RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/2021 U.S. Capitol riot/Charges

2021 U.S. Capitol riot/Charges | Result: Gone. Reduced to atoms.

2021 U.S. Capitol riot/Charges (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. Recently we've been deleting terf articles on the basis that these were people of insignificance with around a few hundred or so followers on Twitter. This article is a big offender. No one on the list with a few exceptions like Q Shaman, Alex Jones, and Nick Fuentes have any following or notability whatsoever. Another problem I spotted is Jones and Fuentes have not been charged even though they are present on the list (possible oversight?). Those that have any notability or following should maybe have their own small section noting their participation or charges on the main article rather than listing every single charged participant. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
2. Exposing and humiliating people? No. GeeJayK (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
3. Christopher (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
4. 

主要行事月 (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

1. serves no purpose. one or two individuals might be of note but the rest? this should all be a matter of public record. what are we adding that cant be gleaned from that? whats added to the capitol riot page with this? nothing on both counts, but we sure do like a list AMassiveGay (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
2. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
3. Ridiculous! Any clueless fuck can punch out a list. It has no intelligent connection with the mission statement and the presentation is incredibly ugly—just one wall of text after another. Leucippus^Talk 00:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

   This list doesn't present well, that's true. It came into being organically and very quickly after the January 6 events unfolded, and grew very large very quickly. A lot of people contributed to it. This is a current event and events will continue to unfold over the next several months. Eventually we may decide to turn this into a reference page (yes we still have a few of these on this wiki) or reformat it, or promote it to an article in its own right, or at some point, make it go away. Just because it's ugly, that's no reason to trash the work of many of your fellow editors who are probably a little disturbed at you referring them to "clueless fucks." —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 00:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

   I was referring to the triviality of making a list; anyone can do it and the info can be found elsewhere. Furthermore, the majority of these individuals aren’t notable enough to even warrant an article, and it is neither feasible nor interesting to have an article that focuses one-by-one on each individual; most of whom, I suspect, can’t be scrutinised in the level of detail that our mission statement requires. An article on the Capitol Hill Insurrection? which would enable the documentation of the major crank ideas, the key figureheads who influenced the insurrection, and the way in which these were handled in the media—sure, go for it; an article which gets bogged down in the listing of minor players and their arrest warrants will be obscure and inefficient—we won’t be able to see the forest for the trees! Leucippus^Talk 16:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

4. Was the January 6 insurrection an important and relevant event? Yes! Is it important that Zachary "Zac" Hayes was charged with disorderly and disruptive conduct as a result of his participation? Not really. The only important thing about these people is the collective action they took on January 6, and all the importance of that can be covered without a listicle of the particular people. Those who are individually important have their own articles, and much of the political relevance of the insurrection is tangled up with people who did not directly participate anyway. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 02:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
5. Delete as malicious slander. Not a single individual has been charged with insurrection. Dutchbag (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

   A), demonstrate malice. B), learn what slander is. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

   slander/libel is kind of splitting hairs here - its a talk page not a court room. also for malicious ust take a gander at the keep votes. no.1 for example AMassiveGay (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

   Not a single person has been charged with insurrection. Virtually all are trespass or civil disorder charges. There are a few conspiracy to commit civil disorder charges. There is one person charged with a firearms violation. [1] Dutchbag (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

   @Dutchbag Don't try to armchair lawyer, you're shit at it. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

   Anna Morgan-Lloyd, "first person sentenced in the riots" is registered Democrat, per WaPo. Dutchbag (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

   And? Party affiliation hardly means much on its own in regards to "big tent" parties like the Dems or the GOP. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

   Additionally, demographic outliers are to be expected in large gatherings, such as the January 6th insurrection attempt. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

   (ec) dunno what your point is here. its neither slander or libel. its a pointless list that adds nothing to article its attached and serves no purpose on its own. it is, i assume, a factual list that does not accuse anyone of insurrection. it just lists a bunch of fucknuts and what they are charged with. it should be deleted but not because you dont have a clue about what you are talking about. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

   So, are we now saying registered Democrats are white supremacists, since the first conviction is a registered Democrat? Dutchbag (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

   And these two things are mutually exclusive how exactly? Again, outliers in large groups are a thing. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

   Further, that would be a registered Democrat. As in singular. There's currently no credible evidence that the majority of the participants in the attempted insurrection were anything other than Trump and GOP supporters. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

