Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Angeli

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 Weak keep. Discounting votes of a couple of blocked socks and a couple of votes which are not policy-based, I get 61 deletes/redirects and 119 keeps, which is roughly 1:2. If I look at the arguments, both sides have valid arguments. Those who argue for keeping say that the article meets

WP:GNG - however, I do not see arguments of one of the sides convincingly refuted. As votes split 1:2, it means two-thirds of the users who participated in the discussion (and these are mostly good-faith users) believe that the GNG argument is stronger than ONEEVENT, and I can not close this as no consensus (which I would have probably done for an even split). I do not see any pile-up votes towards the end of the discussion, or any change of the trend, meaning that most users were not convinced by the opposite side.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Jake Angeli

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

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

Non-notable individual. Being a QAnon believer and part of the group that stormed the Capitol is not enough to warrant notability/an article. Andise1 (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete when someone is known for attending rallies, as opposed to organizing or speaking at them, they are clearly not notable. Not that most people who speak at or organize rallies are notable, however you almost always have to do one of those other two things to make you notable. I would also bring up not news, but I see no indication that Angeli is even newsworthy for his actions yesterday.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of the fact that he attended a rally is 1E and not in-depth, but there is also extensive coverage of him speaking at rallies other than at the insurrection yesterday, as well as his activities organizing an extremist social movement online. After discounting the superficial coverage of him that is focused on his physical appearance or rally attendance, there is plenty left over to satisfy GNG. - Astrophobe (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnpacklambert, no offense, but your personal opinion here is just as irrelevant as every other wikipedia contributors personal opinion. We rely on RS here, not our personal opinions. I am sure you are as well aware as I am that Jake Angeli's notability comes not from his mere presence at rallies and insurrections. His notability comes from the editors of RS choosing to cover his participation at those rallies, at the insurrection, in meaningful detail. If you think you have meaningful, substantive, policy-based counter-arguments, that would erode the notability established by the substantial RS coverage of his participation, then that is what your comments here should contain. Geo Swan (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Angeli is an actor, voice over artist and singer.. He is just playing a part. To allow him his own entry is to give oxygen to his duplicitous shenanigans [which seem to have most here fooled].At the very least, do some actual research, rather than just regurgitate whatever the media say. [note: Backstage casting have removed his profile since yesterday] [1] -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spike Livingstone (talk • contribs) 08:18, 2021 January 8 (UTC)
If you say, "To allow him his own entry is to give oxygen to his duplicitous shenanigans" as if that were an argument in support of deletion. It is not. In fact, deletion promotes the continuation of "duplicitous shenanigans" without the harsh light of public attention. In fact, you've articulated a rationale for starting the article in the first place. 70.171.155.43 (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spike Livingstone, please sign your comments.
  • I suggest your comment should be discounted because it does not comply with
    WP:NOTCENSORED. We aim for neutrality here. There is no notable topic that cannot be covered from a neutral point of view, if good faith contributors try hard enough. Your comment suggests you hold the notion that some topics are inherently biased. That is wrong. Geo Swan (talk) 05:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • And even if this were true, this is not a reason to delete. Notability is a property of a page subject. Even a page about a notable subject that is written with a COI in the interest of self-promotion should be rewritten, not deleted. This is definitely not a situation that calls for
    WP:TNT. - Astrophobe (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • @Mr zappe:, then why are you completely silent on Muntadhar al-Zaidi's article (the Iraqi journalist who threw two shoes at George W Bush). If you want to delete Jake Angeli's article then you must also delete the Muntadhar al-Zaidi for fairness sake. Delete His name is non-notable and the deletion of this article would deter future imitators from being inspired by his actions. --Ernesztina (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mr zappe, please sign your comments properly.
Mr zappe, are you sure you understand our
neutrality policy
? Of course articles should never be used for advocacy. But, if we had an article on a genuinely notable BLP individual, that was written in a promotional manner, that is NOT grounds for deletion. Weak articles on genuinely notable topics are supposed to be re-written to correct those lapses, not deleted.
In 2005, when I was a newbie, I crossed paths with a rogue administrator, who advanced a very similar argument to yours. She argued that we shouldn't have ANY articles on a wide range of topics, because those topics were "inherently biased" and would just serve as an excuse for "America bashing".
Her claims were complete bullshit, of course. Because I was a newbie, I had to think about this, for a few hours. I concluded that topics were not, themselves, biased. I concluded only actual versions of articles could show bias. I concluded that there was no notable topic that couldn't have a neutrally written article written about it.
That was true in 2005 and it is true now. If you think you have a genuine POV concern with this article that you can explain, the appropriate place to explain it would be
Talk:Jake Angeli. Geo Swan (talk) 07:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep: There are more than enough in-depth articles about him to satisfy
    WP:1E coverage, but are contextualizing his involvement in that event by describing his position as one of the most consistently prominent members of a major extremist social movement. In addition to the several independent in-depth profiles in reliable sources that are already cited in the article, it is extremely easy to find more in-depth sources in various RS. Here are just a few arbitrary ones, in The Guardian, the Wall Street Journal, and the BBC. He is mentioned by name in the first two headlines, and the articles focus substantially on him, while the latter story calls him "well-known", so, notable beyond this one event. And more examples can be found by searching his name. Further backing up the objection to a 1E deletion, we can indeed find non-trivial news coverage of him (if not necessarily particularly in-depth coverage) from before yesterday, such as mentions and photos in the Daily Herald, the State Journal-Register, and AZCentral. This is more than enough for GNG, and the fact that they are contextualizing his participation in this one event in the context of broader notoriety should allay any 1E concerns. - Astrophobe (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Tremendous amount of media sources on this figure, quite clearly notable. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's been less than a day since he came to wide public notice. I think it's likely that there will be coverage of his interactions with law enforcement in the coming days. Readers will be coming to Wikipedia looking for unbiased, neutral information on him free of conspiracy theory spin, and we should be that resource. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not 1E as he is a notorious member of such far-right events, and has become something of an icon for factions. Broad coverage of his involvement over a long enough period to pass GNG. Kingsif (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no doubt we will be hearing more on him as time progresses. He has already become a much-represented face of the storming and the media has performed extensive coverage on him. Although we currently have very few details about him, when he is inevitably arrested by the FBI and as the prosecution of so many progresses, we will know more on him.— Bigtime_Boy (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "no doubt"? A facile assertion. I would say: no doubt this waif will permanently disappear from our screens in a few weeks.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He is not notable enough. He can be mentioned in the relevant articles of which he has been involved. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 21:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Azcolvin429, Not notable enough... based on sourcing? Care to comment on coverage?, otherwise just sounds like a personal opinion/preference. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Another Believer Hoenstly, based on how dedicated you seem to be keeping this article from being deleted, seems like personal opinion/preference that you think this guy deserves recognition.
