the history before deciding to keep or delete this article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep: The article needs to be rewritten with inline references, but there is absolutely no question of notability. It was a very high profile case back in the late 90's. However whatever (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep: Agreed, absolutely no question of notability. Multiple mass media adaptations of the story, including ones not mentioned in the current version of the article (such as the Snapped adaptation). Nominator gives same justification as the failed previous AFD nomination, which was decided in favor of "keep", with no indication that anything has changed from the previous nomination that this should be decided any differently. "No long-term press interest"? The Dateline interview mentioned in the article and a TV series adaptation, both a decade later, don't count? And if that was supposed to mean no current press interest, that's a bad argument for deletion. Of course there's no current press interest, because the press reports current news. By that argument, since today's newspaper isn't currently covering crimes that occurred in the 1990s, all articles on crimes in the 1990s should be deleted. —Lowellian (reply) 19:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Paris1127 (talk) 08:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2013 (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.