Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Angeli

Jake Angeli

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Jake Angeli (edit | 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)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

• 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]https://scontent.flhr2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/136446206_10157604641127401_6921577729777909636_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&ccb=2&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=TXL6xtR5-f0AX8N6iYX&_nc_ht=scontent.flhr2-1.fna&oh=a5a0f913eaceca7f9e6ca5f7c1096d5f&oe=601D5921

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)

• Delete Angeli’s page could be considered in violation of Wikipedia’s Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment guidleines. The reason for this person’s notoriety is due to recent terrorist activity: This violates WP:NOTSCANDAL. Additionally, the only reason for this article seems to be current events. WP:NOT#JOURNALISM or WP:ONEEVENT. This individual does not belong on Wikipedia for numerous reasons and should thus be removed from these archives.Mr Zappe (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Mr zappe, Uh, I created the stub, so self-promotion's not at play here. Try again! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• 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)

• @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)

• 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)

• You make quite a valid point. I wasn’t for the deletion of this article because it would serve as an excuse for "America bashing" but because when I initially ran across this article it seemed like an insignificant individual who was being glorified because of his prominence in news photographs. Based on the controversy surrounding this person and the amount of debate that seems to be surrounding the deletion of this article, maybe my first impressions weren't merited. Mr Zappe (talk) 08:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep: There are more than enough in-depth articles about him to satisfy WP:GNG. Importantly, these profiles are not mostly 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)

• Keep. Tremendous amount of media sources on this figure, quite clearly notable. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
  • "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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
• Delete Being one of millions who supported President Drumpf 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)
  • 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)
• 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)

• So you are arguing to merge, right? Not delete? - Astrophobe (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• 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)

• Keep. The toothpaste is already out of the tube. It's important for people to know what this guy is up to, what he says, and what he does. Wikipedia is a great place for information to be quickly and easily shared and easily corrected if it's wrong. Elon Musk's meme tweet with his image makes him even more notable, and it's important for people to know that just 'cos you have a fancy costume doesn't make you a Burner or hold burner values. Darrell Duane 21:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dduane (talk • contribs)
  • A merge to QAnon#US Capitol storming would maintain the content without a separate article. Reywas92^Talk 01:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. But article does need to be better written and resourced. There has to be more done on his background. Shelyric (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• KeepDelete No SUSTAINed coverage (every source is 6 January 2021 or later). Prior to this event, no sourcing existed about him outside of blogs and podcasts, as far as I can tell. This can be draftified and revisited in the future. Seems like there's enough on second look. Jlevi (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• 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)

• More can be found in my comment above. - Astrophobe (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• 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)