        • Will you please stop with all the assumptions. I'm not very dedicated to keeping this page at all. In fact, I've not even voted to keep this article. I created a very short stub and I've asked for clarification from a couple editors here. My life goes on just fine if this article is deleted, so please stop assuming I have any motives here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being one of millions who supported President Trump and attending his rallies does not make you notable. If he is brought to trial for storming the Capitol while wearing a costume perhaps he could have a byline on the QAnon page. Vegetationlife (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vegetationlife, Again, can you comment on sourcing in related to notability criteria? Too many comments here seem like personal opinions, not assessments of secondary coverage. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Information about this figure could be appropriately contained within the events articles or QAnon's article. ~RAM (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you are arguing to merge, right? Not delete? - Astrophobe (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This guy is on the best way to become an internally known terrorist. Sloper ✉ 21:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sloper (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. I'd hate to say it but he'll have to do a lot more to become
    notable. Hopefully, it never gets to that point. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 21:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • There are a few media sources about him starting around October of last year. I've added one to the article. Sakkura (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jlevi, some BLP individuals have their initial notability factors masked when they get a lot of news coverage over a highly prominent recent event.
  • If you look at the early revision history for
    Chesley Sullenberger
    you will see there were close to a dozen good faith individuals who tried to delete the new article on him, or blank it, or redirect it to the article on the flight number.
  • I strongly suspected that, even though we had not had an article on him, prior to the landing. Searching for the other notability factors strained my google-fu abilities, as they were strongly obfuscated by tens of thousands of repetitive new article on the landing.
  • Angeli isn't anywhere near as notable as Captain Sully, but he did receive press coverage prior to the coup.
  • Please bear in mind that earlier notability factors can be obfuscated, when they are involved in a highly prominent recent event in any AFD you weigh in on in future. Geo Swan (talk) 07:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Geo Swan. I think Melmann's and my comments are clear enough, but I will add to them below so you can better understand. He is only notable for one event, the other rally/protests are not notable. Have a good day.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:POLITICIAN
    , which state that a person, like a politician, can have their notability established by a single factor. However, those BLP individuals who had their notability established by a single factor are a small minority of BLP articles. Almost all our BLP articles had their notability established by considering multiple notability factors. I am going to repeat this important point. Almost all our BLP articles had their notability established by considering multiple notability factors.
  • You write "...the other rally/protests are not notable." Okay, and where can we look for your explanation for why the earlier coverage of Angeli should not be considered in calculating his notability?
  • I requested you review
    WP:ATA
    . I repeat that request.
  • If you were the editor of an RS, your personal opinion as to whether Angeli's partcipation in earlier protests was or wasn't notable would matter. It would matter because, as the editor of an RS, you would have the authority to spike stories on Angeli. You would be allowed to exercise your personal bias, knowing if you risked exercising your bias the wrong way, too many times, your publisher might admonish you, or even demote or fire you.
  • I am not an RS, and you are not an RS. So, quit acting like an RS. Quit acting like your personal, unsupported opinion of Angeli mattered. Geo Swan (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reference to
2021 storming of the United States Capitol article (as he currently is), but I do not see any RS that establish notability. Cheers--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Darryl Kerrigan, you are evading the key point of why I brought up POLITICIAN. A few BLP individuals have their notability established by a single factor - holding office at the State or Federal level -- but almost all BLP individuals have their notability established by multiple notability factors. Angeli is an example of the vast majority of BLP individuals - someone whose notability is established by multiple factors. I am going going to repeat this, since you apparently haven't understood. Almost all BLP individuals have their notability established by multiple notability factors.
  • No one has argued that his appearance in his colorful costume, and the interviews he provided, prior to the January 6th insurrection, were enough to claim he had already met the GNG criteria. If RS had noted his colorful costume, and interviewed him many many times, at dozens of events, he would, eventually, measure up to GNG, even if each event, individually, did not confer much notability.
  • The point you haven't addressed is that even if the earlier interviews didn't confer much notability, the prior coverage does confer more than enough notability for it to be a misuse of BLP1E to claim he is only known for one event.
  • I invite you to consider whether it looks like you may have so much personal disdain for Angeli that you were unable to bring yourself to perform an effective web search. You refer only to his attendance at earlier events. However, if you had performed a meaningful and effective web search you would see coverage of him that goes far beyond his mere attendance at earlier events. For instance, there are multiple serious attempts to decode and explain the meaning of the symbols he tattooed on his body. There are multiple serious attempts to respond to the alt-right meme that the insurrection was not the work of Trump supporters, but that the real damage was done by covert agents of Antifa. There is an image of Angeli talking to someone identified as an antifa person. This photo was, apparently, a key element of the meme the insurrection was really the work of antifa. The image is apparently real, but had been cropped deceptively, and had a more plausible explanation that did not require him to be an antifa mole. Geo Swan (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Geo Swan However, if you had performed a meaningful and effective web search you would see coverage of him that goes far beyond his mere attendance at earlier events. For instance, there are multiple serious attempts to decode and explain the meaning of the symbols he tattooed on his body. can you please provide those reliable sources? GRINCHIDICAE🎄 18:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That last one, written by a Professor of Old English, explained the meaning of five of Angeli's tattoos,
  1. Mjölnir - "Thor's Hammer"
  2. Yggdrasill
    - the Norse world tree
  3. valknut - three intersecting triangles, sometimes called “Hrungnir’s Heart”, named after a famous giant warrior, seen as a symbol of death
  4. Sonnenrad, or sun-wheel - a favourite of Heinrich Himmler
  5. Othala runic letter - "its name means 'inherited land', and so it frequently appears in the emblems of white nationalist groups from Ukraine to the US."
This is just scratching the surface. Geo Swan (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These articles about his tattoos do not seem to be
WP:RS and they seem pretty trivial. You were asked about your claim that there is significant coverage from before January 6, 2021. Both of these articles are from after.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks, I will ignore your comments that run afoul of
WP:AGF. No, as I have mentioned elsewhere, I don't think his role in this one event leads to notability. He was one of the many rioters who entered the Capitol. He doesn’t appear to have organized it, or had any special role in it. You keep saying there are all these other "pre-riot" sources we are all ignoring. I have addressed some below, and why I think the mention is trivial. If you think the commenters should consider others you should link them here instead of just accusing everyone of not seeing what you claim to see in them. All of the pre-riot coverage I have seen amounts to captioned photos and interviews of a "man in a crowd". As I have said below, I think those interviews are because the movements are notable, not because he is.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk
)
@Geo Swan:, in line with Darryl Kerrigan, I invite you to link us what you consider to be non-trivial coverage of this individual previous to, and devoid of the context of, Capitol storming. I have not been able to find such, and I am hopeful that you have a stack of those as you seem to indicate. Based on what I've been able to ascertain, his independednt coverage prior to the riots amounts to being a photogenic example of a pro-Trump protester which RSes like to use as a cover photo. Thank you. Melmann 19:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. But per
WP:OTHERLANGS that says nothing about the notability of this one, so is of no relevance to this discussion. Valenciano (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Could you show us a few of those scholarly sources? -- MelanieN (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RE All three rise above BLPIE, and articles for the other two seem inevitable.:
Brian Sicknick is a redirect to the "Storming" article. There was a short-lived article about Ashli Babbitt; it was redirected to the "storming" article per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashli Babbitt. That's what should happen to this one also. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:COATRACK in the Capitol article. Elizium23 (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Involvement in prior protests could be mentioned in a sentence in the article. Interviews with him and mother: nowhere. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Checking the article, I see that Ashli Babbitt has a paragraph and Brian Sicknick has a paragraph. Angeli is not as important as they are, but we could give him a sentence or two about his prior activities. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the number of people who have even posted on this delete thread in the past 4 days is already evidence that the person is notable. Wiki's policy is that if someone is notable at one time, then he is notable always, even if we never hear about him again after this. Reesorville (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have nothing to do with US, just a European historian, but I can't understand how you pretend to delete this article on a character of an event of historic importance. Marx said 'history repeats itself, first as tragedy then as a farce'. You do have a 'neo-fascist leader', Mr. Trump, who fretting about a possible loss of elections, tried from power to burn the Parlament of his nation, as Mr. Hitler burned the Reichtag, to make a coup d'etat. but as this is a farce, 80 years latter, according to generational cycles of history, a few of us, historians have been studying for decades in books and webs, it was of course a farce. Mr. Trump could not use the assault to declare martial law and will soon be removed. But the process, part of a push towards an age of violence and extreme capitalist inequality, continues - to erase information on that process in which history repeats its cycles is obviously an act of censorship, regardless on your opinion on the individuals - for that matter erase mr. Trump, Mr. Hitler and invent History, something obviously many media systems do in the present age, 'history rhyme with a different verse' Twain This man is simply the 'Iconic image' of the event, which 7 billion people remember for good or for bad. So he has won his place in History, as absurd as it might seem to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.33.104.181 (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per above. Passes
    WP:GNG. In addition, the article has already received over 370.000 views, and I don't think it makes sense to delete a neutral and, above all, such a popular article. --TheImaCow (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Non-notable individual; mention in article about Capitol storming, but not sufficiently noteworthy for a separate article. Susan Davis (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too soon to see importance of bio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nothingbutthegirls (talk • contribs) 18:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The subject is a not-notable rally attendee and not an organizer or even a speaker. The subject was previously a non-notable actor. Coverage of the subject is limited with no wide coverage as an individual. This is a case of
    WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Non-notable individual; and giving notoriety via Wikipedia could be seen as encouraging criminal acts. CloudSurferUK (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not Wikipedia's concern — please see
    talk | contribs) 06:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge and redirect to
    WP:GNG but we have policies against giving them articies. His "notability" should be put in context of how he "earned" it. - Scarpy (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Lots of third party coverage of the subject from reputable, independent sources are available[5][6][7]. One doesn't need to agree with the perspectives of the subject in order to verify their notability. SFB 02:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete By the letter of wikipedia's rules, he likely meets WP:N but that is mostly an artifact of being an eccentric and photogenic character in the midst of an extraordinary event. Toss in a little of Wikipedia sets aside WP:NOTTHENEWS and WP:TOOSOON the moment anything viral happens and you get a minor character receiving outsized attention. The reality is this article should be created six months from now but instead its likely we will have to settle for reevaluating in six months from now when his role is clearer, the dust has settled and editors can look at secondary sources instead of heat of the moment primary news articles Slywriter (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is not inherited simply because someone happened to don a colorful costume at a protest. If Babbit and Sicknick don't qualify to receive pages then it only stands to reason that Angeli shouldn't either. 0x004d (talk) 07:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is increasingly becoming more notable everyday thus standalone article is justified. Santosh L (talk) 12:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am definitely no fan of this guy but the the sources in the article prove notability. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 14:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability established by reliable sources. Gamaliel (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — lots of coverage.--Falkmart (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - lots of coverage, quite notableVictor Grigas (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - was mentioned in about every piece of Dutch media I have been reading the lasdt two days. We can not delete ppl because we do not share their views, no matter how stupid they might be. Edoderoo (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And arguably it does. The limited "pre-storming coverage" that does exist seems to be pretty trivial: captions on photographs and a few sentences about him in an article which interviewed many protesters. Those
