Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Guerra


 * 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. Yunshui 雲 水 08:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Thomas Guerra

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication this is anything else but WP:BLP1E. Perhaps some content can be merged to an article on HIV, but this is not a standalone article. John from Idegon (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - This article should be kept as Thomas Guerra’s trial was the first ever successful prosecution for willful intent of infecting another indicidual with HIV - therefore it sets precedence for future cases. His trial based on the hundreds of thousands news articles has been extensively covered. There are additional cases pending too. Also of note, he is the nephew of renowed civil rights leader Cesar Chavez. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:8:11:0:0:0:71 (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Guerra’s case set precidence in the state of California as he was the first ever person convicted of intentionally spreading HIV in the state. His case led to San Diego Assemblyman Todd Gloria authoring a bill to change the state law. Additional cases are also pending. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.179.242.90 (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete does not pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:PERP's second criterion has the potential to apply - depending on how the crime is read, it might be odd enough to be justified. If he is just knowingly reckless then it's odd, but probably not sufficient. If he is intentionally infecting them because he has the belief they are careless so he can act as he desires, then a Keep might be warranted. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets WP:PERP, per the arguments of the IP users 2600:387:8:11:0:0:0:71 and 152.179.242.90, who explained the historical significance of this particular criminal and crime and why this should not be rejected under WP:BLP1E. They may just be IP users but they helped give this more context for me and explain the historical importance of this case as well as the perpetrator. I did not at first notice the detail regarding the 20-year gap between the law being passed in 1995 and its first successful prosecution in 2015, and simply thought it was a standard case of a new law being passed and this man being the first person arrested for breaking the new law, which is something that generally happens whenever a new law makes something illegal. But no, this case is actually more complicated than that, and set a legal precedent and resulted in laws being changed, which I did not really grasp until those 2 IP users explained it here. Originally I voted to delete and had an argument about this failing WP:PERP due to lack of historical significance, but I have decided to change my vote in keeping with these arguments I have been presented with. Yetisyny (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - For the very reasons stated above this article should be kept. Guerra’s hiv conviction obviously sets precidence for future trials in the state of CA, hence the reason for all of the news coverage. MikeSima89 (talk) 05:56, 9 September 2018


 * Weak Keep – Yes, he did set a precedent, but does that make the subject or the case itself notable? A page rename to that case and then replacing info on Guerra with the case would be better. However, that is outside the scope of AfD and an opinion. Essentially what I'm saying is that the info is notable, not the subject. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs)  05:15, 10 September 2018 (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.