• Keep He has become iconic and if you watch closely he does speak there are interviews on youtube with him though tends to be way out in the wacky galaxy talking about "satanic pizza symbols" however he is emblematic of some of the insane conspiracy theories espoused within the mob. Kudos @anotherbeliever for the spot on addition and excellent wiki foresight. There are editors who all they live to do is to delete they move to delete before they even think about it. Think of it like the stock market it is slso about the future obviously this person will be a notable story and is already well known within his peripheral nutty community.22:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Williamsdoritios (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Obviously he's in the 3rd minute of his 15, but deeper sources will invariably arrise in the next few weeks. No Swan So Fine (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep He received significant coverage in reliable sources before the storming of the capitol building, and has received massive coverage since. He's now notable. This encyclopedia should cover notable extremists. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRIME. Jmbranum (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep He is not notable for having been convicted of any crime, yet Bosser_15^Talk 01:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol - Does not warrant own page (yet) per WP:1E and WP:CRIME. 1E recommends redirects, which would make sense here. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Tomklem (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • This is not a vote. Reywas92^Talk 01:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete or merge/redirect to QAnon#US Capitol storming or 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME, this should absolutely not be a stand-alone article. Reywas92^Talk 01:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, the news coverage on him specifically as well as the important misinformation that he is Antifa, makes him notable as a major participant in this major insurrection. Keizers (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol per the recently closed discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashli Babbitt. Same situation, same case. Bkissin (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Angeli has been present in prior protests and rallies and became a poster boy for the events at the Capitol, being at the center of a lot of the media's attention. Be it because of his unusual attire, his beliefs, or his antics, he caught the attention of the general public not only on a national but on an international level. Nocunoct (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete or merge/redirect to QAnon#US Capitol storming or 2021 storming of the United States Capitol per User:Reywas92. Thriley (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Why would this be deleted? Angeli is likely to face charges in the imminent future and as his case is prosecuted the investigation and testimony that emerges may shed important light on one of this country's most significant political events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:8:11:0:0:0:90 (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - significant media coverage --Jtle515 (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - Notability and extensive media coverage outside of just 2021 Capitol storming activity (i.e. infighting with Lin Wood, prior protest activity and QAnon activity).KenzoShibata (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. The precedent over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashli Babbitt should apply here as well; the only major difference is passing coverage of Angeli in previous local news organizations, all of which seem to treat him as a curious participant (because of his ridiculous outfit) to interview rather than an inherently notable figure. Put another way, pre-2021 coverage 100% doesn't meet WP:GNG, and per the Babbitt decision, it would appear neither does 2021 coverage. Adding them together does not change that, in my opinion. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 03:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Changing to Keep in light of additional coverage and reasoning outlined below by Deathlibrarian and others. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 17:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Except Angeli and Babbitt are very different figures. Angeli was a known entity and pseudo-leader before the storming. Babbitt died, name got circulated because of the event and not because even her death was notable. Kingsif (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Far too early to create an article on someone who has been mentioned briefly in the media. This is a knee-jerk reaction to 15 seconds of fame. 215lax (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep — lots of news coverage. Comfr (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - The discussion about this individual has already come up at 2021 storming of the United States Capitol and it was agreed it was more appropriate that information about him should stay on this page, and not there. I was actually going to post about him on the page for the event, or for Jamiroqaouia, as there are a number of articles about him, including one that interviewed him. However, rather than it go on those two pages, it should really be posted here - so this article is useful in keeping the information off those two pages at least. While he seemed to have come to notoriety in the storming of the capital, he in fact has been interviewed and discussed in articles before that event, even going back to last year, so arguably, his notoriety is not related to just one event. Clearly, there is substantial RS discussing him, even from International sources. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability is clear and has been established. macgirl (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Weak delete. The person in question is not notable except for wearing a homemade chewbacca outfit and committing a federal crime based on zero evidence; after the actions of the 6th, he's just one more face in a crowd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.214.49.219 (talk) 06:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - I am glad I was able to learn who this person was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4C4E:1E9C:E900:45F6:57A8:AEDA:6BD4 (talk) 06:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep as was said above - a lot of news coverage, not only related to the Capitol event. I also agree with the above IP comment, as I came here with the same motivation. We record notable information about the world and we have the advantage and space to do it in its complexity. I don't think it's just a 15 seconds of fame, the information may serve future researchers to create more plastic image and descripiton of what happened in our era. Deletion would be a disservice to our readers and to our encyclopedia. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - This nomination, and many of the delete opinions, are classic instances of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. No, merely being a supporter or QAnon, or any other movement, is not enough to make someone notable. But massive and substantial coverage by RS does make one notable, it always has. Nominator's enormous mistake here is to forget he or she is not an RS themselves. I am not an RS, Jimbo Wales is not an RS, and our nominator is not an RS. Our nominator is trying to use AFD for editorializing. Geo Swan (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep: It's worth seeing how this develops and there is enough sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep While I might find him a contemptible person, he's become notable, even infamous recently. RS exists. Notability is there. Can't say anything else because I find him objectionable. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 07:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Weak delete - We'll see what he does later down the road, but I was only able to hear about this guy because of what he did at the Capitol. Nothing he did before then really stood out. Love of Corey (talk) 08:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep significant coverage, including prior to this event (AIUI). The impression of attempting to unperson protesters and rioters is being made, even if that's not intended. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 08:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC).
  