WP:ONEEVENT (ie. the storming). As others have said, he does not even seem to have played a significant role in the storming. There is no evidence that he organized it, just that he attended, and happened to be wearing a particularly colourful and eyecatching costume.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
You may be checking a free source, but if you check the Factiva News database, its not just the odd line or his photo here or there - he appeared in 20 articles, before this event, and was regularly asked his opinion on the election. In a range of different titles, including international media. I agree there are no features on him specifically, but that's not a specific requirement under
WP:ONEEVENT to not apply. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
All of those are random man in the crowd type quotes. All those put together would never justify an article on anyone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Random man in the crowd"... you didn't read my quotes from the articles at all, did you???? What are the odds a "random man" is interviewed 20 times???? Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Move to Draft: Angeli has become, for better or worse, a historical figure. He is symbolic to a lot of people of the terrorist attack on the Capitol. And since he will likely be sentenced and end up with criminal details on his page too, I would argue it's a necessity. Especially since many people are likely seeking it these next few weeks, I would say to Keep, but otherwise I would recommend moving to a Draft for later. (I am much more a proponent of putting things back in Draft than I am of just deleting.) PickleG13 (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article appears to have been removed from google search results. Searching "Jake Angeli wikipedia" does not link to the article, suggesting it has been completely scrubbed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Function of AfD. Pages are flagged and temporarily removed from search engines and other scrapes until the article status is resolved. Slywriter (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the belief that having a captioned picture of yourself in an article not actually about you is "substantive news coverage" of the time that justifies having an article is a totally misunderstanding of the types of sources that lead to passing GNG. Captioned pictures by themselves are not enough to show notability, and that is all we have outside of January 6, and that suggests there is no justification for a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • People are pushing this line that the only references to him outside this event are captioned photos. That is seriously incorrect. If that's what people are finding, I think the question is more about their search abilities, than his coverage. There are plenty of articles that interview him, I have 20 where his name comes up *before the event* and the majority he is interviewed, yes, admittedly none of them are features on him, but the media are quoting him in just about all of them. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well hurry up and get it deleted before he becomes notable! Andale! Elizium23 (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment contrary to what is claimed above, being interviewed by the media is not in and of itself a sign of notability. The media interviews thousands of people a week, they do not all become notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, but if the media interviews and discusses *one person hundreds of times*, over a period of time, they probably are.... Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment rarely have I seen so much total violations of NPOV rules in a discussion. Wikipedia does not create attack articles, they are strictly forbidden. So if the only reason to have this article is to link a growing number of contemporary people to alleged "fascism" and to score political points, it should be deleted for violating the foundation neutral point of view requirements of Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge as per
    Flickr license washing account [8]... Gnangarra 04:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment contrary to the above Wikipedia is not a reliable source. So the number of people who post on a discussion on Wikipedia is not in any way something that shows notability. Nor are articles in any other language version of Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clearly notable. Perhaps the most well recognized participant in the Capitol riot. GWA88 (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Astrophobe. lots of news coverage. Hasan (talk) 05:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on wode coverages on the topic, that's how Wikipedia works. CyberTroopers (talk) 06:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepStrong Delete: If this is not kept, there must be a very strong valid reason for deletion other than "deleted because just a protestor". The reason is because this implies that BLP articles of D or C class actors must also be deleted because they are not well known, even if there are numerous sources from reliable places that talk about them.
Just because media interviews hundreds of people, is a reason that can only be impled for one instance of an interview or max three. If a person is interviewed numerous amount of time, that means they must be notable. It would sound dumb, and a waste of time and money, for news outlets to interview the same exact person repeatedly for no reason.
It also is seen that this person has been interviewed multiple times, each of which for different reasons or events that may at most be weakly connected to each other. The claim that one commentator in this AFD that "this is an attack article" to show that there are a "growing number of contemporary people", is also invalid. There are many articles on rapists, murderers, rippers, and scammers, but that does not imply that they are attack articles that try to give a motion about the increase in the number of these crimes.
My reason for changing to Strong Delete is stated in my reply bellow to User:Johnpacklambert's reply to this vote of mine. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The very fact that you think the analogy to murderers and even more repugnant crimes is at all relevant shows that for some this is an attack article. There is no evidence that Mr. Angeli's actions directly contributed to the death of a policeman opposing his side, and to make the death of a co-beligerant his fault ignores everything. Most murderers are not notable, and has been explained above Mr. Angeli totally and completely fails our specific guidelines for criminals so the article cannot be kept on thise grounds.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert:@Andise1:@Deathlibrarian:@Capt. Milokan:I have changed my view and now would like to say string delete. The problem here is not just about BLP1E, it mroe than that, its also about the context. If this article is kept, it implies that almost every major protestor and rioter, notable for one event and not multiple events that are note worthy events must also have their own article. There are in fact very few articles that are about individuals like Mr.Angeli. Further more if an article like this is kept, it implies that we should also create an article about the police man that was killed. This is the major problem about keeping this article. I do not personally think that such a decision can be kept in the hands of an AfD disscussion, I personally think that this discussion should be moved to Dispute Resolution or Arbitration Commitie. I do not think that an Administrators Noticeboard would be the correct place to continue this discussion as it has probably gone to an iffy point and is looking more disputive, thus does not fall under the decision making of Users with the Administrators privledges. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 05:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This page has a discussion on it's talk page over the issue of wether this discussion should be moved to Dispute Noticeboard or Arbitration Committie. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 05:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]

