Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Haughwout


 * 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 merge to Regulation of UAVs in the United States. Cerebellum (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Austin Haughwout

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I see no reason to assume this person is notable--there are some charges, and he was himself assaulted once, but this kind of media coverage of a few single events does not confer notability. The legal business, about drone legislation, does not seem to have a direct relationship with him. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete no reliable source 3rd party coverage to show he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment For reference, here are the sources in the article:
 * http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-austin-haughwout-ccsu-lawsuit-0308-20160307-story.html
 * Unscintillating (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-austin-haughwout-ccsu-lawsuit-0308-20160307-story.html
 * Unscintillating (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-austin-haughwout-ccsu-lawsuit-0308-20160307-story.html
 * Unscintillating (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-austin-haughwout-ccsu-lawsuit-0308-20160307-story.html
 * Unscintillating (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-austin-haughwout-ccsu-lawsuit-0308-20160307-story.html
 * Unscintillating (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-austin-haughwout-ccsu-lawsuit-0308-20160307-story.html
 * Unscintillating (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * comment: I started this article because his activities appear to have created enough controversy about weaponized drones for the media to notice. Despite the above claim (by the person proposing deletion) that the legal issues are not directly related to him, there are claims elsewhere that they are indeed so, for example CT Post states (here): "There is renewed urgency in Connecticut to regulate drones after a Central Connecticut State University student posted a video on YouTube last July of a homemade drone firing a handgun. Austin Haughwout was arrested and expelled from school, which he is contesting in a lawsuit filed this week in state Superior Court in New Britain." Regarding the other incidents, I believe that although they do not make him notable in themselves, they are relevant to the extent that they are connected to his activity with drones. (In particular, his expulsion from school and the assault he suffered.) There have been a few attempts to add to the article some discussion of unrelated charges, and (whilst recognizing that I have no special privilege as originator of the article) I have removed these for reasons explained on the talk page. For this reason, I believe that the article is warranted and is also reasonably tightly focused on the issues of relevance. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep perhaps rename this should be an event article per policy (WP:1E) as there is sustained coverage over an international area. But heck if I know what to name it. So perhaps keep it as is?  Hobit (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with a reasonable selective merge, but not sure to where. Hobit (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps to a new section within Regulation of unmanned aerial vehicles? Haughwout and his father are forcing the issue on civilian armed UAV regulation. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic   Nightfury  10:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC) Response: An appropriate merge (suggested above) sounds reasonable, and personally I'd have no problem with that, provided that the article is not deleted until the relevant information has been fully copied over. (If the article is merged, what is the procedure for obtaining permission to recreate it if in future he becomes sufficiently notable in his own right?) --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 10:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:MAD, as merge and delete have a copyright problem. WP:Editing policy and WP:BOLD give editors permission to edit.  If someone objects, things get more complicated.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as the article stands there are four events covered: the subject being assaulted, the drone gun video, the drone flamethrower video and his expulsion. The first three are related to drones, the topic for which he is best known and two were very widely covered in media. This covers two events, with his expulsion seeming to receive more attention than it otherwise would and the possibility of an appeal against the judges' decision as well as his testifying on adding weapons to drones, it seems the subject is notable for more than one event. Autarch (talk) 03:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Response: also the expulsion relates to drones, to the extent that he alleges (rightly or wrongly) that it was motivated by the drone controversy. Hence my comment above, that essentially all four of the events covered relate to drones. (This is no coincidence: it is because I have removed from the article material that does not. I gave the reasons for doing so on the talk page, so I won't rehash them here.) However, of these four events, only really the gun and flamethrower videos raise issues of wider relevance; the other two are worth including while there happens to be an article about him as an individual, but really, it will not harm to lose those sections if it is merged. This is why, despite having originated the article, I am not objecting to the suggestion of merging. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak and reluctant keep. My first reaction was along the lines of Drmies, basically that BLP1E x 4 does not notability make. But looking through the sequence of press coverage provided, it has clearly shifted in tone from "X has done Y" (focus on the event) to "X is publicly involved in discourse on Z" and "X is in a public conflict with W relating to his activities X1, X2, ... all related to Z". I think this tips the balance -- though it's important to say this is a conclusion I reach in this instance, and I don't mean to set a precedent that some random juvenile delinquent "deserves" an article just because various of his exploits have made it into the press. Martinp (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Editing to add - I am not objecting to merge, as some commenters are suggesting. This would be an acceptable result of editorial discretion. I'm just saying "don't nuke it!". Martinp (talk) 13:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.