• Delete Appears primarily to be of more interest than anyone else who participated in the event solely because of his efforts to appear visually distinctive. An attention-seeking costume doesn't constitute notability. If he hadn't appeared in photos looking outlandish, we wouldn't even be discussing him at all, there are no notable deeds. Also, WP:ONEEVENT, would we be having this conversation if not for his appearing in photos of a single event which occurred less than 36 hours ago? I don't think so. He could still easily be totally forgotten by the next turn of the 24-hour news cycle. He may yet become notable; but he is not currently. He ain't Ted Williams. SteubenGlass (talk) 10:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:ONEEVENT may not apply here, as he has been interviewed before in the media, I believe last year, well before it occurred, so arguably he has had some profile outside this event. Not suprisingly I guess, he has been getting attention for some time! Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - • Sbmeirow • Talk • 10:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep The fact that we on Wikipedia have a lengthy discussion about him. Tomaatje12 (talk) 10:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia has an obligation to the international public - on internet search sites - to counter misinformation on internet that he is Antifa DancingPhilosopher (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC).
• Delete Doesn't seem he will be notable outside of what he did in the Capitol buliding. BeŻet (talk) 11:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep He has become a symbol of Trumpist fascism, and deleting him would be deleting history. 12:53 (UTC) 8 January 2021 — Weyenst (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep He is trending on internet search engines and Wikipedia is the most relevant place to get information about him. He'll also likely be arrested and tried as ringleader of an extremely notable event. This is such an obvious *Keep* that even considering deletion is laughable. That he is only notable now after his participation in the storming of the capitol building is irrelevant. Fstring (talk) 13:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep All world best site (as New York Times, Washington post, The Guardian, The indipendent and more) talk in depth about Jake Angeli, and he is one of the cape of attack to capitol hill. His picture under capital hill with viking dress is doing world tour 5.179.159.9 (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Whether we like it or not his image will live on. His fate will be of interest to people. He is also the subject of conspiracy theories so good info on him is for the public good.Óli Gneisti (talk) 13:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable individual. Clear example of WP:1E. No non-trivial coverage in WP:RS prior to this singular event. Also fails WP:CRIME. Few sentences that may be worth preserving should be merged into the main article. Melmann 15:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Melmann, could you please explain, more fully, why you discount the coverage of Angeli that predates the attempt to seize the Capitol building? Did he measure up to our notability criteria, prior to January 6th? (1) Maybe. (2) I don't know. (3) I don't think it matters. I suggest the fact that he did receive meaningful news coverage, prior to January 6th, is a complete refutation of your claim he is an instance of a BLP1E. I am pinging Darryl Kerrigan whose comment is just a WP:ATA lapsing me too. Geo Swan (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

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)

• Darryl Kerrigan, we have some special purpose notability guidelines, like 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)

Thanks for your reference to WP:POLITICIAN, but I don't think that applies here. It generally applies to international, national, or state/provincial office holders. He is a protester/rioter whose only claim to notability is the colourful costume he wore in this WP:ONEEVENT. He wore a similar costume at at least one other event but the source on that point does not create notability. Is everyone photographed here notable? I think that is a silly suggestion. One pre-event source which simply includes a photo and caption does not confer notability. There is a reason nearly all of the sources cited in his article are dated January 6, 2021 or later: he is notable for one event only. He probably should be mentioned in the 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)

• 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 Drumpf 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)

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)

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-Drumpf protester which RSes like to use as a cover photo. Thank you. Melmann 19:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Delete There's a stack of sources from the last two days, most relating to his comical appearance. There are multiple articles on Wikipedia about right-wing conspiracy theorists and agitators, but they came due to sustained coverage for their actions - see Paul Joseph Watson and the continuous deletion discussions before that page was allowed. The page doesn't indicate that Angeli was somehow a cut above the rest of the rioters - in terms of organisation or crimes committed - but just that he looked odd. Then there's a "rumors" section in which a 90s pop star jokes about some memes, and the usual coginitive dissonance conspiracy theories. Wikipedia is not Snopes and doesn't exist to debunk theories by Minion-posting Boomers on Facebook Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per Melmann. Clearly WP:ONEEVENT. No real claim to notability besides a colourful costume at 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Activities at other rallies/protests are not notable.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep :
  • iconic photo (viral @ satiric sites, i.e. here or here
  • he can be seen as pars pro toto / an example (sry, I am German = no native speaker) for the guys who stormed the Capitol. --Präziser (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep He is globally known, like it or not. Last month, we voted in favor of keeping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler_Uunona who got famous for one day and then disappeared from the media. Jake Angeli is way more notable than Adolf Hitler from Namibia. Topjur01 (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  Uunona is a politician, which makes him more notable. BeŻet (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  Uunona is the holder of a postion that completely and totally fails the notability guidelines for incluision. The decision to keep the article on him was clearly flawed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Delete and Redirect to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol similar to very convincing arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashli Babbitt. Same situation, same case. Cameron Scott (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Very different situations. Her name only circulated because she died, his for being a notable participant. Kingsif (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep – significant media coverage surrounding this individual and his participation in the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. There is no deadline on when articles should be kept or deleted. We should wait. cookie monster (2020) 755 17:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Changing my position based on the addition of new sources. Delete and Redirect His notability seems to be based on the costume he wore. I agree with the above sentiments that we will see what might become of him, but at the moment he is not a notable enough figure to warrant his own page. Rockandrollherold (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Note Article has been translated into Dutch and Norwegian.Tomaatje12 (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

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)

