Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Rittenhouse


 * 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 keep. A consensus has transpired herein that the subject is notable and qualifies for a standalone biographical article. North America1000 08:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Kyle Rittenhouse

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

BLP1E fork of Kenosha Unrest Shooting article Springee (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nom, all notability comes from the one event, and the coverage around the person after the acquittal from the trial of that one event. All of which is already summarized in the main article. In two sentences. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment After further consideration, I want to make a comment. This is a biography. This article gives SIGNIFICANT weight to one event, and the events that happened after, in relation to that one event. The article gives significant weight to that one event, and the events that happened after in relation to that one event, because that is all this subject is notable for.
 * Let's go through the article after the shooting part bit by bit
 * Tucker Carlson Projects- Statement about the documentary Carlson shot, during the trial, and the interview after the acquittal, in which they discussed the shooting, and the trial. I'll wrap "Meeting with Trump" in with this, since it was also immediately after the trial, in relation to the acquittal, and happened the same day the interview aired.
 * Turning Point- The largest part of that section is about a discussion that took place shortly after the acquittal, about the trial.
 * BOTH OF THE ABOVE are summed up here in the main shooting article.
 * Podcasts- Talks about the shooting in those podcasts, except for one, where he was talking about his non-notable opinions on Biden, on a conservative podcast.
 * Internships and Namesake bills - I've said it before, getting offered political internships that aren't accepted, and having bills named after you, don't confer notability.
 * Use of Image- Some of this is relevant, but some of it is also already in the main shooting article, and it was all based around the shooting and trial. The gun shop putting up his picture was literally a celebration of his acquittal, thus, making it all tie into the 1E.
 * Potential Book- I would like to point out that publishing a book does not inherently mean someone is notable, per WP:CREATIVE, so POSSIBLY publishing a book certainly doesn't.
 * Media Accountability Suing media for their coverage in relation to the trial
 * Career - What career? He applied to a couple of colleges and it doesn't appear he's actually started attending any.
 * Social Media Use I bold this one because I take particular onus with this part, and am going to use it as an example of the clear problems with this article. The section uses one source which is fine, but it also contains the sentence 'and Rittenhouse rejoined and has continued to be active on social media on his unverified accounts". That sentences does not appear in the NPR article at all, AND IN FACT, the article mentions "As of Wednesday afternoon, he had not rejoined either platform." So, I ask, where did the line "rejoined and continued to be active" come from, if not from a reliable source?
 * OR? Synth? Who knows, but I know its not in any source listed around that part. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete/Merge The Rittenhouse page is effectively a fork of the Kenosha Unrest Shooting article. Rittenhouse was not NOTEABLE prior to the shooting and related events.  Content in this article beyond what is in the KUS article is largely more detail about his actions in the aftermath of the trial.  I'm concerned that this article may turn into a POVFORK (description of Rittenhouse as a conservative celebrity) and that most of the content in this article is just additional details that, if trimmed could be incorporated into an aftermath section in the original article.  This feeling was noted by a number of editors in a NPOVN discussion here .  Springee (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You are the nominator, it's usual to put your comments in the nomination and not as a !vote. Andrevan @ 19:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't do these often and assumed the opening comments should be limited (similar to a RfC question). Springee (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure !voting in your own nomination is against policy, not just unusual. @Springee, I suggest striking your bolded !vote/merge above, but keeping the reasoning text. For next time, your reasoning is typically included at the beginning of the article within the nomination rather than as a comment down below. Then the reason you've nominated is super accessible to all editors who can review it and discuss accordingly. I offer this suggestion in a friendly manner; though we disagree on the subject's notability, that's not a reason for me to not be cordial! --Kbabej (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And I'm honestly not trying to be condescending/etc when I say you can find the strikethrough text here, which helps render words to look like this: example. Also, my past comment was a suggestion, not a demand; I'm not the owner of AfD. Cheers! --Kbabej (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets notability guidelines. I don't agree with much of anything Rittenhouse has said or done, and I wish he wasn't notable, but he does seem to be. He has continued making independent media appearances even after his original event occurred. Andrevan @ 19:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to the article on the shooting. Rittenhouse is not notable outside of the context of the shooting.