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 redirect to
2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus occupation. In the headlines is not necessarily sufficient to avoid BLP1E, but enough of a case has been made here that the 2021 coverage might get there. Like everything else 10/7 adjacent, a consensus while the situation is ongoing is unlikely. While there is no clear consensus for retention or deletion, this leans slightly toward deletion but this ATD preserves the history should the situation change, and allows for a merger if desired.
StarMississippi02:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. He is notable for multiple events, some while in high school and others while in college. Both got headlines. This is not a case of BLP1E. I am also not sure how he is a victim. He has made statements and taken actions of his own will that have made him notable. He is not in the news because of the actions of others. --
Slugger O'Toole (
talk)
23:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Definitely keep it. Merging it with 2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus occupation makes some sense, but you are write about including his high school experiences. They help define him, and will become prescient when he resurfaces, which seems likely.
2601:6C1:780:B340:456D:C356:A6AB:AB5B (
talk) 00:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Struck per
WP:ARBPIA.
Elli (
talk |
contribs)
02:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Why keep? He is at best a footnote in the Columbia protests. Should every individual who organized an event get a Wikipedia page now? If I organize a potluck this Wednesday should I get my own entry? He is specifically responsible for spreading dangerous rhetoric and incitements and I’m talking about his comments, not the protest. An individual such as this does not warrant nor deserve a page
173.56.60.163 (
talk) 09:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Struck per
WP:ARBPIA.
Elli (
talk |
contribs)
02:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think it is dangerous for a person who has openly said he "feels comfortable calling for the death" of any individual to be given fame/notoriety and a platform in the first place. Keeping a webpage up for a domestic terrorist like Khymani James is outright wrong. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.81.141.24 (
talk) 00:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Struck per
WP:ARBPIA.
Elli (
talk |
contribs)
02:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Agree with Slugger O'Toole's general points. Uncertain how victimhood could be asserted (& if it is I would strongly disagree with that assertion). The individual is notable. The President of the United States has commented on the individual & they are a leader in a movement gaining global attention.
I don't think it's prudent to rush to delete the page as these events are still in progress. It's not possible to determine whether this individual is basically inconsequential, or whether they will be considered a key contributor when we are all looking back on this. Give it a few months & perhaps that will become more clear.
Dlobr (
talk)
00:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
If it’s clear in a few months then that’s when you give him a page. Until then the president commented on him because he said vile, evil things about people and organized a protest. Not everyone who organizes something warrants a page, ESPECIALLY such a vitriolic and hateful individual
173.56.60.163 (
talk) 09:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Struck per
WP:ARBPIA.
Elli (
talk |
contribs)
02:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The thing is that if the page gets deleted at this point, that decision will be forever cited as the rationale for why the page should never exist, in spite of the continued notoriety. The cat is out of the bag already.
Remember that this discussion is about whether the individual is notable enough to have a page at all; this is *not* a discussion about what content inside that page is deemed hurtful or impertinent.
Dlobr (
talk)
21:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Notability is not an intrinsic and immutable property. This discussion is about whether the individual is presently notable; we can leave the question of
WP:FUTURE notability to the future.
jlwoodwa (
talk)
02:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This guy has been paid $38,000 to damage the education of other students. His life goal is to be on congress. He wants all white people dead. He says his current life goal is to physically kill people. The voters have the right to know who they will be voting for even if it would be 10 years in the future. Employers have the right to know who they are hiring. Keep the article for the safety and well being of the rest of society. Actions have consequences. This article stays. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
109.186.44.251 (
talk) 08:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Struck per
WP:ARBPIA.
Elli (
talk |
contribs)
02:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Pop music would be happening without Taylor Swift & the sun will rise tomorrow morning even if I'm not awake to observe it.
Dlobr (
talk)
21:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Really? There is significant coverage of him from 2021, including in depth profiles by the Boston Globe and the Bay State Banner. Do those not count? --
Slugger O'Toole (
talk)
04:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Bay State Banner looks to be an interview which doesn't count. I don't see the Globe article. He very clearly wouldn't otherwise be eligible for an article apart from this incident - very clearly being covered for this single event. He's likely to remain low profile, and he did not have a substantial role in the overall event.