• Comment after incorporating sources to the article, it now demonstrates notable coverage back to 2019. Kingsif (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep (disclaimer: stub started by me). Clearly notable now per GNG. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - Passes WP:GNG and the storming of the Capitol wasn't the only thing he did or has done. Horacio Vara^{wanna talk?} 18:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - Notability supported by multiple secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - at this point he's clearly notable. Volunteer Marek 18:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• KeepDelete Per WP:BLP1E, a person would not be notable solely for appearing in the news if "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." This individual was the person who made it into the senate chamber. As that substantially contributed to the severity of the security breach, he is a notable part or the event. Actually, he is not the only one, and we do not have articles for everyone else who made it into the senate chamber. He wasn't even the one sitting in the Presiding Officer's chair. ​​Caleb M1 (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - Worldwide shown shit is worth to be shown and described --84.190.220.194 (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:741:8001:4E90:3921:DE17:4219:C8D (talk • contribs)
• Keep - I was curious to know about this weird personality, who has been noted worldwide. Agnerf (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep He has a lot of media coverage now, after the storming of the Capitol, but he received some media coverage prior to this year: [1], and has been mentioned in numerous newspaper articles as "a regular at pro-Drumpf rallies who typically wears a wooly fur hat with horns". Natg 19 (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - People are searching for him the world over and her meets my bar for notability. He is in one of the iconic photos that will be around for many years to come.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Having an article about this individual is not an endorsement of his actions. His photo has been shared thousands of times around the world in 2 days. It serves as a visual metaphor for a significant world event. His photo is going to be in History texts, for good or bad. Greenmongoose (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I will note article much improved with the two pictures and change in layout. Apparently he is wanted by the FBI - presumably this means he is "on the run?" and his whereabouts are unknown. 23:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Keeping this page is not an endorsement of the actions, or a promotion of the ideology, of this individual. His photo is now iconic to depict the storm onto the Capitol and did the tour of the world. He is also associated to conspiracy theories. Wikipedia is probably one of the first places where to go to get information about this personage and what he represents. However, if any bad usage of this page, or unexpected abuses, would occur, it would then be relevant to delete this page. As long as it remains factual, true, correct, properly documented in a traceable way and informative, is it a problem? Nevertheless, an important point to also keep in mind: this page cannot serve for spreading disinformation, fake news, or inciting violence. It cannot also serve to glorify violence or conspiracy theories. Shinkolobwe (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment This page should not be misappropriate to celebrate criminal acts and their authors, but it is important to also factually document how US democracy was attacked on January 6th 2021. This seen from a non US perspective. Shinkolobwe (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep: [Removed per WP:BLP] but there's sufficient coverage here to meet GNG. BLP1E does not apply as there is sufficient coverage of multiple of Angeli's actions. It doesn't matter if reliable source coverage is about something as important as winning a Nobel prize or as trivial as dropping a crisp packet on the floor; coverage is our criterion [removed per WP:BLP]. — Bilorv (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The above does not fall afoul of WP:BLPREMOVE as it is clearly well-sourced that Angeli supports QAnon and [removed per WP:BLP]. — Bilorv (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    • As the esteemed academic Gregory Stanton puts it, QAnon is a Nazi cult and hence we should be careful to ensure that the second paragraph of WP:FRINGEBLP is met; in this case, I believe it does based on the high number of sources, but I can see that others would consider it a strike against having an article here. — Bilorv (talk) 08:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I'd like to point out he is notable enough that there are 4 articles on him on the non English language Wikipedia 's, Spanish, Turkish, Swedish and Dutch. None of those are up for deletion. I would think it particularly strange that countries outside the US would think an American at an American event is notable and worthy of a page, but bizarrely, America itself deleted his article. At this stage, we don't want to force our English speaking wikipedia users to go off and have to translate a non English article to get information about someone they should be able to read about...that would be ridiculous Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • See WP:OTHERLANGS for more specific details, but each project has own polices and guidelines established by its own community. What those projects decide to do doesn't affect English Wikipedia any more than what English Wikipedia decides to do affects them. Moreover, from Talk:Jake Angeli#Dutch version, it appears that at least least one of the versions you refer to above is basically a translation of the English Wikipedia article, That's OK to do per WP:TRANSLATEUS from a licensing standpoint, but arguing that such a thing is a reason for notability is like trying to argue WP:CIRCULAR with respect to notability. If there are are reliable sources cited in these other Wikipedia articles that help establish notability, then they can be used (even if they're not in English), but that's about the only value these non-English Wikipedia articles have when it comes to WP:BIO. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I'd also ask you to have a look at aspects of WP:OTHERLANGS Yes - other wiki *may* have other criteria for inclusion for a notable subject, but there is nothing as far as I can see, that differentiates those pages for notability than this one. If anything, he should be *more* notable for a US wiki, than for Portugeuse or Turkish wiki.Also, and I quote, at the core of it "A notable topic will often be covered by Wikipedia articles in many languages other than English" in this case the article is now covered in *7* different wiki non-English wikis. Yesterday it was only 4. So obviously wiki's all over the world have decided this person is notable, but...the English Language wiki does not? It is common to look at other wiki's and the quality of the RS to decide if an article is notable, I have worked on a lot of AFDs over many years, and I can't recall ever seeing where a US subject had 7 non English wikis, but no English wiki article of its own. As for your direct translation argument IMHO it doesn't hold - one or two of them may be direct copies, but looking at them, most of them are not. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Just two things in response. (1) English Wikipedia isn’t US wiki and trying to say as much will eventually lead to arguments about WP:GLOBAL. (2) I didn’t say he wasn’t notable; I posted that simply being written about on other Wikipedia’s doesn’t make him automatically notable. If he meets WP:BIO, then it doesn’t matter how many other Wikipedia’s have articles about him. If the consensus is to keep this article, then it will be kept regardless of what happens to the articles on those other language Wikipedias. If there are new sources in those other articles which help establish his notability, then they can be added to the English Wikipedia article. If, however, those articles are basically written based upon the sources cited in this article, then you’re back to a WP:CIRCULAR or WP:MIRROR type of argument. — Marchjuly (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
