Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Osman Mohamud

: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 and rename to 2010 Portland car bomb plot. I'm not wed to the name, so the article can be renamed further if consensus develops on the article talk page as long as the new name concerns the incident and not the individual. T. Canens (talk) 09:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

=[[Mohamed Osman Mohamud]]=

{{notavote}}

:{{la|Mohamed Osman Mohamud}} – (View AfDView log){{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/reports/afd/{{urlencode:Mohamed Osman Mohamud}}.html|2=Afd statistics}}

:({{Find sources|Mohamed Osman Mohamud}})

WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. wjematherbigissue 16:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep This is an entry of interest to many people, and relevant to the public, just like entries covering similar subjects of the government stopping terrorist attacks, e.g. by Faisal Shahzad, Farooque Ahmed, and Hosam Maher Husein Smadi.
  • I agree - Keep (as is, not Rename) - All of the persons mentioned above (along with Najibullah Zazi and his father, Mohammed Wali Zazi) are notable only for significant non-events, such as failed bombings or simply plotting to commit a terrorist act, and none of the corresponding articles are targeted for deletion. All are residents (legal or illegal) of the US and not foreign nationals attacking from the outside (like Richard Reid and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab). Many have not even come to trial yet. In fact, the case of Hosam Maher Husein Smadi is virtually identical to this one! Why is this particular article targeted for deletion when there are so many others that fit the same criteria? Eegorr (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with nominator per WP:BLP1E & WP:NOTNEWS, this person is only known for one recent news event and is otherwise not at all notable. Pol430 (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Subject is notable, just like similar subjects of the government stopping terrorist attacks by Faisal Shahzad, Farooque Ahmed, and Hosam Maher Husein Smadi. Sclt1127 (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • There may be a list somewhere covering these, but that is the most we need. In general, taken on their individual merits, they do not pass our criteria for inclusion. wjematherbigissue 17:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Other examples are Richard Reid (shoe bomber) and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. More info will become available as case progresses. Jokestress (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Please address why this passes WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. WP:OTHERSTUFF is not sufficient, and those you mention clearly had lasting significance, Reid in particular. Should this have similar impact in future, which is highly unlikely given the circumstances and the fact it was the result of a sting operation, then it could be recreated then. Since we don't have the benefit of a crystal ball, as it stands we should delete. wjematherbigissue 17:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Per notability: "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)." I have added some of the re-analysis of the event, and I am sure we will see many profiles on the suspect similar to the half-dozen notable biography examples already given above as precedents for keeping this. Jokestress (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Quite obviously re-analysis does not happen the following day in these cases, it happens much later. Please address the aforementioned policy concerns. wjematherbigissue 18:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Since you also advocate merging/deleting Faisal Shahzad, Farooque Ahmed, Richard Reid, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and Hosam Maher Husein Smadi because "they do not pass our criteria for inclusion," it seems your arguments do not line up with Wikipedia policy and consensus on individuals involved in these notable incidents. Jokestress (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I am advocating no such thing. Each case should be examined on its own merits and most importantly, recognising that they are not inherently notable. Reid in particular, has had exceptionally significant lasting impact as evidenced by authorities requiring airline passengers to remove their footwear while passing through security. We can not say anything remotely like that about Mohamud. wjematherbigissue 18:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It is far too early for anyone to determine the significance of this incident. In numbers of dead, it could have exceeded that of the WTC and Pentagon attacks of 9/11/2001! And, do you not find it significant that the target city, Portland, is the only one who has opted out of the Joint Terrorism Task Force, declining to cooperate with the FBI in such investigations? This is likely to change in the wake of Mohamud's actions. Eegorr (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Rename to an article about the incident, which is what is notable about this person.  Sandstein  20:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

:*WP:NOTNEWS is often abused, as it is in this case. Just because a subject receives news coverage, doesn't mean it is notable. But if it there's news coverage and the subject meets WP:GNG, it is notable. If we take a look at a similar attempt, like the Time Square attempted bombing, then we can determine that this will be a matter of discussion for some time to come. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

::*Sorry, but I'm sure you have that wrong. If a subject passes GNG it is presumed to be notable provided that it does not fall foul of certain policies, of which WP:NOT is one. As for your assumptions regarding future discussion, as I said previously, there is no bar to recreation should that ever happen, but what matters is the current situation where there is no evidence of long term significance. wjematherbigissue 20:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

:::*Again, that's assuming it fails WP:NOTNEWS, which it doesn't. It states, "...routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia..." This case is not any of those examples outlined in WP:NOTNEWS. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

::::*Sure, pick out the bit that obviously doesn't apply here – I do get tired of having to rebutt straw man arguments. So we're clear, of course the policy does apply: "...most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." This section is then covered in more depth by WP:EVENT, which states "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, ...) ...are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." wjematherbigissue 21:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

:::::*Can you please keep it civil and assume good faith? You should really calm down, this isn't the first time, nor the last time you'll meet someone with a differing opinion. And your cited quote from WP:EVENT only backs up my support. This is not "most crimes". Most crimes include armed robbery and attempted murder, not potential terrorist attacks in the U.S. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

::::::*Sadly, potential terrorist attacks are a dime a dozen. They are not automatically or inherently notable and nor does the fact it happened in the US make it any closer to being notable. The issue is quite simple really. Where is the lasting or enduring significance? wjematherbigissue 21:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