SportingFlyerT·C04:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
SportingFlyer: I'm not sure why a Q&A wouldn't count, but
this is a 1,800+ word profile of him in the Globe from 2021. It covers everything from his childhood to his confrontational style on the Boston School Committee to why he resigned from the Advisory Board and more. It also has multiple links to other news stories about him. That is significant coverage about multiple events. --
Slugger O'Toole (
talk)
13:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
No. He absolutely wouldn't. But the Globe profile is from 2021, three years before the current events at Columbia. So is much of the other coverage of him. --
Slugger O'Toole (
talk)
21:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I’d say delete. It does not seem he has much individual note. A newsworthy (but not long term-significant) instance of bigoted remarks and involvement in a movement that is itself notable does not strike me as enough.
SecretName101 (
talk)
02:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - single notable event to his name with limited media coverage. unless more comes out related him that generates extensive coverage, no reason he can't just be covered under the protest page
Claire 26 (
talk)
04:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Article is currently written like a hitpiece and violates BLP. The student isn't notable at the moment.
HadesTTW (he/him •
talk)
05:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep I'd prefer more in-depth biographical coverage, but given that there are sources from 2021, BLP1E doesn't really apply. Don't see how AVOIDVICTIM applies either. Will we be hearing about them in a year from now? Two years? Really not sure, and we can't really know yet, so I can definitely see the case for merging with an article on the protests, but the previous coverage pushes this just over the line for me.
Elli (
talk |
contribs)
02:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete I don't see
WP:AVOIDVICTIM as a significant concern here, but the case via
WP:BLP1E seems clear. I suppose one could argue that this is in fact
WP:BLP2E or similar, in particular via the Globe human-interest story, but it's not as if James has an activist career that makes him notable rather than the notability of the ongoing event he is associated with. Almost all the useful content can easily go into
2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus occupation.
Jmill1806 (
talk)
21:32, 3 May 2024 (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.
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 redirect to
2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus occupation. In the headlines is not necessarily sufficient to avoid BLP1E, but enough of a case has been made here that the 2021 coverage might get there. Like everything else 10/7 adjacent, a consensus while the situation is ongoing is unlikely. While there is no clear consensus for retention or deletion, this leans slightly toward deletion but this ATD preserves the history should the situation change, and allows for a merger if desired.
StarMississippi02:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. He is notable for multiple events, some while in high school and others while in college. Both got headlines. This is not a case of BLP1E. I am also not sure how he is a victim. He has made statements and taken actions of his own will that have made him notable. He is not in the news because of the actions of others. --
Slugger O'Toole (
talk)
23:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Definitely keep it. Merging it with 2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus occupation makes some sense, but you are write about including his high school experiences. They help define him, and will become prescient when he resurfaces, which seems likely.
2601:6C1:780:B340:456D:C356:A6AB:AB5B (
talk) 00:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Struck per
WP:ARBPIA.
Elli (
talk |
contribs)
02:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Why keep? He is at best a footnote in the Columbia protests. Should every individual who organized an event get a Wikipedia page now? If I organize a potluck this Wednesday should I get my own entry? He is specifically responsible for spreading dangerous rhetoric and incitements and I’m talking about his comments, not the protest. An individual such as this does not warrant nor deserve a page
173.56.60.163 (
talk) 09:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Struck per
WP:ARBPIA.
Elli (
talk |
contribs)
02:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think it is dangerous for a person who has openly said he "feels comfortable calling for the death" of any individual to be given fame/notoriety and a platform in the first place. Keeping a webpage up for a domestic terrorist like Khymani James is outright wrong. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.81.141.24 (
talk) 00:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Struck per
WP:ARBPIA.
Elli (
talk |
contribs)
02:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Agree with Slugger O'Toole's general points. Uncertain how victimhood could be asserted (& if it is I would strongly disagree with that assertion). The individual is notable. The President of the United States has commented on the individual & they are a leader in a movement gaining global attention.