  • Delete or merge/redirect to
    WP:BIO1E. He was not notable for other stuff he did prior to the riots, he won’t be notable for long after he goes to jail, and we already have a solid article on the actual event. We’ve already redirected the article on Ashli Babbitt, and if a person who died at the riot isn’t notable enough for a stand alone article, neither is a silly cosplay boy who has now had his 15 minutes of fame. Montanabw(talk) 08:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(
Brian Sicknick (the capitol police officer who was killed). His name redirects to the main article. There are many others who are notable only for this one event, who will not be getting their own bios. Is there any compelling argument for why Angeli should have his own article, when we have decided others with a similar profile for the same event should not and can be dealt with in the main article?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Here's why I think there is a difference between Angeli and Babbitt: If the bullet had missed Babbitt, the newspapers would probably not have talked about her at all. The coverage of her is the type of routine coverage of someone who has suffered an unusual death. The sources cover Angeli not because something unusual happened to him but because he represents a particular subculture particularly well. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just a point of interest, if this page was deleted, it would make the unusual situation where as of now, he has 11 articles in non English Wikis... but as an English speaking American, he wouldn't have one in his own. As far as I am aware, I've never seen that happen with an article before, and while its allowed of course (because different lanq wikis can have different criteria) it would be unusual to the point of being bizarre. Not an ideal situation. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. I think the many languages versions further demonstrates notability. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You should see the discussion of this above and
WP:OTHERLANGS. The existence of articles in other languages does not confer notability.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah, but my point is, deleting this article would be *highly unusual*...if not completely unheard of in this context. Darryl Kerrigan can you name an English wiki subject that has been regarded as Notable enough to have 11 or more non english articles about it.... but not one in its actual own English wiki? Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure it is unusual at all. Often articles from English wikipedia are copied to other language wikis. As
WP:MIRROR type of argument, and not particularly helpful.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
So Darryl Kerrigan if you say the situation where there are 11 or more non English Wiki articles for an English language subject... but no article on the actual English Wiki itself is not unusual, can you give us an example where that has happenned? Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Deathlibrarian: There are many instances where that has happened. For example, there are articles that even state there is content that should be translated and copied from an article in another language namespace to the english namespace. Some Project or Community talk pages and noticeboards even have discussions over wether an article that exists in one namespace should be tanslated and copied in another namespace. Because you asked for examples, I have some examples of pages that are in other namespaces but not in the english namespace. Sorry if the link texts ends up garbled up due to missing language fonts.  :
english translation : https://www.translatetheweb.com/?ref=TAns&from=&to=en&a=https%3A%2F%2Farz.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%25D9%2584%25D9%2588%25D8%25B3%25D9%2589_%25D9%2588%25D8%25A7%25D9%258A%25D9%2584%25D8%25AF
english translation : https://www.translatetheweb.com/?ref=TVert&from=&to=en&a=https%3A%2F%2Fhi.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%25E0%25A4%25AC%25E0%25A5%258D%25E0%25A4%25B0%25E0%25A5%2587%25E0%25A4%25A8_%25E0%25A4%25AC%25E0%25A5%2587%25E0%25A4%25A8%25E0%25A5%258D%25E0%25A4%25B8%25E0%25A4%25A8
Translation is the same as the previous.
english translation : https://www.translatetheweb.com/?ref=TVert&from=&to=en&a=https%3A%2F%2Ffr.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FComit%25C3%25A9_fran%25C3%25A7ais_d%2527%25C3%25A9ducation_pour_la_sant%25C3%25A9
english translation : https://www.translatetheweb.com/?ref=TVert&from=&to=en&a=https%3A%2F%2Fhy.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%25D5%2589%25D5%25AB%25D5%25AF%25D5%25AB_(%25D5%25B0%25D5%25A5%25D5%25BC%25D5%25B8%25D6%2582%25D5%25BD%25D5%25BF%25D5%25A1%25D5%25BD%25D5%25A5%25D6%2580%25D5%25AB%25D5%25A1%25D5%25AC)
Hope that helped. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 05:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There you go, ok thanks Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold that is interesting. I admit, I haven't seen that before, thanks. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Notable per
    WP:PERP: "For perpetrators... The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." Magnolia677 (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@
WP:N. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
There has never been an determination by consensus that Maple is notable. I have my doubts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, is this among the longest AfD debates in Wikipedia history? I am impressed by the length of the discussion, as well as the passion and intelligence of the discussion. Capt. Milokan (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I know this is not a majority vote, but I see that "Keep" is leading by far. About 129 "Keep" votes vs. about 65 "Delete" votes. Strong arguments have been made for the preservation of the Jake Angeli article. "One of the most visible and prominent QAnon supporters among the violent crowd of extremists who stormed the Capitol building has been forced to deny he is antifa after a number of radical conspiracy theorists turned on him following the unprecedented attack."[1] Being so prominent, an article is understandably justified. Israell (talk) 03:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.newsweek.com/qshaman-washington-antifa-protest-qanon-1559599
@
WP:PNSD