   Should we strike this vote on the basis that it was cast by a retard? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

   Also, party registration does not necessarily correlate to political views, otherwise Kentucky would be a blue state. Plutocow (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

   Duce, how many times are you going to be told to knock it off with that word!??!?!? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

   It’s not a bad word though. It’s just a stronger insult for stupidity. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 00:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

6. This is just another boring list practically no person will spend ten whole minutes to read through. Anti-swamp (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
7. Monet ^Ye 07:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
8. I have not seen a good mission-based argument for keeping this list. Simply saying "authoritarianism" without giving a supporting argument is not convincing. That is not saying that I couldn't be persuaded.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 09:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
9. 

--Goatspeed. How's my editingCircularRasoningSee what I'm planning 17:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

1. It is not our purpose to name and shame.-Hastur! (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
2. The case for keeping the article in question seems to have not improved from the last time I checked. Thusly, my vote is for deletion. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:20, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Keep

1. Exposing and humiliating insurrectionists? Yes. And they can also get stuffed besides.UncleKrampus (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
2. Oh look some people whining about right-wing insurrectionists getting exposed. Individual responsibility guys!!! LOL.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 17:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
3. This is not "exposing and humiliating" people. They've already been exposed by the DOJ, and in many cases in news reports. Those who are found innocent can be removed obviously. Take a look at Anna Morgan-Lloyd. She is a low-level offender who is actually someone who decided to take responsibility for her actions: she quickly pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge, recognized that she contributed to the problem by enabling the offenders who were violent, and educated herself at her lawyers behest before sentencing.[2] Those people who are found guilty should not be forgotten like the rioters in Tulsa were. Bongolian (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
4. This is an active and current news event, and I think it is very important to keep, as it documents hundreds of sources relating to the events of January 6. "Exposing and humiliating insurrectionists" ? Give me a fucking break. These people are exposed by the United States Department of Justice and the extremism study at George Washington University. The page here on RW includes those two primary sources and hundreds of others that give context to the extent and scope of the insurrection. If these people are humiliated by this exposure, perhaps they shouldn't have participated in the riot in the first place. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 18:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

   Adding to that, most if not all, of these people were there "to make history". Well, they got that wish, but not in the way that they wanted. So, the idea that they shouldn't be "exposed and humiliated" here is ridiculous. Bongolian (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

5. One of the biggest, most notable events in American political history, definitely mission-oriented, and people are giving a fuck that a few people are documenting the names? PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
6. Worth keeping, although I hope at some point it gets updated to focus on convictions. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 18:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
7. Why not?-Flandres (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
8. Yeah, this is pretty important information that should stay. (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
9. I'm leaning toward keep. Like I don't see an issue of having a list as a separate page though perhaps if there's just an external link of all these people that makes this article a bit obsolete, I'll take that too. This definitely fits on the authoritarianism aspect of it, based on what the insurrectionists supported (it would be appropriate for RationalWiki to have an article of Beer Hall putsch, which this insurrection attempt has a lot of parallels to), not sure why it's being debated in the comments section. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

   I'm confused. Are you saying that it would be appropriate for RW to have an article on the Beer Hall putsch, or to have an article listing every individual participant in the Beer Hall putsch? We already have a separate article on the insurrection. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 20:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

   I mean a hypothetical article on a Beer Hall putsch wouldn't be out of place. A list of the participants might be just an accessory we don't need but the subject itself is missional. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

   I agree that the insurrection is missional, but I am doubtful whether this accessory is really adding anything. We don't and will never cover every authoritarian in the world; what makes these people worth listing? Sure, this happened recently, but it failed just like the putsch. Some 2000 people participated in the putsch; how many does anybody care about? A movement or event can, I think, be significant even if it is carried out largely by a bunch of nobodies. I'll also add this question: of the notable people who participated in the Beer Hall putsch, how many of them are notable for that, and how many are notable because, say, they went on to become leaders in the Nazi government or military? 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 20:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

   The necessity for a list might be debatable but as it's peripheral to the capitol riot, talking about the missionality of the list is just an extension of talking about the missionality of the riot. That's how I understood it. I'm also doubtful about the need for a list like this but I don't see an issue of having one either. It's just one list. Lists aren't otherwise excessively done throughout the wiki. Sure there might be a superior public database for it which can serve for an external link incase the article is deleted, but there's no one is putting that forward? As for second question, I think the list itself is supposed to illustrate the sheer amount of people that participated in such a thing and because they're not notable they're just relegated to that list. If any became a major political figure then probably create an article on them. Again I don't think the list on participants of Beer Hall putsch should exactly have a hypothetical article either hence why I don't feel strongly for this list tbf but can we even see a list of putsch participants easily? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

