Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeAndre Harris

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.

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats

)

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

My understanding of

• Delete per nom. The relevant material can be covered just fine in the Unite the Right rally article. Volunteer Marek  12:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 13:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 13:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete BLP1E. POVFORK issues. BLPCRIME issues on a number of BLPs.Icewhiz (talk) 13:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC) Mod per comment below.Icewhiz (talk) 05:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Condition 3 of BLP1E is satisfied. This individual's role in a notable event is well documented. Therefore BLP1E cannot be used as juatification for deletion. Nof9 (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The relevant passage is If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. May I suggest you re-read that and take note of the "If X, or Y was either A or B" format, particularly the usage of

  WP:1E, particularly When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. ValarianB (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  There are 3 conditions separated by 2 'OR's. It is clearly a 3 input OR gate with each input being equal in status. The policy construction seems done in that manner to avoid redundancies of "if the individual's role was ..." . The true construction is "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was not substantial or the individual's role was not well documented". Your

  WP:1E reference is extraneous. Nof9 (talk) 03:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  You're not reading it correctly, at all, and the 1E example matches precisely with the person we're discussing here. DeAndre Harris' role in the Unite the Right rally is insignificant, he is one of many private citizens that were involved in altercations that day. If the Wikipedia went by your absurd interpretation, BLP1E could never be applied to any case. ValarianB (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I am reading both the maths and the policy correctly. You are being illogical. (AUBUC) = AUBUC = (AUB)UC = AU(BUC) and so on. You seem to be confusing "or" and "and", a common enough mistake among beginners. Which of these is false ?? -> "The event was notable OR the media coverage was significant". So the significance of the individual himself in that event is irrelevant. Nof9 (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure why you're struggling, but assisting you further is really getting beyond the goals of this discussion forum, so this will be "Getting in the Last Word". Only one of the parts of BLP1E's Criteria #3 need to be true to satisfy Criteria #3. Either the event is not significant (False) or the individual's role was either not substantial (True) or not well documented (False). That one True is enough. Cheers. ValarianB (talk)

• Delete
  π, ν) 16:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The event was significant and his role was well documented. That is 2 out of 3, so

  WP:BLP1E does not apply. Nof9 (talk) 03:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  As above, this is an incorrect interpretation of policy. ValarianB (talk) 11:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Nom is either confused or illogical. See above. Nof9 (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

  See above, indeed. ValarianB (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  π, ν) 21:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• • Strong keep DeAndre Harris' role is substantial as he is both a symbol and a flashpoint of ongoing and very heated issues in the United States, which have caught the attention of the United Nations. Stories that headline Harris, related to the August beating itself, the role of social media sleuths, the police response, the ongoing death threats, the court cases, the stories of his assailants, both the individual assailants and the groups to which they belong, the role of counterprotesters, the October warrant for his arrest, are very well documented. The New York Times alone has published over a dozen articles on Harris. In their role monitoring racial discrimination, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination was concerned enough by the events that took place in Charlottesville, that they published an "Early Warning and Urgent Action Procedures" report in August which cited the name of only two of the many victims—DeAndre Harris and Heather D. Heyer. The report called on high-level American public officials to reject racially-motivated violent events in Charlottesville and throughout the United States.[1]^[2][3] DeAndre Harris' story at this point, is not as large in scope as the Rodney King beating, but his story continues to draw attention in mainstream, local and regional media and in social media. This beating took place in broad daylight with people who did not hide their identities, captured by digital cameras large and small held by hundreds of participants and reporters. There were over a thousand people at the rally and coverage of this event is ongoing and mind-boggling. They continue to upload photos and videos as they debate his role. There will be trials related to the felony charges. There are heated online debates and peaceful demonstrations being held in his name. His story and these images are not going to fade away. As it stands now, there are no BLPCRIME issues in the article. If I am mistaken, inappropriate content can be deleted. The Unite the Right rally article, which has had 60,623 page views in the past month, already has 60 editors, 216,998 words and since August, has been listed as an article that needs to be split. Harris' story gets lost in Unite the Right rally article. That's why I created the article. I was curious about the October warrant stories and wanted the context. There was too much information generated from the reliable sources to fit appropriately into the Unite the Right rally article. As well, content about him is, by necessity, divided into different sections. Wikipedia has room for another article. There is room for articles on imaginary characters from fictional novels and video games. Don't rush to delete this article. It does no harm. It provides more in-depth context to very complex issues.Oceanflynn (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but what your post says to me is that you're writing a piece on racial violence and using a purported biographical article of the subject as a platform from which to do so. Most telling is that in an approximately 4,000 word article, less than 50 (the opening sentence of the lead, and the opening sentence of the Aftermath section) discuss the subject personally, while approximately 3,950 are related to Charlottesville. This is a textbook case of the event being important - for which we already have Unite the Right rally - while the individual is not notable himself. Just to add, I don't see malice or bad behavior here, sorry if it comes out that way, I'm a little tetchy after dealing with a boor above. I think the aims of writing about political violence steeped in racism is a noble goal, I just don't think this man's biography is the place to do it in. ValarianB (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wikipedia prefers not to retain a biographical article on
  one event, especially when that said event is sufficiently described in another article. The existence of this content fork is both entirely unnecessary and potentially damaging to the living person.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC) Keep but rename - I changed my !vote because there appears to be a plan to change the article to "Beating of DeAndre Harris", making my point about the biographical information null and void. As long as that obligation is fulfilled, I do not support deleting the content.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I am interested in your statement that the separate article could be potentially more damaging to the living person that the section in the article Unite the Right. Could you elaborate? Thank you.Oceanflynn (talk) 04:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The disclosure of personal information like date of birth, birth place, and his occupation as highly sensitive. Recent events and the media tend to make incidents like these appear more