        • Yes, English language wikipedia is obviously not a US specific Wikipedia, but from my experience, it's used in the majority by American and written mainly by US wikipedians, and it's the defacto Wikipedia for the US citizens (and given the subject matterm its more likely US editors will be on here with opinions, than South Africans or English). We may yet see a debate about WP:GLOBAL and this article. I wasn't saying you said he wasn't notable, but glad to hear you think he is, simply that that would be the argument for removing the article. Normally you would look at foreign wiki's for WP:RS, but I would do moreso do that where RS is lacking and the article is a foreign subject and there wasn't much in English. There is plenty of RS here, and more in English that isn't even being used. It's possible, but at this stage of the AFD, I'm not sure adding foreign language articles will make much difference. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete or merge per WP:BLP1E. The subject is notable only for one event, so he doesn't merit an entire standalone article. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • WP:ONEEVENT may not apply here, as he has been interviewed before in the media, I believe last year, well before it occurred, has a history of activity, and so arguably he has had some profile outside this event. Apparently(?) has organised other events? Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep the coverage is everywhere. Whoever said above that the toothpaste is out of the tube summed it up nicely. Possibly (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per Herbfur's argument. The subject can be relegated to a small section of another article until that time, if ever, that he is known for more than one event, which is unlikely considering he will probably go to Federal prison, but I digress. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• I don't think there's enough about Angeli to support an article at this time; this may change, but none of us are precognitive. Deleted material can be restored if need be; delete for now. DS (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per Astrophobe. Coverage in reliable sources clearly meets WP:GNG. Coverage of his role in the storming would be enough by itself to make WP:BLP1E inapplicable because of the volume and prominence of the coverage. The coverage from previous Drumpf events before only adds to his notability. The insidiousness of his beliefs is not a bar to having a Wikipedia entry, and in any case the public is better served by having a fair and accurate article about him than not having one. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Known for photos. During the storming. Not notable on the national or even regional stage except for his funny/weird/singular costume at this insurrection/attempted coup. Worthy perhaps of a section or subsection at the main article (maybe a "Known participants" section, along with those who have been charged like that WV state legislator) but not an entire article. If people come looking to WP for information about Angeli then they will find it at the main article through a redirect. Shearonink (talk) 08:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• merge/delete/redirect There's already an article on the riot and Qanon, which is all the guy is known for, and he isn't even a leader of either. The subject probably doesn't warrant even it's own heading in those articles, let alone a separate article.Yaakovaryeh (talk) 08:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I already actually tried to include it on the article for the storming of the capitol incident. It was breifly discussed on the talk pages, and it was said not to be appropriate to include information about him there, and that the appropriate place for any information was in fact, this article.Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Per the article itself, Angeli is known for more than WP:ONEEVENT. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Has significant news coverage, ABC, NBC, Newsweek, etc. Meets norability guidelines.Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Meets notability guidelines, due to (a) instant worldwide notoriety per recent news coverage, and (b) that he was already known for more than this WP:ONEEVENT. -- The Anome (talk) 12:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Weak keep While I take OP's point, I think recent media attention has led to him being more notable. — Czello 12:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep While WP:ONEEVENT would normally be a concern, the number of different aspects covered in multiple RS sway this topic to being properly notable. Alexbrn (talk) 12:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep: Plenty of sources to meet notability and arguably the 'face' of the storming, with significant coverage outside the event that some readers will be interested in, regardless of WP:GREATWRONGS arguments on either side. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep the coverage is significant, international. --Deansfa (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Easily meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO. - Ahunt (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Now meets GNG and should be kept, IOW some people should reevaluate their !votes above and change them. -- Valjean (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep While he gained notoriety because of one event, there's a sustained history prior to that event to write about. XOR'easter (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete a nobody, transiently of interest .... to the FBI, not Wikipedia.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. These arguments would have merit if he weren't known prior to the storming, but he was. People also seem to miss the part of WP:ONEEVENT that says "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Prinsgezinde (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - He's received substantial coverage, probably moreso than any other rioter there (even the pipe bomber). --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 19:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per BLP1E, then Redirect to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Which is what we should do with every other individual who has no notability except for their participation in that event. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. This is absolutely a notable individual, with enormous coverage in sources. And according to CNN [2], has told the FBI he came to Washington earlier this week “as a part of a group effort, with other ‘patriots’ from Arizona, at the request of the President that all ‘patriots’ come to DC on January 6, 2021,” "His voluntary disclosure to the FBI is the strongest wording in court filings yet indicating coordination between followers of the President that led to the violent and destructive overrun of the Capitol". That alone justifies notability. My very best wishes (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong delete I understand that the iconic photo of the subject has had significant coverage provided by reliable sources, that are independent of the subject. However, the coverage is focused not on an 3-D individual but on iconic photos of the particular costume and makeup worn for a persona for several hours on a specific day. We don't need to know about this subject's early life or provide a platform for their statements because of what he chose to wear that day. "What is a "large role" in this event? How do we delimit the "event"? Is it just including several hours on Wednesday in which hundreds of participants were videotaping and taking photos providing limitless media fodder? How many individuals in these images and video clips should have articles of their own which included full biographical details like their early life? I think we should hold off on creating individual articles simply because of wide media coverage which in some cases, such as this, has focused on ridiculing the individual because of their comedic costumes or ludicrous statements etc. which through time, will be a source of embarrassment to the individuals and to Wikipedia. I also have concerns that this article would provide an unwitting platform for propagating conspiracy theories and would give these individuals unmerited heroic status. An iconic photo should not result in a biography of the individual if the subject is simply being ridiculed.Oceanflynn (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per Oceanflynn. Mgasparin (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Few days later, he's being all over social media. I do not support him or his views but he is a public figure right now, non-american people would even recognize him. As long the entry is neutral and not trying to push any political agendas I do not see any issue in keeping it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neptunedits (talk • contribs) 20:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• keep for relevant in unforgettable scenes. At least so important as a Pokemon character. -- Iape (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment His photo is on the front page of the New York Times, linked to this article. Possibly (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - Half wish we could keep this, b/c he was definitely the best dressed rioter/insurrectionist. That said, seems to be a textbook example of WP:BLP1E. NickCT (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per BLP1E, then Redirect and 2021 storming of the United States Capitol per MelanieN. Plenty of Karens and Kens and conspiracy people end up in national press coverage for stupid and terrible things, but they don't all deserve a Wikipedia article. Missvain (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per Astrophobe above.   // Timothy :: talk  00:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Has significant coverage now for my mind. Hughesdarren (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Redirect - per WP:BLP1E. He's notable only for one event (see references) and his role was not substantial (not even mentioned only a sentence in 2021 storming of the United States Capitol). Can always be restored later if necessary. Zach (Talk) 00:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep for the time being - his significance may grow in the ensuing weeks especially once he goes to trial. When the verdict is delivered I believe is the better time to consider deletion. - kosboot (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge this person is clearly notable (or at least now he is). Notable for something horrible and strange but still, I don't see how anyone could consider this non-notable when he was talked about from every direction, including now scholarly sources. He can be considered a single notable of sort. That being that he only became notable for a a single act and without it he isn't, however he is currently now notable after the riots in the capital. Being notable for a single act certainly isn't a reason for deletion. Des Vallee (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Could you show us a few of those scholarly sources? -- MelanieN (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - prominent and not only for this particular event Skysmith (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - His fifteen minutes of fame are up. If he had stayed on the front page of even one newspaper I would have voted otherwise. Allthenamesarealreadytaken (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable, his costume may be, but he himself is not. Drsmoo (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep has attained significant coverage, moreso than most people considered under WP:BLP1E - WP:IAR takes clear precedence here. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per BIO1E and redirect to the storming of the capitol. Sure the 1E is very significant but this person's role and press coverage is more based on his appearance than anything of substance. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. The very poster child of WP:BLP1E. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Future Perfect at Sunrise, except for the coverage at other events in May and September and November Elizium23 (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Nothing of that is in-depth coverage of him as a person. He's just being picked out for a picture due to his idiosyncratic appearance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep the subject does not meet all of the required 3 items of WP:BLP1E particularly If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. The event was significant, adn the individuals role was substantial - pages of google news articles, and specific BBC articles about his arrest. --144.130.152.1 (talk) 09:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep: Agree with Toughpigs, people need Wikipedia as an unbiased source in this situation. His claim to fame can be reevaluated in a few weeks, but leave the page online for now. NoetherianRing (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • +1 --Präziser (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep He attracted coverage before this incident as well.[3] LearnIndology (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Absolutely fails WP:BIO. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• @Andise1: : when you started the deletion discussion / 7 Jan 19:55), the article had ~6000 bytes ; now (2,5 days later) it has ~22.000 bytes (incl. 34 refs) and wiki style. In between, there are Jake-articles in eight other languages (es, fr, ja, nl, no, pt, ru, tr). Do you still think deletion is a good idea ? --Präziser (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Has attracted enough attention for other events as well as for those of last Wednesday that I think he can be said to pass the notability threshhold at this juncture. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 12:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, the three individuals who pass WP:BLP1E for this significant event are this protester (who has become a "face" of the siege and also has cites outside of the Capitol protest), the woman who was shot, and the Capitol policeman who was murdered. All three rise above BLPIE, and articles for the other two seem inevitable. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

