Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Aiden Leos


 * 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 move to draft. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear consensus that this should not exist in article space based on its current state of notability, but the discussion has raised a sufficient possibility for additional noteworthy events to occur in connection with this subject to merit keeping a draft in case the addition of those events amounts to notability. BD2412 T 05:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Killing of Aiden Leos

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NPOV and also fails to demonstrate any notability from other cases of infanticides. Not every tragic case of infanticides merit articles. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Mentioning "infanticide" misses the entire point, completely. This is not a case of infanticide; it's a case of road-rage.  Per the Wikipedia article, ... Infanticide (or infant homicide) is the intentional killing of infants.  No one is alleging that the suspects went out to intentionally kill an infant.  The infant was killed -- presumably, unintentionally -- in a road-rage incident.  Why are you bringing up "infanticide" at all?  That has literally nothing to do with this case.  (I am not even sure if a 6-year-old qualifies as an "infant"?)      Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 9.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 10:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Aiden Leos was six years old and had no living time in which to build up a notability in himself. His killing is tragic, but not unlike a million other fatal injustices which do not qualify for their own "Killing of" articles. There's something of the crusade about all such event articles. In the early days, "The Killing of George Floyd" was a campaign signature for Black Lives Matter, but Leos' killing was not motivated by race or creed, it was just perpetrated by someone with an obvious and everyday mental illness. Ref (chew) (do) 12:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The article is about the killing of Leos (i.e., the event; not the individual). It's not a biography of his 6-year-old life.     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, and the perpetrator's "mental illness" -- as you call it -- is called "road rage" ... which is, with an incident of this scope, notable.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Insufficient information (the section about the shooting itself is literally blank), and infanticide, let alone shootings and road rage, occur far too often for one instance to have an article. AdoTang (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Improving an article is entirely different than deleting it. All articles start out as stubs; and grow over time.  When's the last time you heard of a 6-year-old boy in the USA getting shot/killed in a road rage event?  (And, as I mentioned in a comment above, this case has literally nothing to do with "infanticide".)   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. I wrote the article (stub).  It clearly passes GNG.  Quote, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".  Which this incident does.  It has received extensive coverage -- both national and international -- not to mention, a significant and notable $500,000 reward.      Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NCRIME. I took the liberty of looking up some sources. The Gun Violence Archive shows that, so far in 2021, over 19,000 people (not giving an exact number, as it unfortunately changes every day) have been killed by gun violence, and another 16,000+ injured. Of these, 131 of those killed were children between the ages of 0 and 11, as were 314 of those injured. In a typical year, somewhere between 600 and 700 kids of this age are killed by gun violence. To add onto that, 37% of "road rage" incidents involve a firearm, and over 200 murders in a 7-year study period have been associated with firearms. So what makes one of those 600 annual gun deaths notable, or one of these 200 road rage deaths? Has this shooting led to any mass protests, like George Floyd? Led to TV movies and a career change for his parents, like Adam Walsh? Led to new laws, like Rachel Hoffman? Was it even under mysterious circumstances, like JonBenet Ramsay? I don't believe so, for any of the above.  Kncny11  (shoot) 18:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Those statistics are totally irrelevant. Why are you mentioning them?  The fact is that this incident clearly passes GNG.  Quote, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".  Which this incident does.  It has received extensive coverage -- both national and international -- not to mention, a significant and notable $500,000 reward.  Is there a bona fide belief that this has not been followed in RS's?  As I said, both national and international.  This is not some "local news story".  How is this fact even in dispute?     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. GNG is a prerequisite, and can not be brought as the only reason to include myriads of WP:NOTNEWS articles: "Presumed means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." • Huferpad talk 09:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Let's see. This event has been covered by all of the following -- and many more -- reliable sources: (listed alphabetically)