. It is clearly seen that this article should be deleted because, of it being about a person who only was famous for just a one time even. I have even proven above, that having multiple BLP articles in other namespaces do not imply anything or any reasoning what so ever. However, I would like to provide more further proof that it really does not matter if someone has multiple BLP articles in different Wikipedia language namespaces, but not in the Wikipedia English namespace. For this proof I will be using Breanne Benson's Wikidata page as the proof, it shows more than 11 language articles on her.
Do not get fooled over the fact it lists "English" as one of the article languages, that infact is a redirect, while the other articles are actual articles. There have been two AfD discussions on the English Wikipedia over Breanne Benson's article that ended with the decision of delete and redirect to Penthouse Pets. In fact the discussion, although is more alighned with WP:PORNBIO, at the AfD's were actually similar to that of the discussion we are having here. She was nominated and won only once for an award, Jake was only known because of this one time incident. Protestors need to be seen more promently and not just a one time event to have an article on them, WP:PORNBIO requires porn stars to have been nominated and awarded multiple times to have an article on them.
The only reason why this AfD is so long is because there are probably supporters that align with the Jake Angeli, and are trying to do what ever they can to keep this article. Majority of the Delete and Strong Delete voters have much more valid reasons compared to those who have voted Keep. In my opinion, this AfD is probably going to close either as a Delete, or like in the Breanne Benson article's case, as a Delete and Redirect to the Captiol Hill Riots of 2021. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to go down that line of argument, you could obviously also say many of the delete votes are also from people who align against the protests and against Trumps supporters. There are plenty of active people online against the storming of the Capitol, there's no reason why they wouldn't be here voting as well. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Deathlibrarian:I did not say many or quantify an amount, I only said there are people who support him and wan tto keep this article. It has also been notified to us that there is off-wiki canvasing that is occuring related to the AfD. Look at User:Darryl Kerrigan's notice bellow. It actually shows a post where one even states "should we save this person's article?" This shows that there is a possibility that there are supporters of the article subject that are trying to save this article from a delete. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@
Elliot321, your wording seems to be writing off the keep camp as political supporters, which is pretty unfair without proof. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I think you meant to ping
stealth canvassing besides simply providing a link to it so others were aware. That said, I do mostly agree with ACE. There may be canvassing happening on the 'delete' side too, but I haven't seen any evidence of that yet. What we have seen is some folks on 4chan trying to "save" the article. I think the post there speaks for itself: "the wikipedia page for Jake Angeli, the shaman from the capital, is under talks of deletion. Can we save it?".--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I feel like this is a very unfair and extreme characterization of the keep !voters here. The reasons I support keeping this artile are completely unrelated to my own politics.
talk | contribs) 13:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
If you read through the actual comments the most blantantly anti-Trump comments and the ones most contemtuous of anyone who in any way supported the current President of the United States come from those arguing to keep this article. They want to keep this article for generally political reasons to use it as an attack article on their political opponents. A view that totally ignores what we have generally done with articles on people notable for only one incident like Nikolas Cruz, or notable largely in relation to a specific criminal act like Brian David Mitchell. There is no reason to limit the amount said on Chansley in the article on the capitol storming, but Chansley is only notable in the context of that incident, and so there is no reason for a seperate article on him. We have lots of other names that lead to redirects to articles on an incident, and in many cases these are incidents that had one person carry them out, not an incoherent mob.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that an article has a lot of non English wiki articles is *generally* an indicator that the person is notable. (Some unknown user, not catched by auto signature bot).
It may not always be (as in Breanne Benson's case), but in most cases it should be. Citing Breanne Benson just indicates that it doesn't happen in all cases... but so far, that's the only example I have seen. Also, they are very different article subjects. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is actually a noted difference between Babbit and Angeli for two reasons (1) Angeli has a more prominent profile, as he was walking around, speaking to the media, sitting in the speakers chair, and featured prominently as a central figure in the event in international media photographs - Babbit was not (2) Angeli has a media profile *before* this event - he has been interviewed in at least 20 articles before the storming of the capital, he is known particularly in his home state for his role in protests, and was even featured in international media for his prominent roles in protests before this. Babbit has no media coverage before this, so arguably
WP:BLP1E, thus making it inapplicable here as a reason for AFD. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The Ashli Babbitt AfD was closed rather faster than usual, which I feel was unfortunate. This article, which should be an unambiguous keep per
WP:GNG and per consensus, is running well into its seventh day. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC).[reply
]
  • Delete
    WP:BLP1E to the letter. The majority of the keep calls seem to be of the "its useful", "lots of people search for him", etc... Discarded. ValarianB (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I think a comparison with the biographical articles on the heroes, survivors and victims of the WTC attack on 9-11 would be useful here.

