Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Angeli

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Filmgoer (talk | contribs) at 04:06, 20 April 2022 (→Jake Angeli). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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 since it has several dozens of high-quality sources. Those who argue for deletion cite WP:ONEEVENT, however, they get an objection that media have written about the subject of the article even before the attack for which he is mainly (in)famous. The objection to this reasoning was that media coverage prior to the event was much weaker and possibly would not meet 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

[edit]

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

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)[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]
  • 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, 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]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[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]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep — lots of news coverage. Comfr (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is clear and has been established. macgirl (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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).[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete - • Sbmeirow • Talk • 10:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that we on Wikipedia have a lengthy discussion about him. Tomaatje12 (talk) 10:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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).[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[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]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[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]
  • Comment after incorporating sources to the article, it now demonstrates notable coverage back to 2019. Kingsif (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (disclaimer: stub started by me). Clearly notable now per GNG. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes WP:GNG and the storming of the Capitol wasn't the only thing he did or has done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notability supported by multiple secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - at this point he's clearly notable. Volunteer Marek 18:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep - Worldwide shown shit is worth to be shown and described --84.190.220.194 (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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: [2], and has been mentioned in numerous newspaper articles as "a regular at pro-Trump rallies who typically wears a wooly fur hat with horns". Natg 19 (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 Trump 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep Per the article itself, Angeli is known for more than WP:ONEEVENT. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has significant news coverage, ABC, NBC, Newsweek, etc. Meets norability guidelines.Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep the coverage is significant, international. --Deansfa (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO. - Ahunt (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete a nobody, transiently of interest .... to the FBI, not Wikipedia.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep. This is absolutely a notable individual, with enormous coverage in sources. And according to CNN [3], 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete per Oceanflynn. Mgasparin (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • keep for relevant in unforgettable scenes. At least so important as a Pokemon character. -- Iape (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep per Astrophobe above.   // Timothy :: talk  00:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has significant coverage now for my mind. Hughesdarren (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[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]
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)[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:ONEEVENT and it sorely fails 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 WP:NOTCENSORED. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[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: several articles on the Argentine media, and his photo is being used all over the place. Neo139 (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BLP1E. Probably WP:SALT KidAd talk 00:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete WP:BLP1E. Stop giving more attention to cosplaytriots. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 00:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. --Surv1v4l1st ▌Talk|Contribs▌ 01:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[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: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)[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: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-Trump 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)[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]
  • 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 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)[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]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep BLP1E does not apply here because he is known for multiple incidents. Accesscrawl (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant media coverage for a separate article--Noel baran (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete. BIO1E ed g2s • talk 16:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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[reply]
  • Keep, although I don't wanna see him becoming Person of the Year. --Pakeha (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep # 106. Don't think I've ever seen an AfD with 106 "keep" votes. That alone speaks volumes. In the end, though, the coverage easily surpasses the GNG bar. As for BLP1E, folks are overlooking prong 3 which requires us to evaluate the significance of the event in question. Here, the storming of the Capitol is one of the most significant events in recent history, and Angeli's image will likely appear in history textbooks used by our grandchildren. One might not like what Angeli stands for, but his notability is now undeniable. Cbl62 (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (and tbc) Wanting to keep the page has nothing to do with endorsing the guy. The question is if he is social and historically relevant, and if wikipedia has the power of providing factual and neutral informations on the guy. There are fake news about he being from ANTIFA, for instance (which is obviosly untrue) and even about he having magical powers. I would say one function of the Wikipedia is to show what is factually accurate and what are just lies. It is not really up to us to make (or not make) the guy important (it's also not like if we had such power), but I guess it is kind of our function to provide the facts to people who want to learn about the guy. Like, just to make it clear, I think the guy is despicable and represents everything I disagree with. But the fact that he makes me feel like that (and I guess, many other folks) is also a show of a sort of importancy. A very bad sort of important, but nevertheless... 189.1.162.180 (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Gabriel Junqueira[reply]