my crystal ball doesn't see that far.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Merge and redirect to Unite the Right rally#DeAndre Harris. My original inclination was to rename to DeAndre Harris beating, as a single incident article, but since there's a section on Mr. Harris in the Unite the Right rally article, merging a bit more biographical info to that one should be sufficient. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Judging from the news coverage, he's BLP2E since he got arrested: crazy. Obviously with Shaun King helping out to find the his attackers this has generated widespread coverage (still ongoing!), and this is one of those cases where I think we need to at least merge some of the content and leave a redirect. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  With crime victims and perps - we typically treat the crime and subsequent proceedings (arrest, trial) as 1 event. In this case we have someone who is also an alleged victim and also an alleged perp - for the same event (the scuffle that was captured on video) - it is still the same 1 event.Icewhiz (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't need you to tell me that, and I disagree. He's barely an "alleged" victim, BTW. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- the event is significant. If it were just about the beating and the viral video, then I'd say "Redirect" to
  WP:SPLIT. Three people have been arrested, while Harris has been charged himself. There's already enough coverage of this event for a stand-alone article, and there will be more sources. If the article is kept, I'd volunteer to edit it for NPOV. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @K.e.coffman: Us the BLP notable or the incident/video? I could see how a beating of DeAndre Harris could be standalone notable, and this would mèet CRIME policy for BPL1E.Icewhiz (talk) 03:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I think that
  Beating of DeAndre Harris is a good option. If the article is kept, I would support a move. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but Rename to
  WP:NCRIME - the appropriate course of action is to create an article on the incident. Some bio information on Harris should probably be redacted, and some information of the other people involved should be added.Icewhiz (talk) 05:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - From what I can tell all sources are good and of third party. Event is significant. User has volunteered to removed NPOV apparently.BabbaQ (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I feel that having a >200K article on
  π, ν) 16:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Oh, I totally agree. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 17:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep only if redirected to a neutral title such as
  WP:RS, that describe this as a fight, not as " a teacher who was beaten by six men " as our lede now has it. I searched : "DeAndre Harris" full video. Here is a raw video: [1] Harris shows up at 4:25, with blue backpack. This: [2] alt-right version with strident voiceover has little arrows that follow Harris and the others when the fight starts, with stop-action. After watching, I'm amazed that so few people were injured. I've been to a lot of political protests, but none where this many guys threatened one another with baseball bats.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Yeah, well, it's about him. Don't play the whole equivalency game. I'm sure there were good people on both--no, I can't finish that sentence. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "Beating of DeAndre Harris" or similar title. Event is notable, victim is not.
  Speak 💬 ‖ 22:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to larger article on the event. One event, one article is a good rule of thumb. Harris is not in any way notable as an individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep his role might not be that important, but the aftermath of the whole event overshadows his personal conribution massively. It sheds a harsh light on how violence is treated in the US. I still can´t wrap my head arund the fact, that his attackers are not prosecuted at all. This story even has arrived in Germany, where I live and wakes up some evil spirits of the past. It would be a shame for wikipedia to delete this article.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The article cites multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, objectively meeting
  WP:CRIME, gives added context to the Unite the Right rally, which has historic significance with persistent coverage by reliable secondary sources and additional coverage devoting focus to this individual. Harris' article brings a net positive of reliable information to the encyclopedia and deepens the contextual coverage of the event overall. — GS ⋙ ☎ 22:11, 21 October 2017 (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.