Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashli Babbitt

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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

WP:GNG, coverage needs to be substantive. I am likewise not seeing a basis in policy for deleting before redirecting, as some people have suggested; I see no evidence that the history needs to be unavailable to the general reader.The redirect is currently protected; that should be sufficient. I would strongly discourage anyone from attempting to recreate this in the near future; if, some months down the road, subtantive new sources have appeared, this consensus may be revisited. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Ashli Babbitt


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

Ashli Babbitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pretty textbook

WP:BLP1E. Should be redirected to 2021 United States Capitol protests. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete Delete. She can be mentioned in a separate Wikipedia page as part of the sedition attempt that occurred yesterday. She was by far not a protester but was attempting to participate in the overthrow of a democratically elected leader. The fact she died in the attempt, though tragic, is completely irrelevant. If we're going to make a page for her, then there'd be an argument for the other three that perished in this failed attempt to overturn the election should get their own page as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsfan1976 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep but make it clear that she was a seditionist and not an innocent victim. She stormed a protected government building in an attempted coup against a democratically elected government. By all intents and purposes, she is a domestic terrorist and therefore should be portrayed as such.
  • Keep vote In order to maintain a neutral wikipedia policy. No one is forcing anyone to read the wiki article. If you're googling her name it pops up. Therefore its relevant. Out of all the completely obscure wiki entries, why is this one being singled out for "obscurity"? This is very dark stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:A0C3:5500:F93C:9894:E3CA:53BC (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep vote (disclosure: I expanded this from GW's redirect from reliable sources: thank you GW for notifying me about this AfD nomination) .. BLP1E requires fulfilling all three criteria, not just one. It clearly will not meet the 2nd criteria "is likely to remain, a low-profile individual". There is no basis for proposing such a likelihood. George Floyd for comparison similarly only became notable due to his death and has an entire article to himself since June 4th after his May 25th death. The 3rd condition is also not met: "the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented". That a person was shot to death during the protest has received very substantial coverage by many news outlets, many of which are detailing it thoroughly and rapidly, to convey the severity of the violence which occurred. WakandaQT (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If millions of people worldwide protest her killing then I can certainly see that argument; until then it is far too soon to suggest that she will achieve George Floyd levels of coverage. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have evidence that literally "millions" had protested the May 25th death by June 4th? I'm guessing that tally came later. WakandaQT (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I also wasn't arguing for keeping the George Floyd article on June 4 either. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
About condition 3: "the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented". The event is about a number of people storming the US Capitol. She was simply one of many who entered the building, and died as a result. Her role in the event was not substantial, and therefore condition 3 is met --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you arguing that "remarkable in life" is a requirement to have an article about a person who is killed? There is both a
Killing of George Floyd article. It seems pretty clear what is considered adequately remarkable to have these articles is the events of his death: he was an amateur rap artist and film star since the 90s and nobody even tried to make an article about him until after he died, so I believe you're inserting false criteria here WWGB. WakandaQT (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree with WWGB - the comparison with George Floyd is not adequate. --DeMonsoon (talk) 05:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Floyd is an adequate example that objecting on the basis of "remarkable in life" is not valid grounds for exclusion if death makes remarkable. You could also argue in both cases that since video coverage exists of both of their pre-death struggles that they are actually also notable for the final moments of their life, even if they had both died by the time most people had seen the footage. WakandaQT (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See
WP:OTHERSTUFF when debating AfDs. Wyliepedia @ 11:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is a textbook
    WP:BLP1E, and the article is almost entirely details related to the "protests" anyway, so there's nothing here justifying a standalone page. This is like George Floyd? Let's get real here. There were at least 3 other deaths today, and this woman's death is a footnote, not the centerpiece like Floyd's. Nohomersryan (talk) 05:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
You might make a comparison to
Heather Heyer as a death which occurred amidst larger events, but being shot by police storming the capitol is much more high-profile than being hit by a car in the middle of a street. WakandaQT (talk) 05:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
While the event is higher-profile, I don't think it's safe to say this death already is. Heyer was intentionally murdered by a civilian and was the only person on the ground to die at Charlottesville, neither of which you can say about Babbit, a trespasser who got unlucky. Nohomersryan (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
problem there is people will just blank the section, only way to reliably prevent that censorship is a standalone article for now. WakandaQT (talk) 05:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, that's not "censorship", and second of all, it can be prevented in the way anything can be achieved on Wikipedia: achieving consensus for its inclusion on that article's talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If people continually blank it, then protect the page. ... discospinster talk 05:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right now it's just much easier to keep track of information with a separate page. That article you want to merge it to is bloated beyond measure. WakandaQT (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: I did no equivocate them, just pointed out that Floyd is an example of someone we can't argue was notable enough in life for an article. His lack of one prior to death is pretty good evidence of that. WakandaQT (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no significant coverage of her yet, only her death. Not notable for a stand-alone article.
    talk | contribs) 05:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Incorrect: there is now coverage of things besides her death in many papers, including her online political activism, her military career, her widower and orphaned children. WakandaQT (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Based on current coverage of this event, all three conditions of
    WP:BLP1E are met. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 05:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Disagree: only 1 is met, not 2 and 3. Explained above. WakandaQT (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – no notability outside of Capitol events, so delete page and create redirect to appropriate section in
    WP:CRYSTAL), and as things currently stand, she is not notable. Also note that WP:RAPID does not state that new non-notable pages should be kept automatically in the short term; it suggests alternatives to deletion as one option – i.e. a merge to another page, as is being proposed here. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
there is no section and if we did that it's pretty clearly going to get snipped down and eliminated eventually, which is why she didn't have one to begin with. WakandaQT (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – One of several people who died as a result of mob actions. Not notable outside the manner of death. EnjoysButter (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
her death happened as a result of whoever pulled the trigger, and "manner" is merely "gunshot victim". Beyond manner it's the context/circumstances and coverage. WakandaQT (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That criteria is not enough to exclude people from having an article. WakandaQT (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should not be pushing for that with all the activity that page has, fair content about her would be hard to retain and monitor in that flurry. A stub is appropriate. This way we can properly detail what reliable sources have revealed without it further bloating the main article and then using that bloat as precedent to trim details about the subject. WakandaQT (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, this page itself doesn't have very much going for it, other than a short background and the fact that she had posted about QAnon and election conspiracy stuff, and seeing as how at least three other people have died in this protest, it would make more sense to include a brief section about "Casualties of the 2021 US Capitol protests" than have four stub articles about people who are otherwise not very noteworthy in themselves. Fernsong (talk) 07:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If Babbitt shows to generate significant coverage and become a specific cultural talking point in and of it self like
Heather Heyer, the article can be rewritten. But as of now, it hasn't proven itself to be notable. Theleekycauldron (talk) 06:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Note though that
Heather Heyer is a redirect. - Astrophobe (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Noted! Sorry about that, I didn't check - the context in which people were bringing it up made it sound like an article. As for Floyd, Babbitt and Floyd aren't nearly similar. Theleekycauldron (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is gender bias relevant? Is anyone supporting deletion because the victim was a woman? 45.251.33.62 (talk) 11:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This argument would only make sense if we kept a male victim and ignored a female victim. Otherwise it's frankly completely irrelevant. BeŻet (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El_C 16:42, 20 January 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ashli_Babbitt&oldid=1136721885"