Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Angeli

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Susan Davis (talk | contribs) at 20:31, 10 January 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Delete - too soon to see importance of bio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nothingbutthegirls (talk • contribs) 18:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Angeli

[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]
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]
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. Horacio Varawanna 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: [1], 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 [2], has told the FBI he came to Washington earlier this week “as a part of a group effort, with other ‘patriots’ from Arizona, at the request of the President that all ‘patriots’ come to DC on January 6, 2021,” "His voluntary disclosure to the FBI is the strongest wording in court filings yet indicating coordination between followers of the President that led to the violent and destructive overrun of the Capitol". That alone justifies notability. My very best wishes (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[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 - per WP:BLP1E. He's notable only for one event (see references) and his role was not substantial (not even mentioned in 2021 storming of the United States Capitol). 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jake_Angeli&oldid=999561177"