Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric D Angell


 * 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 '''Summarily deleted, before this discussion was allowed to run its normal course. A write-up about an incident of the kind alleged here has to be stripped of speculation and hearsay, and the facts would have to be far more solidly sourced. And the resulting article, if it could meet other relevant criteria, would have to be titled for, and about, the event and not any one person.''' Hoary (talk) 10:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Eric D Angell

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Extreme BLP violation accusing a person of committing a heinous crime with no reliable sourcing. My db tag was removed. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, at least for the moment. I removed the speedy delete tag. The Huffington Post has picked up on it, which leads me to suspect that other news outlets may follow, and it's moved beyond the (reliable but not generally considered RS) blogs where it started. Definitely should not be speedily deleted; it's a developing story, and I'm still cleaning it up (though I expect to lose power shortly due to impending hurricane). Give me and other editors a few days to get it all prettified and formatted, get power back, and to see how it plays out in the media. If it does get deleted, I request that a copy be put in my userspace at User:Pi.1415926535/Eric D Angell. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I did not accuse him of rape. Mr. Angell has made himself a public figure in the discussion of what it means to rape and what constitutes consent. The article on him reflects that. I wrote about his being an on-the-rise viral video star because he "appeared to be" confessing to what "may have been" date rape and sparked online debate on what constitutes rape and the definition of consent. I posted the link to the actual video footage from the event in my first draft and have added more links from reputable sources: Jezebel and Huffington Post. Flamingnerd (talk) 04:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Both of you need to read WP:BLP1E. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Then I repeat: put it in my userspace. I believe it's going to be notable if not now then soon, so I believe it's policy to allow me to have a temporary copy there for working on bringing it up to article quality. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You may not have BLP violations in your User space. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Read it. :/ I'm obviously a newb here, but I do believe that Angell is a very notable person and will become more so. I think that this documentation is an important part of the discussion on rape culture. Which lead me to include a link to Eric D Angell in rape culture earlier today as another in its list of notable events. Flamingnerd (talk) 04:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * When he becomes notable, then you can do that. Right now he isn't notable.  The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That's open for debate. Anyhow, how does any viral video star have a Wikipedia entry if people known for one notable event are banned from having entries on them? Flamingnerd (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * They don't. That's the point.  The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Rebecca Black Juan Mann Antoine Dodson Ted Williams... it doesn't make sense to intentionally exclude viral video stars from wikipedia as a general rule. They are notable people. Flamingnerd (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 05:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC).

@TMotB: I did not know that. Will copy into a textfile and edit in the sandbox (never hitting submit, just preview) if it gets deleted.

@Flamingnerd: Wikipedia notability is different from real-life notability. Unless this hits major media sources (New York Times or similar big-city papers) then it won't merit its own article. Section in rape culture? Likely; this makes more sense as a datapoint rather than a bio. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I change my "keep" to neutral pending the next few days of news, but I request that the closing admin be amenable to undeletion if it becomes clear that this is notable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete What a comedian says in a monologue can't be considered as self-incrimination either legally or on Wikipedia. He could be making it all up for shock value, or exaggerating, or telling the truth.  What a comedian says on stage is evidence of exactly nothing more than the words that were uttered on stage.  I am not saying that this comedian is innocent, and perhaps he will prove to be both legally guilty and notable over time.  Then on the other hand, maybe not.  Right now, we don't know any of that.  All we know is that there is a bit of a media frenzy.  And none of it justifies an accusatory WP:BLP1E.  This article needs to go as soon as possible.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  05:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * it's not about legal guilt, it's about the internet discussion on what constitutes consent and what is rape and this man who stars in a very public, very graphic description that has already been published in Huffpo. Flamingnerd (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, Flamingnerd, but couldn't disagree more. Please read our policy on biographies of living people.  Then read about how we deal with biographies of living people known for one event.  Once you've read them, ponder them and re-read them until you understand them thoroughly.  These policies are non-negotiable here, and can't be overcome by a spate of sensationalistic news coverage of a comedian's vulgar and offensive monologue. Not by a long shot.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  06:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete the citations are all highly biased agenda driven sources and I doubt the incident will every be notable enough to be covered by anyone interested in writing a neutral article. Also a classic case of BLP1E. extransit (talk) 05:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete pronto. Wikipedia isn't a blog; it considers the inclusion of "newsworthy" stuff after this has proved its newsworthiness by getting into the newspapers. Oh, but then BLP1E would probably rule this one out. &para; I'd speedy this one right now if I weren't too lazy busy to read up on the technical stuff about how to close an AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 05:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete (quickly). This may (or may not) become notable in the future, but is not now.  If the subject is actually prosecuted and/or convicted, that starts to make a case for inclusion.  However, even if an editorial in a non-blog, highly-notable source appears, that still most likely only suggest inclusion of a footnote or mention in some other article, such as one about 1st Amendment issue or Date Rape or Rape Culture (depends what hypothetical article says, of course).  But so far, there is one event of an offensive "comedy" routine--which may or may not accurately portray underlying events--and that doesn't suffice for WP notability.  In fact, in mostly just raises the real BLP concern.  Moreover, just because some people or events that started as viral videos went onto become notable, that doesn't predict that this one will follow that course (YouTube has millions of videos that get little attention, and whose lifetime of such attention is highly limited... we don't know what direction this will go). Memories of lost time (talk) 06:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Memories, thanks for that explanation. That made more sense to my sleep-addled brain. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Pi: you should perhaps clarify your !vote in this discussion. You give neutral and keep in two different parts; conventionally, one puts strikeout marks over a !vote that no longer applies because of further consideration. Memories of lost time (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2011 (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.