Talk:Austin Haughwout

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 November 2016. The result of the discussion was merge to Regulation of UAVs in the United States.

what I haven't included

In addition to the media coverage Haughwout has received in connection with his drone-related videos, there are other news reports relating to Haughwout being charged with assaulting a police officer. Even though media sources for the incident are fairly prominent in searches for his name, I have not included it in the article, for two reasons:

out of respect for the fact that he has not been convicted
in any case, the alleged incident is unrelated to his use of drones, so is not really relevant to what he is known for.

But I think it is worth mentioning the reasoning here pre-emptively before someone adds it. I hope that is fair. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. for completeness I should mention that I have added a web reference to the incident merely as source for his date of birth, but without otherwise commenting on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Money money tickle parsnip (talk • contribs) 19:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

further charges

Regarding the child pornography charge which has arisen more recently, I think that exactly the same applies as what I wrote above regarding the assault charge. Although it is a serious charge, it is not what he is notable for, and he hasn't been convicted. I will remove [Edit: have now removed] that bit from the article, and let's revisit it if he is convicted or if the case attracts significant media attention. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am now removing mention of this issue also from the intro section, for the same reasons. Granted that there are media sources, but I don't think they rise to the level of coverage that would justify the inclusion of unproven criminal allegations concerning a living person. The expulsion from university is a different matter because it appears to be connected to the drone controversy that he is known for, so I am leaving it in place (though changing "for" to "on the grounds of" to avoid taking sides on whether the allegation is true or not). --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So if it doesn't result in a conviction it's "not relevant" in the case of child pornography charges, but unresolved court issues were relevant when he was fighting the FAA? Okay... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.212.251 (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, but the point (as I see it) is that the reason why he is notable is his activity with drones, and that the issues with the FAA are in direct relation to that, whereas the child pornography charges are not. It is, I think, a reasonably common-sense observation to say that his notability stems from the fact that he has controversially pushed the boundaries of aviation law, also causing legislators to hurry to amend state law, and that if it weren't for the drones and he was just some random person with an unproven child pornography charge against him, then very few people would have heard of him. Obviously these allegations are potentially highly damaging, so I think it is right to have a high threshold for including them in the article. I suggest to you that an appropriate threshold would be whether this issue would at least approach warranting an article in its own right, which it clearly does not. (I believe that the threshold for merely mentioning them on this talk page is somewhat lower, and has been reached given that there have been some media reports.) --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 02:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No child pornography (or any other) charges until proven guilty, unless there are serious other circumstances, like overwhelming media attention, per WP:BLP. Drmies (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Austin Haughwout. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]