Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Saucedo

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Saucedo

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

BLP article of an accused criminal which fails to meet WP:PERPETRATOR in any form. None of the victims are renowned, and no motivation has been established, so even if subject were convicted (and the trial isn't until next year), he would not qualify for a BLP. Article has been a magnet for heinous BLP violation, and we had to scrape out a lot of claims that he did the crimes of which he has not been convicted as well as a lot of material sourced to court filings. No other source of notability has been suggested for the subject, nor is any quickly found. Google search finds significant coverage for him only as the suspect (or hits that are clearly for other people of similar name), newspapers.com search of Arizona papers from the year of his birth to the year before his arrest find nothing, whether or not his middle name is included. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Arizona. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean we could draftify until Feb 2024 when the trial starts, but that's a few months way. I was going to say GNG is met, but PERP says not to make an article until the conviction. Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as this completely violates BLP given the lack of an extant conviction, and as pointed out likely would fail as well even if a conviction occurs. The set of killings seems notable enough to be an article, which seems like the obvious next step here, necessarily stripping out all the biographical information on his suspect until/unless it becomes notable in the future. WilsonP NYC (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This used to be a different article. It was not always a BLP. See the edit history, or my !vote below. There are different methods to reverting and improving a previous version. I hope you'll be open to those. I also support deletion as one option to clear the slate. But a previous version might as well be the basis of a non-BLP in an article space about the event. JFHJr (㊟) 04:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Sorry for not being as clear as I could be. The article, which is now in the name of a living person, seems like it can’t continue to exist. I agree that much of the content is in fact worthy of being an article. I said that above sort of but could have been clearer about what I was voting for. If there’s a better way to officially register that as a vote I am all ears. Like a vote to clear and rename or something. WilsonP NYC (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm basically for that. A rename and gutted history. JFHJr (㊟) 01:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to something like Maryvale Street Shootings. Fact is that in a small area, 12 people were shot (9 fatally) over 10 months with no connection other than MO and description of assailant. That by me is notable. Even if "(n)one of the victims are renowned". Or notable. Plutonium27 (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be ok with a move as described. Oaktree b (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if moved (and I'm not saying I support it), article would have to be scrubbed of most or all of the information about the current subject, which makes up the bulk. Having seen versions of the article that pre-date the naming of the suspect and the change to make it an article about the suspect, it looks a lot like WP:NOTNEWS matter to me. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think User:NatGertler needs to step back from this article (and its fate) entirely. Correcting an article with fake citations, and named for a suspect still on remand 6 years later can engender frustration, I'm sure. What would be the objection to a new editor stripping it back under a new name and keeping an eye on as the case progresses (I'll do it, with some technical help)? I've no irons in this fire at all except that I would like to believe that it has not yet come to pass that multiple deaths are no longer notable when happening to the non-renowned in shitty neighbourhoods. Plutonium27 (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So because I've noted the BLP problems with the article in the past... I should be excluded from expressing concern over BLP issues in the future? That's curious logic at best. No, I don't feel any need from continuing to note problems. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If moved, would you also support a deep revert? How about WP:OVERSIGHT for all the intervening versions? It would look like a gaping maw in the edit history. If it's deleted (with redirects) as a BLP, I would support starting a fresh article under its old name, with a previous version antedating the BLP vios. JFHJr (㊟) 04:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did the revert. It's not perfect. But it brings this article closer to BLP compliance. JFHJr (㊟) 04:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Move with oversight to last WP:BLP compliant version. This version might be close, or not deep enough, but okay to work with. Oversight on so many intervening edits is ugly. This article cannot stand today as a BLP (see WP:PERPETRATOR and related policies and guidelines). The events are notable, and deserve an edit history clean of continuous and repeated BLP violations. This problem will continue through the trial process. This page could use some protection, if the closing admin is so inclined. JFHJr (㊟) 03:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retitle or Delete At the very least, this page shouldn't be named after Aaron Saucedo. PickleG13 (talk)

@PickleG13 I highly agree it should be retitled to 2015-2016 Maryvale Street Shootings or something like that...

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.