Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Earle Sullivan

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 no consensus. Trending towards keep. Sandstein 10:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Earle Sullivan

edit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

John Earle Sullivan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pretty thin claim to notability. A BLM activist who filmed inside the capitol during the storming. Not quite BLP1E as some other charges relating to BLM protests and he runs a small activist group. A reasonable quantity of press coverage, much seems to come from right-leaning sources amplifying his importance. His importance is perhaps shown by his funding page which has reached the grand total of £5 out of a £2000 target.[1] and 3000 Twitter followers.[2][3]. When we look at what he has actually done its: failed to make the Olympic squad, attended a BLM protest where another protestor shot someone and was charged for damaging a vehicle; holding a one-man armed protest in Utah; took a lot of videos on the 6th and managed to film the shooting of Ashli Babbitt, got arrested alongside 100's of others. Salix alba (talk): 20:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Salix alba (talk): 20:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think what would be more important than the number of Twitter followers someone has is how often reliable sources report on them, and Sullivan has been interviewed dozens of times by reliable publications throughout 2020-2021 for his activism and reporting. As far as the 5/2000 dollars on "BuyMeACoffee.com" given that this is a monthly goal I expect the total donation quantity resets at some unspecified rollover period? No idea why you cited that coffee slush fund (is that something you can only buy drinks with?) when his GoFundMe at com/f/johnsullivanlegalaidfund raised $1,534 in merely a month. You can also see ANOTHER one at com/f/Insurgencesdefensefund that raised $375. I'm not sure we should rely on our original research to get a conclusive picture of the total sum of donations this activist has received as he appears to simultaneously run an unknown quantity of discrete fundraising efforts. WakandaQT (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is already coverage of "notable arrests and charges" in the sub-article Aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. That might already go beyond what is permissible per WP:BLPCRIME though.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - this "activist" is not notable for attending any of the events listed in the current article, not even the insurrection he himself attended. WP:CRIME and WP:BLP1E are also reasons to delete. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 01:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's WP:SIGCOV: see the Intercept, Rolling Stone, Gehrke's article. I think there was perhaps a weak argument for an article before, but the most recent event makes it a very strong case. tedder (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons stated above. The recent additions make it clear this is not someone notable for a single event only. --Bangalamania (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nom mentions it's not quite BLP1E, I'd say it's no even close; he was covered prior to January 6, and the coverage since references that coverage, noting patterns in his interactions with various groups. Also from the nom, "A reasonable quantity of press coverage, much seems to come from right-leaning sources amplifying his importance." This is IMO a reason in favor of having Wikipedia coverage: When people read about him in sources of varying quality, they should be able to get context by reading a Wikipedia article that places their claims in context, and points to the best sources. All that said, the article does appear longer than it needs to be. This needn't be an exhaustive record of his work, but rather a guide to finding the sources that go into more detail. So I'd be fine with a major cut of the size of the article, and some rethinking of which pieces belong here. None of that need occur in an AFD discussion though. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 04:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He has notability in Chinese news as well. And as someone stated above, he was also covered prior to January 6. So I think there is sufficient notability. Furthermore, WP:BLP1E suggests avoiding having an article "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." And the Capitol incident is significant and he agitated violence in the Capitol. --Matt Smith (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He's getting national press coverage, and not just in conservative media (not that such bias would be disqualifying). Here's a full-story profile in the Washington Post. Just because almost no one wants to give him money doesn't make him any less notable; that seems to be more a function of disapproving of his actions. -- Beland (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He doesn't seem to be notable for pre-1/6 activities or meet WP:GNG for them. His notability seems to derive from the storming of the capitol but WP:ONEEVENT applies to that, and he does not seem to have played enough of a role to warrant his own article. Any content should be able to be dealt with in the main article and forks including the "aftermath" article (there is already a paragraph about him there). His article also suffers recentism problems and is unlikely to pass the WP:TENYEARTEST.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and I feel the need to reiterate my suspicion people don't read WP:BLP1E, because he passes as well as anyone. I suspect failure of the ten-year test would require nuclear holocaust between now and 2031 such as to make every other issue pale in comparison; recentism is an issue (not to be confused with "this will be a footnote in a decade"!), mostly by way of many-not-all of his events being in fact recent, and I expect the matter to settle naturally as we get increasingly far from blast radius. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 07:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep measures up to GNG as per copious sources. Geo Swan (talk) 11:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable activist is a glaring case of WP:BLP1E. KidAd talk 23:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as WP:BLP1E does not apply in this case with point 2 and possibly point 3. There are alot of sources that covered Sullivan's involvement. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A lot of media mention Sullivan including many conspiracy theory sites (e.g. David Icke). They use him to try to prove the 2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol was covertly created by Antifa, I came here to read facts about him. People rely on Wikipedia to provide these facts, if this article wasn't here they might believe conspiracy theory media. 51.6.235.58 (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Earle_Sullivan&oldid=1002212535"