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)

MelanieN, where shall we discuss Angeli's involvement in three prior protests, including a climate change one, and interviews with him and his mother? Those would be WP:COATRACK in the Capitol article. Elizium23 (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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. Drumpf, 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. Drumpf 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. Drumpf, 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Delete - too soon to see importance of bio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nothingbutthegirls (talk • contribs) 18:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• 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:ONEEVENT and it sorely fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable individual; and giving notoriety via Wikipedia could be seen as encouraging criminal acts. CloudSurferUK (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  That's not Wikipedia's concern — please see WP:NOTCENSORED. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. WP:1E WP:CRIME etc. Somethings pass the 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)
• Keep Lots of third party coverage of the subject from reputable, independent sources are available[4][5][6]. 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Keep He is increasingly becoming more notable everyday thus standalone article is justified. Santosh L (talk) 12:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• 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)
• Keep. Notability established by reliable sources. Gamaliel (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep — lots of coverage.--Falkmart (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - lots of coverage, quite notableVictor Grigas (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• 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)

• Keep: several articles on the Argentine media, and his photo is being used all over the place. Neo139 (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BLP1E. Probably WP:SALT KidAd talk 00:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• delete WP:BLP1E. Stop giving more attention to cosplaytriots. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 00:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLP1E. --Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 01:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment- for people that are quoting WP:BLP1E - arguably, it doesn't apply for him, because for it to be used to negate an article, it needs to apply ALL of the three criteria:
  • "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event" - As has been mentioned, he has appeared in the media previously, and been interviewed for his long history of activity.
  • "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" - This may apply, hard to be certain considering his current circumstance.
  • "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented" - considering he was seen standing at the speakers podium, and seemed to be the centre of attention and was used as the main person personifying the protestors, and has been captured by media all around the world, its pretty clear to say this doesn't apply. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

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:RS seem to be discussing him because the movements are notable, not because he is. He does not seem to pass WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV for this reason. There does not appear to be WP:SUSTAINED coverage of him over an extended period of time. There seems to be trivial "pre-storming coverage" and extensive coverage based on the 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)

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:BLP1E. He has been interviewed repeatedly at events, so he does have a media profile before this event, amongst other things referred to as "Jake Angeli, a voice actor who was much photographed at the Phoenix demonstrations for his horned warrior attire" and "Jake Angeli, a well-known QAnon supporter in Arizona," " 32-year-old Jake Angeli, a familiar face at pro-Drumpf rallies and a purported QAnon conspiracy theorist sometimes referred to as the “QAnon Shaman" "Even Arizona’s “Q Shaman,” who dresses in animal pelts and promotes QAnon, is here". 20 articles before this event, as well as the media indicating him as a known figure at these events, IMHO, definitely pushes him over the line for WP:ONEEVENT to not apply. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