 * 1) ABC
 * 2) Associated Press
 * 3) BBC - United Kingdom
 * 4) Boston Herald
 * 5) CBS
 * 6) Chicago Tribune
 * 7) CNBC
 * 8) CNN
 * 9) Court TV
 * 10) Daily Herald (United Kingdom) - United Kingdom
 * 11) Daily Mail - London
 * 12) Daily Mirror - United Kingdom
 * 13) Espanol News
 * 14) Federal News Network - Washington, D.C.
 * 15) Fox
 * 16) GoFundMe
 * 17) Good Morning America
 * 18) Hartford Courant - largest newspaper in Connecticut
 * 19) Hindustan Times - India
 * 20) Houston Chronicle
 * 21) Huffington Post
 * 22) Il Giorno - Italy
 * 23) Inside Edition
 * 24) Las Vegas Sun
 * 25) Los Angeles Times
 * 26) Miami Herald
 * 27) MSN
 * 28) NBC
 * 29) New York Daily News
 * 30) New York Post
 * 31) News Nation Now
 * 32) Newsweek
 * 33) Ohio News Times
 * 34) Oxygen (TV network)
 * 35) People (magazine)
 * 36) Reuters - an international news organization; one of the largest news agencies in the world
 * 37) Star Tribune - largest newspaper in Minnesota
 * 38) Telemundo
 * 39) The Hill (newspaper) - Washington, D.C.
 * 40) The Independent - Great Britain
 * 41) The New York Times - an American newspaper based in New York City with a worldwide readership; it has won 130 Pulitzer Prizes (the most of any newspaper); it has long been regarded within the industry as a national "newspaper of record"; it is ranked 18th in the world by circulation and 3rd in the U.S.A.
 * 42) The New Zealand Herald - New Zealand
 * 43) The Philadelphia Inquirer
 * 44) The Seattle Times
 * 45) The Sun (United Kingdom) - United Kingdom
 * 46) The Times - London
 * 47) The Times of India - the third-largest newspaper in India by circulation and the largest selling English-language daily in the world
 * 48) The Today Show
 * 49) The U.S. Sun
 * 50) The Washington Post - an American daily newspaper published in Washington, D.C.; it is the most-widely circulated newspaper within the Washington metropolitan area
 * 51) The Washington Times
 * 52) TMZ
 * 53) Toronto Star - Canada
 * 54) U.S. News & World Report
 * 55) United Press International (UPI) - an international news agency
 * 56) USA Today
 * 57) Yahoo!
 * 58) YouTube
 * 59) Additional, multiple national reliable sources
 * 60) Additional, multiple international reliable sources

All of the above -- and many more -- are reliable sources. And they are all, pretty much, the "big names" and the "heavy hitters" of reliable sources.

They include multiple reliable sources on a national level -- all 50 states, plus the DC -- and on an international level.

OK. So, we presume -- not guarantee -- notability.

That being said ... Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information.

"Indiscriminate" means "done at random or without careful judgment". (Oxford English Dictionary) (Source: .)

The probability that all of the above (60+) reliable sources decided at random -- or without careful judgment -- to detail this specific event (the killing of Aiden Leos) is precisely zero. Precisely.