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Heck, not even anything to merge. There's already a section about his continued media appearances. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep argh. big argh. He's still getting coverage in WaPo unrelated to the shooting, this year, and a critical review of the "junk news" around his time in the media , from Oxford University. GNG is met. Argh, this guy really grinds my gears. Oaktree b (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep he has gotten plenty of coverage long after the shooting and the trial, and still appears in conservative media today. Bill Williams 20:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject obviously initially became notable because of the shooting and subsequent trial. No one is disputing that. After the trial, however, the subject has continued to receive coverage separate from the trial (over a half year ago now) and has been lionized the the Right (source for that verbiage from Politico here, a green-level source on WP:RSP) and that has quickly become a media sensation. He started a media tour and appeared on many television shows, podcasts, and conventions. His appearance on Tucker Carlson Tonight was the second-most watched episode in the show's history (source here, again green-level). Besides just simple interviews, he also appeared at multiple conventions as a featured speaker, including two hosted by Turning Point USA: AmericaFest in December 2021; and the Young Women's Leadership Summit in June 2022. He's also been offered multiple internships and been the namesake for proposed laws. His image has been commercialized, including being the subject of a video game created by William Hahne. He went on to found the Media Accountability Project, and is releasing a video game himself, both of which have received RS coverage. He's also covered thoroughly in Anne Bremner's book Justice in the Age of Judgment: From Amanda Knox to Kyle Rittenhouse and the Battle for Due Process in the Digital Age (book listing here), as well as multiple dozen other books.


 * I do appreciate other editor's thoughts and respectful dialogue. Feel free to respond/challenge my points above and tag me if you would like me to respond. I would like to point out the WP:IDONTLIKEIT essay, which is a reminder for editors (including me!) that although we may find a subject offensive, it still deserves coverage regardless of how we feel about it. In creating this article, I knew there would be pushback and concern surrounding it, but I created it in good faith fully believing the subject to pass GNG in my mind. If consensus is reached he is not notable, I will respect it. Cheers! --Kbabej (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * He MIGHT make a book. He's been OFFERED internships (It is worth pointing out that one of the congressmen who offered him an internship lost their primary, so that offer is surely off the table). He MAY sue some big name people. He MIGHT go to college. He MIGHT be making a video game. He MIGHT have a law named after him. This article MIGHT not be worth our time, regardless of whether or not we like it. The article doesn't indicate notability beyond the shooting and the public profile he got because of that shooting. He has done absolutely nothing except speak at TPUSA events, appear on Tucker Carlson a couple of times in close time frame to the acquittal, and appear on some podcasts, in which he talked about the shooting and the trial. FrederalBacon (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @FrederalBacon. I understand your position, but do not agree. You've stressed a lot of the things that "might" happen. The fact of the matter is some things have already happened, and he continues to get sustained coverage. The offers of internships have happened. The namesake bills have been proposed. The nomination for the Congressional Gold Medal has been made. The Acquittal video game has been released. The Global Network on Extremism and Ideology has released an analysis of meme use surrounding his image. His likeness has been used in a number of projects, including gun sales, clothing, and YouTube monetization. While some things "might" happen, there's still in-depth coverage in RS over a period of time for what has already transpired. The article is a BLP, not a list of potential future projects. --Kbabej (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In how many of those sources is he talking about the shooting and/or the trial? Or is the focus of the source on him as the person involved in the shooting? All of those are already summed up in this section of the article this one is a fork of, and if this is all just sources covering him as the person involved in the shooting, then it actually fails BLP1E. Maybe some expansion about his media accountability project there, but the rest of it isn't notable. It's not notable to apply to a college. It's not notable to have a potential book deal. It's all just fluff. None of it is encyclopedic, and his notability doesn't extend beyond the shooting, the trial, and him talking about said shooting and trial after the conclusion of the latter. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s your opinion, and you’ve made that very clear. I do not agree, and I’ve stated why above. Applying to a college isn’t the fact his notability hangs on, as I believe is quite clear in the article. Perhaps you’ll convince other editors, but I think there’s a wide enough breadth of continued coverage in reliable sources to support this BLP. You are of course welcome to reply, but I’ve made my position clear and will likely not be replying to your queries further. Cheers! —-Kbabej (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep There is already more to say about the subject's ongoing career than could reasonably fit into Kenosha Unrest Shooting. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The extensive sustained coverage of Rittenhouse easily meets the WP:GNG, and the fact that he has continuously sought celebrity after the event that made him notable (see eg. the extensive media appearances section or the career section) means that he qualifies as a WP:PUBLICFIGURE - clearly nobody could argue he's WP:LOWPROFILE with a media appearances section like that. --Aquillion (talk) 06:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's been extensive news coverage of him personally for nearly two years. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 03:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. He definitely meet Notability. He is well known in the Media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DailyJew (talk • contribs) 04:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Rittenhouse has received coverage separate from the shooting and trial. He meets GNG. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. WP:BLP1E has three conditions:
 * 1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
 * 2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.
 * 3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented....
 * It uses the example of John Hinckley Jr. and why he should have a separate article. Rittenhouse's situation is similar. His actions got so much attention that he has and will continue to be covered for decades to come, for whatever he does, whether related to his actions that night in Kenosha or not.Jacona (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That sounds a lot like WP:CRYSTAL to me. It's also entirely possible that in 5 years, people will forget his name. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That isn’t what CRYSTAL means, and notability is not temporary. See WP:NTEMP. —Kbabej (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The argument was that the example of John Hinckley Jr, that Rittenhouse, like Hinckley, will be "covered for decades to come, for whatever he does". That may have been true about Hinckley because he shot the President of the United States, but that is absolutely an attempt to see into the future to go "He's notable because people will be talking about him for decades to come" when it comes to Rittenhouse. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @FrederalBacon, isn't that exactly the argument you're making as well? You're predicting its "entirely possible that in 5 years, people will forget his name." You're criticizing someone for an argument they made by making the same argument. We get you just don't like it. --Kbabej (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not at all, I couldn't care less, and actually have a view of the subject that would lead me more to keep the article than delete, but thanks for assuming this is personal. He's notable for one event. That's it. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per rationale above. Jacona (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:GNG is clearly met here, and I don't feel that WP:BLP1E applies since he has received a large amount of press coverage. The article has currently has references from January, February, March, May, and June of this year, and dozens of references from 2021 and 2020. >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 03:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep There's been substantive and massive amounts of coverage about him since the shooting. And since being found not guilty, there's been a ton more coverage, like television appearances and other news-related coverage about him. The reason for the nomination concerns something that can easily be fixed outside of AFD and that is what should be done or discussed before going to AFD.— Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 11:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * His appearances discuss the shooting and trial, and his opinions about them. All of that is already summed up in two sentences on the main article. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep It is about Freedom of Speech, if Jacobe Blake article can exist, why not Kyle Rittenhouse's if deleted wikipedia will loose it's freedom of Speech..— Derabhishek ( talk  • Special:Contributions/Derabhishek) 15:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per the clear GNG adherence and sigcov as demonstrated by Kbabej. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 00:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notwithstanding the presumably goodfaith nomination here, the subject easily passes WP:GNG as a topic independent to the shooting article at this point.  Bemusement or disdain may very well be understandable reactions to that state of affairs, but it doesn't change the underlying facts of the sourcing. SnowRise<b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 23:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep He's notable outside of the shooting due to his conservative activism. And his notability has been lasting post-shooting and trial. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.