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)

"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)

• Keep Is now a person of interest. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
  • Well hurry up and get it deleted before he becomes notable! Andale! Elizium23 (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)
• Delete or merge as per WP:BLP1E cant establish any sources of notability prior to the storming of the Capitol, the only source used prior to that day is https://time.com/5908628/maricopa-county-arizona-protests/ the only coverage is a photo that includes him nothing else. The image in the Infobox is very questionable and has the appearance of a Flickr license washing account [7]... Gnangarra 04:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • There's plenty of articles interviewing him before the event, I have references for *20*, that's from the Factiva database, and there are probably more from other databases. You can set the date range on Google so it searches before the event, and it will give you a stack of them. If you can only find one, its more to do with how or where you are searching. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• 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)
• Keep - Clearly notable. Perhaps the most well recognized participant in the Capitol riot. GWA88 (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per Astrophobe. lots of news coverage. Hasan (talk) 05:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep based on wode coverages on the topic, that's how Wikipedia works. CyberTroopers (talk) 06:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep: 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. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• • 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)
• Delete or merge/redirect to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. This is a classic 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)

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)

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)

• Keep - whilst I sympathise with those of us calling for deletion and agree with the assertion that Angeli's actions prior to the storming event are not notable (WP:BLP1E), it is apparent that his role in the storming is notable and that he has become something of a figurehead for that event. In this regard he has clearly become something of a public figure and therefore I feel it is in the public interest to keep the article. The number of reliable articles written about him since the event along with high public interest in him is a testament to this. If it is not kept then at the very least he should have his own section in another article related to the storming event.--Discott (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I am glad to see at least someone admits that Angeli was not notable a week ago. And by implication all the very limited coverage that has been found dating from Jan. 5, 2021 backward is not enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong keep - He is highly notable as one of the best-known icons of the Capitol riot. All major news outlets around the world have been covering him extensively, so this is a clear WP:GNG pass. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 10:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The only coverage that is anywhere near "extensive" has come from Arizona publications. Yes, there are articles that significantly mention him, and news articles covering the events that are at least on the surface about him, but nothing we have seen comes anywhere close fiting the description of "extenesive". To be fair, extensive is not the requirement for coverage to justify an article, and truly extensive articles can take weeks to build, but words matter, and nothing we have seen here is extensive. I still think any reasonble reading of BLP1E would lead us to not create an article in a case like this, especially not so soon after an event.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Despite that I don't like it, but I must admit, he does have enough coverage to maintain a notbility. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable individual, except for his part in the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, which can be adequately covered in that article. Just because his actions received coverage doesn't mean we need a separate page on him.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep BLP1E does not apply here because he is known for multiple incidents. Accesscrawl (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Significant media coverage for a separate article--Noel baran (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep He has become the face of the US Capitol riot, and has garnered enough attention to be notable. Eridian314 (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. BIO1E ed g2s • talk 16:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep The funniest thing I've seen in the past week. Lot of coverage worldwide (not just US). -- Eatcha 17:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete He is (in effect) notable for one thing. If he has any lasting notability we can recreate this article, right now it is far too newsy.Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and Close Contrary to the nominator's assertion, this character is highly notable for his shenanigans. I have no objections to revisiting the topic in six or eight months, but for today I would call on admin to bring this epic discussion to a long-overdue conclusion. Capt. Milokan (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep he seems to have become symbolic to Trumpism and the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol and is being treated as a sort of celebrity across numerous WP:RS and meets all WP:Notability guidline. Prominent protestors of different eras have their own article, so i see no wrong with this guy getting his, given his feature across numerous prominent WP:RS. Dilbaggg (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Look, in the end of the day the truth is we don't know wheather the guy will become important or not. What we do know is that there is strong interest in learning about him, and that accurate information MIGHT become important (specially in combating fake news). A general article about the invasion is not the same, and won't attract as much attention about the subject as a specific article. It very well might be the case that he becomes just another guy using his 15 minutes of fame, but we live in a world in which the star from a b-listed reality show became the President. It is too soon to tell if he will actually become important. That said, there is literally nothing to loose by keeping the article. Really, think from a game theory point of view: the best way of maximising our minimum is by keeping the article. Worst case scenario, it will simply be one more unimportant article on the wikipedia. But if we delete the article, and he actually becomes important, we will loose the opportunity of informing people about the guy preciselly in the moment that people are googling him and he is growing in popularity.189.56.111.186 (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Gabriel Junqueira