10. Per others. Plutocow (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
11. Agree /w others. I do agree that the page is somewhat disorganized, but that can be fixed within the span of an hour. Celeste (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
12. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
13. Oh no, how dare we expose all the fascist insurrectionists who vigorously yearned to kill millions of oppressed peoples by taking all-out control of the government! Just think about what they'd perceive if we leaked all their names, maybe they'd be ashamed for the rest of their miserable lives or something.~April 21:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

    you could have just said 'worse than hitler' and left it at that AMassiveGay (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

    ??? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

    if one is going for gross hyperbole, why half arse it? AMassiveGay (talk) 23:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

14. — Oxyaena ^Harass 03:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Merge back into main article in reduced fashion. Techpriest (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
2. Does not need a stand alone article but info must stay.Gale5050 (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Goat

• Spite isn’t a good reason to keep an article, no matter how deserving. We’ve deleted plenty of articles on bad people. Christopher (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• I'm not voting either way at the moment, I'm just trying to figure out which part of the mission it would come under, and if this could be added to the introduction. I'm not convinced by the argument, "Look, it's political!"Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  Coverage of authoritarianism, as these yahoos (no matter how clumsy of an attempt it was) tried to challenge America's democratic system. There's a better argument that the list needs to be trimmed to be more notable. A full AFD seems dumb though, this was not a small event. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  But an attempt to overturn a government isn't necessarily authoritarianism and the article certainly doesn't present it that way. It doesn't actually make any point at all it's just a list.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  I think the purpose is to supplement the main 2021 U.S. Capitol riot article without cluttering it, it's similar to how QAnon map dissection was separated from the main QAnon aritcle. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  I suspect that - unless it gets a good mission-based introduction it will not last. At the moment everyone understands why it could be important - but in ten years this will be history, someone will look at it and ask "WTF! Why do we have this?". If someone doesn't put a good reason on it now it will disappear then. (And if we can't put a good reason in the article now then it should be deleted.)Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 06:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• There's little to no difference between these two articles, except for the fact than this one is newer. And yet, only one of them got deleted. GeeJayK (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• I can see the argument from both sides, It's missional but we're not a doxxing site. Employers do need to knowing the things those chuds did, but what if they regret it later on in life? Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 06:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • It's not doxing if it's public information. Plutocow (talk) 06:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
    • yes it is public information. so why is it needed here? it adds nothing to capitol riot page. it serves no purpose for us or anyone being here. it is here purely because we like lists AMassiveGay (talk) 07:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
      • also charged is not the same as convicted. people are talking like thats one and the same. innocent until proven guilty i believe is the rule. a list of the convicted will still be just as worthless.^{— Unsigned, by: AMassiveGay / talk / contribs}
• Some of the people who voted to delete are taking this way too seriously. It's fucking hilarious. That's probably half of my reasoning for voting to keep, hmhmhmhm...-Flandres (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• No one will read this article or reference it for useful information. It serves no purpose, and people are voting to keep it as a kneejerk reaction to something that supports a position they agree with. Flandres is right that everyone is taking this far too seriously. Christopher (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• I'm a bit torn here. On the one hand, this article is a listicle, consisting primarily of what amounts to grunts. Editors in the keep camp seem less than compelling in their arguments. On the other hand, some in the delete camp seem to have less than stellar reasoning of their own, referring to the article as "slander", and arguing that no one has been charged with insurrection, with the implication that the event was in fact, not insurrection. Despite my misgivings, however, I'm leaning towards delete unless the keep camp can give a compelling argument. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  When the DOJ brings insurrection charges, and conspiracy to commit insurrection, and a federal court finds them guilty, then it can and should be labeled insurrection. Until then, you simply have the same mob mentality in the media and others who follow the herd. Dutchbag (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  Curiously for someone supposedly attempting to stick to legal terms, you seem quite selective in their application. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  The DOJ, federal courts, and a jury of their peers will determine if it was an insurrection - not the media or elected politicians. Thus far, the DOJ has presented no evidence or indictments of insurrection. Dutchbag (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  I also find it curious that you think I'm using the media's definitions, or the definitions used by elected politicians. Perhaps you're making spurious assumptions about my line of thinking and motives? Hmm... Curious indeed... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  (ec) Not at all. I'm referring to 18 U.S. Code § 2383. At best, what they have so far is Conspiracy to Obstruct Congress against one individual. The rest for the most part are criminal trespass charges against Capitol tourists. It's a tuff sell to claim 532 people armed with one gun engaged in a conspiracy to overthrow the United States government and Constitution. Dutchbag (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  I'm convinced Dutchbag is a sock of someone from Conservapedia. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  He might be, but paranoid speculation is pointless. Christopher (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Dutchbag"It's a tuff sell to claim 532 people armed with one gun engaged in a conspiracy to overthrow the United States government and Constitution." There was quite a bit more than one gun, and quite a few more people than just 532. See, now I get to flex actual legal knowledge. When a crime is committed, the prosecution tries to narrow the pool of suspects down to those they can actually try successfully. This means they'll try to flip co-defendants into testifying in this thing called a "plea bargain". Such deals may result in reduced charges, punishment, or the complete negation of the above, depending on the severity of the crime, the participants role in the crime, and the value of the testimony given. Further, the prosecution might decide not to press charges against the most minor offenses so as to save their limited time and resources for the major defendants. Or, in other words, quite a few more people could have committed crimes, but were ultimately let go or left to their home state to deal with due to not being worth the hassle for federal prosecutors. You also still don't know what slander is, hence my open mocking of your supposed commitment to exclusively using legal terms. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