Many contributors making the IMO questionable claim that Angeli is a BLP1E individual are overlooking that BLP1E is not an outright bar to BLP1E individuals meriting a standalone article. It is a judgment call. Individuals who played a significant role in a prominent event may merit a standalone article.

I joined the wikipedia in late 2004, and among the articles I started were two on two exceptional survivors of the WTC attack on 9-11,

Brian Clark (September 11 attacks)
. I then learned there had been an extensive discussion that concluded merely being a hero, survivor or victim of the WTC attack on 9-11 was insufficient to merit a standalone article. Apparently that discussion triggered a mass deletion of a large number of stubs on nice but no-notable people.

My two guys were exceptional, measured up to GNG, and ended up being surviving AFD. Nevertheless, you will find people who try to swat articles on people connected with 911, no matter how well they measure up to GNG.

Since then I have started other articles on 911 people, including Orio Palmer, Pablo Ortiz, and Frank De Martini. Purists challenged the Orio Palmer article, as well.

I suggest that the kind of absolute bar those calling for a blanket dismissal of all 2021-01-06 people, based on BLP1E is both very unhelpful, and counterpolicy. Every hero, survivor or victim of 9-11, without regard to GNG, would be something like 20,000 people. However, previously non-notable 911 people, who subsequently measured up to GNG? That is maybe 100, maybe 200 people. Those good articles are good additions to the wikipedia.

How many insurgents broke into the US Capitol? How many previously non-notable Capitol staffers had something to say about the insurrection? Thousands.

But no one is suggesting we have articles on every single insurgent, or even every single insurgent captured on cell phone and surveillance video. If we restrict standalone articles to those who measure up to GNG - like Angeli - that would be mere dozens. Geo Swan (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this will {{

ping}} everyone who called for deletion, based on BLP1E... @Future Perfect at Sunrise, KidAd, Herbfur, MelanieN, NickCT, Missvain, Zacharie Grossen, Praxidicae, Surv1v4l1st, Gnangarra, Bearcat, Ibrahim.ID, François Robere, Themoother, ValarianB, and Reywas92:... Geo Swan (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks for the ping. I’m open to reconsider but for now, I maintain my delete vote. I think your comparison is a very valid one and I thank you for bringing it up. But the issue is that I’m not sure if Angeli played a significant enough role in the storming of the Capitol. If I’m understanding correctly, the people from 9/11 had significant stories about surviving/saving people which merited their inclusion? I’m not really sure if Angeli was notably connected to the event in a similar way. If he played a big role in orchestrating it, or executing it, or maybe saving people (probably not), and there’s coverage of that by reliable sources, then I’d change my vote to keep and improve. But otherwise, I maintain my delete vote with openness to reconsider. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Guess, I wasn't pinged because I said
the storming. I also expect in the coming months as those who did more than simply trespass continue to appear in court to face charges related to conspiracy, bomb making, domesitc terrorism etc. (ie did play a more significant role), Angeli's role may look much more insignificant in hindsight.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:ONEEVENT does not apply, he fails GNG because he did not have much of an influence in the event that took place. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree with everything that was said above. Geo Swan is right that this is a judgement call, but one based on criteria that this particular subject does not satisfy. As far as media reports go, the subject's participation in these events consists of little more than dressing like a drunk sports fan, joining a mob, then asking for organic meals in jail. I don't see how this is of enough encyclopaedic value to merit its own article. François Robere (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This guy has not played a significant role in the Jan 6 event nor in any other previous event. He has been picked up by the media because of his appearance, not because of his actions. If the media fishes for clicks based on appearance (face paint, tattoos etc.) this does not automatically qualify the guy for notability. What is he notable for other than standing out in a crowd? If a subjective call has to be made it should be a Delete based on not wanting to set a precedent that being a weirdo makes one notable. Notability is about content and substance. Apperance is devoid of both of these qualities. Themoother (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has the nominator made any research on this person? He is clearly notable. Lettlerhello • contribs 02:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - other editors have argued that the subject is previously notable but almost every single reference in the article was written on or after 6 January 2021 and relates to his participation in the insurrection. If there are references establishing his notability prior to the riot, I'd change my vote to keep. If anyone has these references, please provide them because I'd love to see them. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 04:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Herbfur, thanks for responding to my earlier ping, I'll leave a comment under it.
    • No offense, but I think your comment incorporates what I regard as a serious and unfortunately common lapse from
      WP:BEFORE
      explicitly lays out that nominators are under a strong obligation to conduct their own meaningful web search, prior to starting an AFD. If, after doing that web search, they conclude that while the current state of the article is weak, the underlying topic is notable they are supposed to take steps to improve the article, not delete it.

      I think everyone else considering weighing in in an AFD should conduct a meaningful web search first, so they can reach their own informed conclusion on the notability of the underlying topic.

I agree with Herbfur here.
    • With regard to BLP1E, shouldn't even one good article from prior to the insurrection be enough to swat BLP1E?
    • One of Deathlibrarian's comment above goes into some detail about the extensive coverage of Angeli by Arizona Central in 2020. I know this discussion is long, but the info you looked for was already in here. I too found references to prior to the attempted seizure.
    • I wrote above about the difficulty in finding early information about someone who has just been part of a very highly covered recent event. I wrote about really having this phenomenon spelled out when I made these edits to the article on
      Chesley_Sullenberger
      . We didn't have an article about him, prior to his remarkable emergency landing on the Hudson River. About a dozen good faith contributors were convinced he was a non-notable nobody, who would be forgotten in a week or two. I guessed that he had previous notability factors and might have been (barely) notable, 'PRIOR to the landing. The result of my efforts to test that was just a stub, but it established he was not a BLP1E. Well, because of how google handles breaking news, and due to how every single reporter around the world wanted to write their own article about him, even if it rehashed the same breaking news as every other article, I had to go through hundreds of google hits to find the half dozen references to the earlier notability factors. It took me almost two hours.
    • For guys like Sullenberger, in January 2009, or Angeli, in January 2021, finding those earlier references is very hard work.
    • No offence, but I think the people who did a very cursory search, and didn't find any references to earlier RS, in the first screenful of google results, gave up too early. This firehose phenomenon I described is woefully underrecognized. Geo Swan (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The government's brief in support of detention for Chansley's detention hearing details how Chansley inspired and incited other participants: "While Officer Robishaw was attempting to quell the crowd, Chansley was using his bullhorn to incite it. Because the Capitol building is cavernous, the sound of Chansley's voice over the bullhorn carried to different areas of the building." — Toughpigs (talk) 06:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is very much a
    WP:1E, handwaving above notwithstanding. (An event like a crime and the repercussions of it such as arrest and prosecution and TV interviews about it, are all one even from WP's standpoint). Merge the summarized gist into a section on the event and those arrested and charged in relation to it. I guess technically this would be a blank-and-redirect-to-section result, unless the summary material isn't merged from this article is is instead written anew.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Nope sorry there pardner, he fails
      WP:1E it ain't applicable - his media coverge/media profile predates capitol hill storming, so he's not just known for one event, but he has been interviewed and mentioned in (according to Factiva) 20 articles before the date of capital hill, for various other things he was involved in, particulalry in his home state. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
Pardner, I suggest you provide those "pre-storming sources" you claim amount to significant coverage. The only one referenced in the article is simply a caption of a photo (among many others). The others I have seen are brief "man in a crowd" interviews (which no one has chosen to add to the article, probably because they are so trivial). The fact that you still haven't provided these magic "20 references" suggests that they don't exist, aren't
WP:RS, are trivial or otherwise are not significant coverage.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk
)
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/Jake_Angeli&oldid=1083686558"