    • knowing what is objetivelly and undeniably true is very important, specially in the times we are living in now. Wikipedia does an incredible job in providing straight facts (sometimes, a suprinsingly better job than part of the official media). I dont't think it's right to step down of such a responsability in a case like this 189.1.162.180 (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Gabriel Junqueira[reply]
  • Week Keep - I have sympathies with the WP:NOTNEWS arguments, because in all probability like Joe the Plumber this individual will probably fade into obscurity. However it is undeniable that there is enough content here on this article to pass WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes GNG. The argument that he didn't gain attention by organizing speaking at the rally misses the point of why this rally was notable. It wasn't notable because it had eloquent speakers. It was notable for people dressing up in wacky costumes and behaving like asses. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The question is whether the event is notable or whether Angeli is? If he is only notable for that one event, and can be dealt with adequetly in the main article, then there is no need for him to have his own bio. We have explicitly decided against others like Ashli Babbitt (the rioter who was shot and killed) having a stand alone bio. We also seem to have tacitly decided against having an article for 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]
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:OTHERLANGS notes, other wikis may have other notability standards. It may also be that they are simply following our lead at this point. If this article is deleted, it may be deleted there as well. I think Marchjuly was correct when he told you above that this is a WP:CIRCULAR or 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]
  • Keep. When I read many references to this person I was curious as to who he is. Apparently many people consider him to be a relevant figure for better or for worse. I was thus curious as to who he is so I checked it out on Wikipedia. I do not want others to be deprived of this right. Geofffeldman (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)geofffeldman[reply]
  • Keep He's the poster boy for the Capitol Riot, and I was interested in more info about him. 03:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, he is now notable more than ever. People will surely seek information about him. Enjoyer of World — Talk 04:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is easily one of the most recognizable/memorable and visually notable people who participated in the breach, which is an event of historic significance. I think that we must think about how this event will be portrayed by history books and other programs in one hundred years from now. What will be included? This man's face will be on many a cover about it. He will be forever associated with the event and vice-versa. If future historians may consider him iconic enough to warrant such treatment, then we should play it safe and provide them an introductory resource about him. Anything that may be important to them should be recorded by us. We are engaging in first-hand historical documentation right now; we are righting the history. They deserve the resourced which we can produce. If we must delete this page, though, I would be in favor of having a list of notable participants in this insurrection in either its own page or in the page for this event, and for him and his biography to be included therein. IbexNu (talk) 05:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—Not notable – or not nearly enough. Tony (talk) 08:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep World-wide media coverage. -- CdaMVvWgS (talk) 09:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, was already a face of the movement before the Capitol. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm astonished that some Fascist snowflake who's never achieved anything in his life other than attending protests has such a lengthy article on Wikipedia. I wrote an article about a noted Victorian scientist who published several books on entomology and had that deleted as not notable, someone who's actually achieved good in the world. What is the world coming to when some idiot in a hat is more notable than a respected scientist! Gymnophoria (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gymnophoria: I couldn't help but notice you also created the biography Sarah Maple, a visual artist most noted for creating this poster called "Menstruate With Pride". In other words, notability on Wikipedia isn't a popularity contest; it is determined by the criteria which a consensus of editors have agreed upon at 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]
  • Keep I'm reading up about him, and he's notorious enough considering the political and mediatic scale of the event. WP:NOTABILITY. Israell (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. No matter how big the blip of coverage may be, people who have a blip of coverage for being visible as part of a single event, but have no preexisting notability independent of that event, do not get to keep Wikipedia articles just because they're temporarily newsy. Our job is to write articles about people who pass the ten year test for enduring significance, not just every horned satyr whose name happens to show up in the current news cycle. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • BLP1E inapplicable. WP:BLP1E explicitly does not apply per its prong 2 . Prong 2 clearly states that BLP1E only applies if the subject remains and is likely to remain a "low-profile individual." Per WP:LOWPROFILE: "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile." In this case, Angeli, with his horned fur hat, face paint, and spear, and his regular attendance at high-profile public protests, voluntary granting of interviews, posing for cameras, and other attention-seeking activities, is the antithesis of "low profile". Accordingly, any votes based on BLP1E should be rejected as being contrary to the clear and explicit language of the guideline. Cbl62 (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe that Jake Angeli passes the standards set by both WP:N and WP:NOTNEWS. He personally has received a disproportionately high amount of media attention and coverage in relation to any other individual Capitol rioter. Articles exist which focus less on the insurrection attempt per se and more on him (one example, detailing the meanings behind his tattoos; another example, one of many regarding his relationship with organic food). He, by design, sticks out prominently enough to be a face of not just quite a few recent news stories, but also as an actor in a highly significant political and historic event that challenged and disrupted American democracy. If he does not find another reason to be Wiki-notable, this by itself, in my opinion, is sufficient enough basis. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For better or worse, he has become the face of the rioters. The naysayers (who want this page to be deleted) are hanging on to a nonexistent principle and wishful desire to equate him with all other protesters. The fact of the matter is he is different. It's not our (Wikipedia's) perogetive to deny reality and pretend as if he's just another rioter. His ubiquitous image is the single most memorable personal image of the event. He has merited his own page precisely due to the fact that he has become the face of the riot, which other have not. Also in that respect the article needs to be edited (his notoriety is an issue and a topic in and of itself in the articles that discuss him: the sources talk about that aspect of him repeatedly). However that has not been translated into any part of this article, which it should. --Loginnigol (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - FWIIW, I have requested a formal close here. Participation in this AfD has been quite high.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS, he is just a trend in news and we are not sure yet if this person has a historical significance or not, maybe after months or year nobody won't remember him, in the future we can consider if he is notable or not. --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 00:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete he will not be remembered in a few months. He went viral because of the pictures, but he has no relevancy on his own. Virality should never be a criteria to define relevancy--Freddy eduardo (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — this can be revisited in a few months if he has been forgotten. I came here after looking for an article about him, and I live in Australia. He has made headlines around the world.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:29, 14 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
@Israell:@Capt. Milokan:@Jack Upland:If it is not a majority vote, then the number of Keep votes really do not imply anything. What really matters is the value of explanations behind those votes. For example, those Keep votes that claim he might become more famous as he probably would be found in more protests or riots, is not a valid Wikipedia reason. That reason would basically fall under WP:CRYSTALBALL. Furthermore, some of the people who are saying Keep have in their reason saying "just because there is so many keep votes. " That is not a valid reason, and it also is not a valid reason because of 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]
@Darryl Kerrigan: It doesn't matter how many, the important fact is there are going to be people from both sides voting here for polticial reasons - there's no way of proving it, so arguing is just conjecture. Angeli had left his facebook up, and it was swarmed be people attacking him, talking about him going to jail, so there are plenty of anti Trump people online. Just arguing one has an affect on voting without the other doesn't make sense, and to talk about the affect is conjecture, because it can't be proven either way. Also I agree with 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 Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold. I haven't yet said anything about the 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. Elliot321 (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]
  • merge if this only appeared this year, add it to the article about the incident, or possibly make a separate article "people involved in the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol" combining this any any other "characters" that show up. Irtapil (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • * I tried to put information there early on. The editors there weren't keen, and wanted the information put here instead. So it would appear this page at least serves a purpose in keeping this information off there. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I already commented earlier in favor of deletion, however I would like to further underscore the point, as I just noticed that while his prominence beyond any other participant appears based primarily on his efforts to appear visually distinctive; Ashli Babbitt, who actually perished by a Capitol Police bullet at the seige, is apparently not considered notable enough to have her own article, and her name simply redirects to the main article 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Is someone whose primary distinction appears to be frequently wearing a unique costume really more notable than the first American citizen to be (factually, and without intending to comment otherwise on the circumstances surrounding it) killed by a federal officer during the seige? This doesn't seem right to me. SteubenGlass (talk) 07:52, 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:ONEEVENT applies to her so she is not notable, but *not* to him. Both these reasons would appear to fail him for the three points criteria of 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]
  • Only four comments above, someone outlines how the subject fails all the BLP1E criteria, so it's far from "textbook". The other reasoning in this !vote is full of judgment of the subject, which is invalid. Kingsif (talk) 20:07, 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, Stanley Praimnath and 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 WP:ONEEVENT as opposed to WP:BLP1E (the same thing). In any event, I tend to agree with Herbfur. I don't think Angeli played a significant role in 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]
@Geo Swan: I too was not pinged. I too am going to keep my stance on Delete. I do not see how Jack has made a big contribution to the storming of the capitol or the riots. If any reliable source of him doing such a contribution was referenced in the article, I do not think this AfD would have gone this long. Furthermore we have two comparisons of which both are BLP related (my comparison some comments above, and yours that relate to victims in 9/11), however the two are not similar in anyway to what Jake does. The other major important note being is that my one can be considered more famous in terms of online media fame but does not have an article due to failing the rules of it's projects GNG, while the two 9/11 survivours who got media presence via news papers and how they helped people were the reason why those two still have articles on them. This AfD and Jake's article is more in line with Breanne Benson reasoning, he did not do much to affect or influence his area of expertice (which is rioting and the storming of the captiol this month). Thus even if 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 our deletion policy. Specifically those nominating an article for deletion, or weighing in on an AFD are supposed to base state their opinions on the notability of THE TOPIC. It is pretty common to see AFD based on weaknesses of the current state of the article, not on the notability of the article's topic. Your comment notes "almost every single reference in the article" is dated after the attempt to seize the Capitol building. 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"