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Joseph, I am going to politely ask you to read WP:BLUDGEON. Ignoring the fact that multiple sources you've listed are not, as you claim, reliable (The Daily Mail, Inside Edition, and The New York Post, for instance, are all tabloid rags or infotainment), many of them fail WP:DIVERSE. I looked in the Philadelphia Inquirer, for instance, and saw that it was a news story from a member of the Associated Press. The exact same story ran in the San Francisco Examiner, and in U.S. News and World Report, and in The Seattle Times, and in The Daily Progress, and The Times-Union. As it says in WP:DIVERSE, Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted. Like Huferpad said, GNG is not the end-all be-all, and many of the points raised by other editors in this discussion relate to WP:EVENT.  Kncny11  (shoot) 18:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I am not "bludgeon"-ing anything.  I am making valid points.  And contributing to this discussion.  Which is the whole point of an AfD.   I listed some 60-odd sources.  OK, let's assume (as you claim) that 2 or 3 of them are "not" RS's ... that still leaves the other 57 or 58.   Of course, when a story is picked up by the AP, (or whatever service) ... it gets "repeated" in other RS's.  That's the whole point of having a service like an AP.    And to think that these 50+ sources were merely random in including this event is impossible.  It passes GNG; and it's notable.    It's in all the 50 states ... not to mention, many other nations.  That is not "random" or "indiscriminate" reporting of an event.      Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * WP:EVENT states: (a) Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect. (b) Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below) ... and so forth.   WP:EVENT is bolstering my argument, not yours.     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, at least for now. This incident has clearly received a far greater level of coverage than most incidents of a similar type, and there is already coverage distinct from the original incident, as can be seen here. Perhaps coverage will be limited to one news cycle, but I find such an outcome to be highly unlikely, and I reckon this article would be more likely to pass WP:10YT than not. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOTNEWS.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 15:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The number of people publicly murdered with guns in the United States is so high that Wikipedia article proposals for such cases tend to not meet our inclusion criteria for reasons described in our general-purpose guidance at Run-of-the-mill and I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground. I agree that many of the sources for this topic circulating in off-wiki media are recycled press releases, which we do not count as additional media coverage. Journalism capacity in the United States off-wiki does not keep up with all the shootings, but in this case, we do have several rounds of media coverage here on the killing itself. The first round are shooting details including driving, going to kindergarten, and the escape of the accused killers. We have more coverage about a reward building to capture suspects, then another set of coverage for the memorial. After the arrests there was biographical profiling for the suspects. Whereas typical such events only produce one round of media coverage, here we already have several and I expect that within 2 years there will be a trial and result which will generate more coverage. Here are articles from difference sources and times which I assert makes this topic pass WP:GNG.
 * Mercury News reports shooting and interviews family
 * OC Register reports reward for escaped suspects
 * ABC7 News reports the memorial service
 * Fox presents biographies of arrested suspects
 * In looking at the repeated content publishing in so many articles, it looks like various media outlets claim access to special events in the victim's social circle then try to hold exclusivity in reporting what they find. I appreciate that user:Joseph A. Spadaro listed 60 outlets that reported this story; however, I agree with User:Kncny11 that this list is not helpful because almost all of these sources are just recycled, less reliable copies of original reporting from other outlets. We do not keep articles for getting lots of copied media coverage for single events, but we do keep Wikipedia articles for those few original stories and new perspectives over time.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  17:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Some comments: (A)  I listed far more than 60 items ... some under the generic "umbrella" of "multiple additional national and international sources". Let's just say that they amount to, perhaps, an even number of 100 sources.  Just to make it easy.   (By the way, many articles were written in non-English ... so I did not even include them, as I myself could not read them ... but, nonetheless, they were clearly about this incident.)  (B)  The way that the news industry works is precisely how the AP and UPI Services work ... one or two media outlets get the story ... and the others "repeat it" ... that's how news / media works ... that's why we have an AP and a UPI ... so that each and every local newspaper / TV station / etc. does NOT have to go out and "re-invent the wheel" to specifically and individually cover each and every story by itself.  It's like a "pool" and they all share the work; which keeps consistency in the details, facts, reporting, etc.  (C) Do you think some local beat reporter in Alabama or New Hampshire -- who works in a small office, with few reporters -- is going to travel to California to "exclusively" interview the specific parties?  It doesn't work that way.  But -- nonetheless -- the small-town local news media in Alabama or New Hampshire still wants to detail this specific event in their media.  They don't want / can't afford to do the leg-work, so they pay / subscribe to get the leg-work done.  And still decide to feature it.  This is not random or indiscriminate at all.  (D)   So -- even if we were to "liberally discount" (whatever that means) my 100 sources --- let's say that we end up with a "stream-lined list" (i.e., avoiding the duplicity, etc.).  Using liberal definitions, we'd still have some 20, 25, 30 reliable sources.  National and international.  Which is plenty.  OK, maybe there are not 100 ... but there certainly are 30.  (Using very liberal math.  And looking the other way and pretending that AP-duplicated stories don't "count", for some reason.)  (E)  I can find thousands of Wikipedia articles that don't meet the burden of listing 20, 25, 30 RS's (as this one does).  (F)  Bottom line: this is notable... nationally and internationally ... and merits a stand-alone article.  Regardless of any "fuzzy math" that people want to employ.  There are more than enough RS's out there.  And it "passes" all of the other "obstacles" that deletion-ists want to throw against the kitchen wall, to see what sticks.  Once again, WP:GNG presumes notability ... that presumption must be (significantly) rebutted.  Which it has not been.   Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, does not meet WP:EVENT ie. does not have "... lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time.". Coolabahapple (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The incident happened on May 21, and it has been consistently covered since then (i.e., for the past three weeks). As an editor pointed out above ... the story has had "legs" several times since.  (1)  When the incident first happened.  (2)  In the days/weeks following, while the suspects were at large.  (3)  Police were seeking assistance; reward money grew consistently ... to reach $500,000.  (4)  Suspects found and arrested.  (5)  Memorial services for deceased boy are reported on.  (6)  A new facility was dedicated in the boy's name and legacy.  Source: .  (7)  A press conference is planned for Monday (June 14).  Source: .  (8)  I am quite sure that when the legal proceedings occur (court hearings, pleas, trials, verdicts, etc.), we will see the story again and again and again.  So, the story / event had had (at least) eight "legs" of coverage, so far -- in just three weeks.  A new building is being dedicated in his name / honor / legacy.  Therefore -- contrary to your assertion -- it does meet WP:EVENT; i.e., it does have " ... lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, [and] receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time".  As such, WP:EVENT bolsters my argument; not yours.  WP:EVENT is not an impediment strong enough to rebut the presumption of notability accorded per WP:GNG.  Thanks.     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , no it doesn't meet nevent, this is a classic example of "omg, that could have been me or my friend shock/sensation" news reporting, starting with something so seemingly innocent that happens everyday, a driver cutting off another, leading to the shooting death of a child, of course its going to be covered by lots of media outlets but that doesn't mean it is significant enough to warrant a wikiarticle, similarly news coverage over 3 or 4 weeks does not necessarily get over the hurdle of "persists over a period of time". Coolabahapple (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Read WP:GNG. Notability is presumed, unless solidly rebutted.  The incident only occurred three weeks ago.  How would it possibly be covered farther back than three weeks ago?  What does "persists over a period of time" mean to you, in your interpretation?  Also ... it happens "every day" that a driver cuts off another driver and this leads to the shooting death of a child?  Every day?  I certainly was not aware.  In fact, I think this rarely/never happens.  Can you provide a reference for that (i.e., this being an every day occurrence)?  Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * apologies for the misunderstanding of my words, i meant the everyday occurrence is a driver cutting off another but than shock! horror! a child has been shot, so of course numerous news outlets will report on this incident. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * as for "Read WP:GNG.", WP:SBST under the Events subsection of the Common circumstances section is interesting: "Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage." Coolabahapple (talk) 14:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Exactly.  Cutting people off in traffic is indeed an every-day occurrence.  Having a little child killed in a road rage incident is not.  Hence, the notability / stand-alone article.  Thanks.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak keep It has received a wide range of coverage in many newspapers, but I am not impressed by Joseph's bludgeoning of the delete votes.Jackattack1597 (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * You may call it "bludgeoning", if you prefer. I would call it argumentation / discussion / raising valid points / rebutting counter-points raised.  You know, the whole purpose of an AfD.  And, furthermore, whatever semantics we use -- whether bludgeoning or discussing -- is wholly irrelevant to the question at hand (i.e., whether to keep or delete this article).  Thanks.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Also doesn't meet WP:EVENT and WP:NCRIME. The event is tragic, but it has no lasting effect which is an important factor with these types of articles. Having a facility named after the child is not a lasting effect in my opinion. A lasting effect is something that influences a large number of people, brings important changes and changes the way people think. It's perfectly described in WP:LASTING. So for now it's a delete for me. Less Unless (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 *  Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to California_State_Route_55. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. I'm not seeing lasting significance. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep and Incubate per WP:DRAFTIFY, because this is still an evolving event. Wait! There is more to come. The offenders haven't even been tried yet, so we don't even know if this is potentially a murder at present. This impact of this sort of event might can take a couple of years to become apparent. In the future there will, no doubt, be a trial, conviction and sentence, possibly even an execution. As a result, more probably than not, someone will become notable for more than the very rare event of shooting a child dead, who was sitting in the back seat of a moving passenger car, while aiming at the mother. While this article is about an event that I would already consider notable because it is so unusual, it is likely to evolve over time into a full-blown article about someone or something. I would suggest the article be incubated until the fate of the offenders becomes clearer, at least. It seems pointless to me to delete an article about the victim of a crime when there is almost certainly going to be an article written about the offenders, once this case goes to trial, because this case is so unusual. Incubation will allow matters to be observed for a few months to see if there are going to be any lasting impact from this event. Already, there is the indication that a zoo facility bearing the child's name will exist. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS or possibly Draftify per WP:TOOSOON. It's too early to tell if there is lasting significance beyond routine news coverage.4meter4 (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.