Deletion of Jake Angeli

Comment: to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. This is a classic . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E)

Comment: or merge as per  cant establish any sources of notability prior to the storming of the Capitol, the only source used prior to that day is https://time.com/5908628/maricopa-county-arizona-protests/ the only coverage is a photo that includes him nothing else.  The image in the Infobox is very questionable and has the appearance of a |Flickr license washing account https://www.flickr.com/photos/191776019@N08
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:DUCK)

Comment: These arguments would have merit if he weren't known prior to the storming, but https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-protester-capitol-antifa-qa/fact-check-man-with-painted-face-wearing-fur-and-horns-rallied-for-trump-and-qanon-not-antifa-or-blm-idUSKBN29C0BP he was. People also seem to miss the part of  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: per . --Surv1v4l1st
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: While  would normally be a concern, the number of different aspects covered in multiple RS sway this topic to being properly notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: 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  and meets all otability 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 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N||WP:RS)

Comment: This is very much a , 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E)

Comment: Notable per : "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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PERP)

Comment: 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 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: per . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:10YT)

Comment: Does not warrant own page (yet) per  and . 1E recommends redirects, which would make sense here
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E||WP:CRIME)

Comment: Non-notable individual. Clear example of . No non-trivial coverage in  prior to this singular event. Also fails . Few sentences that may be worth preserving should be merged into the main article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E||WP:RS||WP:CRIME)

Comment: meets the  with global coverage about him as a person, also outside of the one event
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:10YT)

Comment: Easily meets  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BIO)

Comment: 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  pass
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: the three individuals who pass  for this significant event are this protester (who has become a "face" of the siege and also has cites outside of the Capitol protest), the woman who was shot, and the Capitol policeman who was murdered. All three rise above BLPIE, and articles for the other two seem inevitable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: This nomination, and many of the delete opinions, are classic instances of .  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: Meets notability guidelines, due to (a) instant worldwide notoriety per recent news coverage, and (b) that he was already known for more than this 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: I believe that Jake Angeli passes the standards set by both  and OTNEWS. 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 (https://theconversation.com/us-capitol-riot-the-myths-behind-the-tattoos-worn-by-qanon-shaman-jake-angeli-152996 one example, detailing the meanings behind his tattoos; https://www.kxan.com/news/national-news/qanon-shaman-jake-angeli-will-be-fed-organic-diet-while-hes-in-custody-for-capitol-riot/ 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Per the article itself, Angeli is known for more than 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: for people that are quoting  - 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: or '''merge/redirect to QAnon#US Capitol storming''' or 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Fails  and , this should absolutely not be a stand-alone article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:CRIME)

Comment: per . Regarding merging into 2021 storming of the United States Capitol - merging usually assumes keeping the bulk of the content; in this case I don't think more than a mention is due
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: It's worth seeing how this develops and there is enough sourcing to satisfy 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per . The subject is notable only for one event, so he doesn't merit an entire standalone article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: I'd hate to say it but he'll have to do a lot more to become |notable.  Hopefully, it never gets to that point
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: per Astrophobe. Coverage in reliable sources clearly meets . Coverage of his role in the storming would be enough by itself to make  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: has attained significant coverage, moreso than most people considered under  -  takes clear precedence here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:IAR)

Comment: Angeli’s page could be considered in violation of Wikipedia’s Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment guidleines. The reason for this person’s notoriety is due to recent terrorist activity: This violates . Additionally, the only reason for this article seems to be current events. #JOURNALISM or . This individual does not belong on Wikipedia for numerous reasons and should thus be removed from these archives
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTSCANDAL||WP:NOT||WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: per {{no ping|Melmann}}. Clearly .  No real claim to notability besides a colourful costume at 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Activities at other rallies/protests are not notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: the subject does not meet all of the required 3 items of  particularly {{tq|If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented}}. The event was significant, adn the individuals role was substantial - https://www.google.com/search?biw=2005&bih=1147&tbm=nws&sxsrf=ALeKk01LLZr9jAESQn0-DToDc9p0pVyyJw%3A1610271590717&ei=Zsv6X_2PK4ye4-EP7uu1yAI&q=%22jake+angeli%22+US+Capitol&oq=%22jake+angeli%22+US+Capitol&gs_l=psy-ab.3...3219.7967.0.8293.21.17.1.0.0.0.308.2245.0j4j5j1.10.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..11.3.645...33i10k1.0.0ip4hfTuZR8 pages of google news articles, and https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55606044 specific BBC articles about his arrest. --Special:Contributions/144.130.152.1|144.130.152.1
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Per , 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Per above. Passes . 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per  and , 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol.   etc. Somethings pass the  but we have policies against giving them articies. His "notability" should be put in context of how he "earned" it
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E||WP:CRIME||WP:GNG)

Comment: Passes  and the storming of the Capitol wasn't the only thing he did or has done
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: There are more than enough in-depth articles about him to satisfy . Importantly, these profiles are not mostly  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 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/jake-angeli-qanon-shaman-stormed-capitol-b1784091.html The Guardian, https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-is-qanon-what-we-know-about-the-conspiracy-theory-11597694801 the Wall Street Journal, and https://www.bbc.com/news/55572805 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 https://www.dailyherald.com/article/20201107/news/311079954 the Daily Herald, https://www.sj-r.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/07/its-not-over-trump-supporters-flock-to-state-capitols-after-biden-victory-is-announced/43015609/ the State Journal-Register, and https://www.azcentral.com/in-depth/news/local/arizona-investigations/2020/10/01/how-arizona-patriots-have-built-community-around-conspiracy-theories/3486382001/ 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:1E)

Comment: There seems to https://find.4chan.org/?q=Jake+Angeli+wikipedia have been some off-wiki ing
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Canvassing (WP:CANVASS)

Comment: I have sympathies with the  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 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:GNG)

Comment: 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, , 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: Absolutely fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CRIME)

Comment: I'm reading up about him, and he's notorious enough considering the political and mediatic scale of the event. 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY)