Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leno and Rosemary LaBianca

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 redirect to Charles_Manson#LaBianca_murders. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leno and Rosemary LaBianca

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

This is a similar case to the one discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abigail Folger: victims of Manson Family who are notable only for being victims, thus failing WP:CRIME ("A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person."). What little content is present in this un-footnoted article should be merged to Charles_Manson#LaBianca_murders, through I don't think, frankly, there is anything to merge, as the article has no notable content not covered in the parent article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as proposed. I agree there is nothing in this article worth merging; it has no Reliable Sources, and some of the information in the article is frankly wrong. I have recommended that there be a separate article for "Tate murders" because there is so much information about them, but I don't think a separate "LaBianca murders" article is justified. --MelanieN (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as proposed, per MelanieN and the nominator. Zero evidence of notability apart from having been murdered by an (in)famous person.

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.