I don't think it's prudent to rush to delete the page as these events are still in progress. It's not possible to determine whether this individual is basically inconsequential, or whether they will be considered a key contributor when we are all looking back on this. Give it a few months & perhaps that will become more clear.
Dlobr (
talk)
00:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
If it’s clear in a few months then that’s when you give him a page. Until then the president commented on him because he said vile, evil things about people and organized a protest. Not everyone who organizes something warrants a page, ESPECIALLY such a vitriolic and hateful individual
173.56.60.163 (
talk) 09:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Struck per
WP:ARBPIA.
Elli (
talk |
contribs)
02:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The thing is that if the page gets deleted at this point, that decision will be forever cited as the rationale for why the page should never exist, in spite of the continued notoriety. The cat is out of the bag already.
Remember that this discussion is about whether the individual is notable enough to have a page at all; this is *not* a discussion about what content inside that page is deemed hurtful or impertinent.
Dlobr (
talk)
21:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Notability is not an intrinsic and immutable property. This discussion is about whether the individual is presently notable; we can leave the question of
WP:FUTURE notability to the future.
jlwoodwa (
talk)
02:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This guy has been paid $38,000 to damage the education of other students. His life goal is to be on congress. He wants all white people dead. He says his current life goal is to physically kill people. The voters have the right to know who they will be voting for even if it would be 10 years in the future. Employers have the right to know who they are hiring. Keep the article for the safety and well being of the rest of society. Actions have consequences. This article stays. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
109.186.44.251 (
talk) 08:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Struck per
WP:ARBPIA.
Elli (
talk |
contribs)
02:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Pop music would be happening without Taylor Swift & the sun will rise tomorrow morning even if I'm not awake to observe it.
Dlobr (
talk)
21:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Really? There is significant coverage of him from 2021, including in depth profiles by the Boston Globe and the Bay State Banner. Do those not count? --
Slugger O'Toole (
talk)
04:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Bay State Banner looks to be an interview which doesn't count. I don't see the Globe article. He very clearly wouldn't otherwise be eligible for an article apart from this incident - very clearly being covered for this single event. He's likely to remain low profile, and he did not have a substantial role in the overall event.
SportingFlyerT·C04:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
SportingFlyer: I'm not sure why a Q&A wouldn't count, but
this is a 1,800+ word profile of him in the Globe from 2021. It covers everything from his childhood to his confrontational style on the Boston School Committee to why he resigned from the Advisory Board and more. It also has multiple links to other news stories about him. That is significant coverage about multiple events. --
Slugger O'Toole (
talk)
13:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
No. He absolutely wouldn't. But the Globe profile is from 2021, three years before the current events at Columbia. So is much of the other coverage of him. --
Slugger O'Toole (
talk)
21:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I’d say delete. It does not seem he has much individual note. A newsworthy (but not long term-significant) instance of bigoted remarks and involvement in a movement that is itself notable does not strike me as enough.
SecretName101 (
talk)
02:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - single notable event to his name with limited media coverage. unless more comes out related him that generates extensive coverage, no reason he can't just be covered under the protest page
Claire 26 (
talk)
04:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Article is currently written like a hitpiece and violates BLP. The student isn't notable at the moment.
HadesTTW (he/him •
talk)
05:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep I'd prefer more in-depth biographical coverage, but given that there are sources from 2021, BLP1E doesn't really apply. Don't see how AVOIDVICTIM applies either. Will we be hearing about them in a year from now? Two years? Really not sure, and we can't really know yet, so I can definitely see the case for merging with an article on the protests, but the previous coverage pushes this just over the line for me.
Elli (
talk |
contribs)
02:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete I don't see
WP:AVOIDVICTIM as a significant concern here, but the case via
WP:BLP1E seems clear. I suppose one could argue that this is in fact
WP:BLP2E or similar, in particular via the Globe human-interest story, but it's not as if James has an activist career that makes him notable rather than the notability of the ongoing event he is associated with. Almost all the useful content can easily go into
2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus occupation.
Jmill1806 (
talk)
21:32, 3 May 2024 (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.