1. You're right. I stand corrected. Two people, not one, were arrested and charged on weapons charge, per the article. [3] As to the rest of it, it sounds like Revolver News conspiracy crap. Dutchbag (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• Can't vote due to being IP, but shaming doesn't change behaviour, but pointing out guilt can change behaviour. If this article can remain non-shaming, it seems like a good idea to keep around and would vote "keep". 2A02:7AA0:1619:0:0:0:D71B:C3DB (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  Anyone can vote in AfDs, including IPs. Christopher (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  RW votes shouldn't be binding, IPs cannot be democracy for countless reasons (gaming being the main one) and voting should be limited to users with known identities. If not, voting should just be left up to the top admin imo. Abstaining.2A02:7AA0:1619:0:0:0:D71B:C3DB (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  whose going to be shamed by this list? those on it wont even be aware of it most likely. anyones guilt will pointed out when they are sentenced in court and have criminal records - we are not providing some kind of public service here, we are just wasting bandwidth and fellating the egos of those who think we are 'exposing' crims like internet batman AMassiveGay (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• This article is 13-13 tie with 2 for merging, so how will we sort this? -Gale5050 (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

  Wait a bit for someone to break the tie. If no consensus is reached nothing happens, article is kept, someone will probably nominate the article again to settle things properly (I’d personally wait a year or two, a few months later and it seems the wound of the capitol riot is still fresh for many American liberals). Christopher (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• I address here the arguments for deleting the page: 1) Most of the people are insignificant. Listing their names is unimportant, particularly for misdemeanor charges. 2) It is exposing or humiliating people. 3) It is malicious slander.

  Some of these arguments have already been hashed out above.

  1. In the past, articles that are supportive of mission but not that are not strictly missional in-and-of-themselves have been found to be acceptable. The specific support that this page provides is as evidence against the various conspiracy theories that are detailed on the main page. For example the argument that the people at the riot were actually tourists or petitioners. This page shows that large numbers of people at the riot may not have had initial criminal intent but wound up committing misdemanors such as trespass anyway. As evidenced by the testimony of the Anna Morgan-Lloyd, who pleaded guilty to misdemeanor demonstrating inside the Capitol, the mob who were probably not initially criminally inclined gave cover for the smaller group: "At first it didn’t dawn on me, but later I realized that if every person like me, who wasn’t violent, was removed from that crowd, the ones who were violent may have lost the nerve to do what they did."[4]
  2. The people who were present at the Capitol already exposed themselves: 1) by intent: many of them went 'to make history' 2) by being in public 3) by getting arrested and entering the public record and in newspapers.
  3. This is not malicious slander because it's the truth. Everyone named is cited with a government and or a news report. Innocent until proven guilty of course.

  Bongolian (talk) 01:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  None have been charged with insurrection or hate crimes. The only way they can be referred to as insurrectionists would be for (1) a group of them declared insurrection; (2) the commander-in-chief of the executive branch declared an insurrection against the United States; or (3) the legislative branch declared an insurrection existed against the United States.

  As noted, none have been charged with hate crimes, either.

  Knowing these facts now, continued reference to "insurrectionists" and "white supremacists" is malicious slander. Dutchbag (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  You're nitpicking because there are mutiple news articles that either refer to them as a group as insurrrectionists or refer to the event as an insurrection. Just look at the reference section on the page. Bongolian (talk) 02:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  Exactly. Dump all the slanderous sources and references.

  Now, your next retort will be, But the New York Times said so. As my mom used to say, If all the other kids jumped off a bridge, would you, too? Ask yourself, "If everybody else entered the Capitol, would you, too?" As written, the article has the same mob mentality the protesters had. Dutchbag (talk) 03:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  (EC) Responding to (1), iirc we recently had a purge of the reference space, but if you have specific instances of non-strictly-missional stuff kept to provide support for more-missional-stuff, I would appreciate links to compare. As it stands, I'm sympathetic to the point GeeJayK is making wrt the Iraq War vote article. As far as the support this article provides to the main article, I note that the first reference is cited over 300 times, and glancing over its content, it seems to provide more details than we have here (e.g. more charges are listed). What do you think is the advantage provided by this support-article over an external link to that source (and maybe a few of the others) in the main article, in establishing the point you note? To put it another way, why do you think this is the best way to do this (or if you don't think it is, why not make a change)? 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 03:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  As far as point 1, there is a lare amount of non-missional material on RW, not necessarily in the same way as the page in question though. For example, we have science-related articles that are non-missional but presumable are kept because they support articles in pseudoscience and anti-science. Similarly, we have an article each on Antifa and on SJW, presumably because they support articles on authoritarianism. I'm certainly open to revising the structure of the page, for example removing the many citations of DOJ's and George Washington University's arrestee pages and just citing them once at the beginning. Bongolian (talk) 06:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  I've never been convinced by the argument: "There is other non-missional stuff on the wiki - therefore this particular non-missional stuff is justified." Because you could attempt to justify literally anything using that argument.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Relevant considerations: We've nuked other stubs involving "people did thing X" lists (a recent one included an article about the vote on the Iraq war). The article is properly sourced, but I am also questioning the importance of documenting this to the extent we do now. There's a couple of big ones (Baked Alaska and that one dude with horns jump to mind immediately) who we should definetly have listed in our main section since they shouldn't be swept under the rug, but to pick a random subject; why do we care about Yevgemya Malimon from Oregon? They're a random nobody. Unless our goal is to maintain a list on every person who attended this miserable attempt to re-enact the Beer Hall Putzsch, which would not be missional. The list is missional in the sense that it matches criteria 3: exploration of how the subject of authoritarianism in the media. That said, not every person on this list is missional. I feel like we can prune this list down to just the ones we have articles on and we'd be much better off. At this point, the list is also small enough to fit back into the main article. Techpriest (talk) 12:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
• Anyone going to break the tie or will this have to end in no consensus? Christopher (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• Frankly Chris, I’m shocked. There are far more important things going on, crucial to the future of this site. Head over to the the WIGOCP page! —That’s an order! Leucippus^Talk 21:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  Even if the tie is broken, @Christopher, please keep in mind that it would still be a plurality, as in, while one option has more votes then the others, no option has crossed the 50% threshold. This would probably result in some kind of keep or force compromise until one side hits 16 votes. Gale5050 (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

  Wait, does having "Keep" and "Merge" outweigh "Delete" still not necessarily mean the article will not be deleted? I kinda feel like that's some FPTP fuckery if so. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Christopher The tie has been broke, no thanks to Dutchbag, who's inane ranting and selective legal pedantry likely pushed people away from the delete vote. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Bongolian No matter what the result of this Afd I think we can all agree that this article needs a major reformulation as the Delete and Merge/redirect are more than half of the votes, and a considerable part of those that voted for keep also mention a few problems with it. You're one of the most important users of this small community, and you know it, so I'm sure you'll find out a way if this article survives the current afd. GeeJayK (talk) 20:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

  47% of the people want it to be totally deleted, 47% want it to be improved and kept, and 6% of them support a merge into the main article. We should wait until one option hits 50%. Gale5050 (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)