:::::::*They are obviously not a "dime a dozen". And I only cited the fact that it was in the U.S. because it does make it more significant. The threat, in the words of the FBI agent in charge, "was very real". This is not a dime a dozen case. It is being covered extensively, which is "enduring significance". I don't wish to continue discussing this. From previous comments, you are obviously trying to bully and argue, not come to a clear consensus and/or compromise (which I proposed). Thank you. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

::::::::*[http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/articles/2010/08/30/reportage-01 "Approximately 11,000 terrorist attacks occurred in 83 countries during 2009."] Unfortunately, yes they are a dime a dozen. Having extensive coverage does not equal enduring significance. (P.S. Ad hominem accusations do nothing to further your case.) wjematherbigissue 23:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::*Agree w/Brian. WJE--if memory serves, this is not the first time that you have militated strongly for deletion of an article with overtones of possible terrorism. Using the same arguments. And, as here, learning that the consensus view differs from yours. Perhaps that is where the issue lies, and we would all benefit (and have fewer AfDs that fail to gain consensus support) if you would take to heart the consensus view of your fellow editors in this regard.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::*The only thing I would benefit from is fewer snide and condescending remarks, but we both know that is your MO when dealing with any difference of opinion. wjematherbigissue 20:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

:**Comment. I am holding off on my vote until I can read more on the subject and determine whether it is most appropriate to have a Wikipedia article about the man, the incident, or both. However, I did want to voice that I agree with Brian Halvorsen's assessment about WP:NOTNEWS, both in that it is often misinterpreted, and that it is being done so in this case. It seems that whenever any indecent is remotely new or recent, there will always be a handful of users (no offense to anyone specific in this discussion) who cite this policy as a reason for deletion. It happened with Nidal Malik Hasan, it happened with Seung-Hui Cho, and it's happening now. Brian was criticized for emphasizing the sentence, "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." But I think this makes it very clear that this policy is meant to discourage every single minor item that appears in a newspaper from warranting a Wikipedia article, not something of this scale which, in my view, clearly passes WP:N. — Hunter Kahn 06:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep If he's been in the news, if his name can be mentioned in discussing the history of a notable phenomenon (in this case, terrorist attack on US soil), then people want to know who he is and what becomes of him; and they should find such information in Wikipedia. He had the potential to be the first person to successfully carry out such an attack since 9/11; he matters. I disagree with calls to make it part of an article titled say, Portland Car Bomb Plot (since it's that event that makes him notable). Doing that would amount to double standard; across Wikipedia, countless personalities who gained popularity as a result of event(s)are profiled. For instance, Linda Tripp has an article in her name; why is she not merely mentioned in the article Lewinsky scandal? I propose that this discussion be closed and the article retained.--Dele1234 (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)--Dele1234 (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

:Comment - But I think the article should stay under its current name.,--BabbaQ (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete. I think the burden of proof should be on those who want to keep it, and from what I see presented above, it hasn't been met yet. It's only vaguely terrorist related at best, in the sense that he wanted to be one but very clearly wasn't. In essence the story is really nothing more than a stupid 19 year old kid who tried to implement an idiotic idea, got caught, and will likely spend the next 20 years in federal prison because of it. No connection to established terrorist groups, no deaths, no property damage, just garden variety stupidity. Not worthy of inclusion. 67.252.54.152 (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

:— 67.252.54.152 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .

::Because I don't edit frequently enough to bother creating an account, and my IP address changes every couple of months, but thanks for the ad hominem, Epeefleche. Nice to see it being spread so liberally against the minority viewpoint. Apparently we are all terror lovin' agenda pushers because we dare suggest that this story - like many many others in which the media sells fear - might be over-hyped and not very notable in the grand scheme of things. 67.252.54.152 (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

:::Ahah. You appear to not gather what makes notablity, for purposes of the Project. What "the media sells", what you consider to be "over-hyped" by it, is what determines notability for the Project. Your personal POV that the media should not be reporting it, and is over-hyping it, is under the wp construct not determinative of whether an issue is notable. We rely on what the RSs report. Not on individual editors' personal views as to whether the RSs are making more of the issue than we feel they should.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

::::I strongly disagree. I believe a large part of the reason for WP:BLP1E, WP:NTEMP, WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:N/CA, and WP:BREAKING is to counter-act instances where initial media coverage is grossly out of proportion with a person's or event's real long-term notability and relevance to an encyclopedia. In my opinion, this story is just that. I am aware that my viewpoint is in the minority right now. That does not mean I am pushing an agenda or misunderstand this process. It also does not mean I am wrong. 67.252.54.152 (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep. I disagree that it's nothing more than a stupid 19 year old kid getting caught. The FBI says that there was a real threat. The FBI knows of many hopeful's, but they singled this one out for stinging till the end because he was capable of executing his agenda. Also, the President had been briefed about the whole operation - yes, the President gets briefed about tonnes of stuff but certainly not about everyone known to want to carry out a terrorist attack (except of course the threat is real).--Dele1234 (talk) 09:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - At this time this person's guilt has not yet been determined. Simply being charged for your first offense does not make someone notable. The event itself is barely notable. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 23:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

::A person can still be notable if he is not guilty of a crime. Look at the Wikipedia entries for OJ Simpson and Donald Marshall, for instance. If the guy is found not guilty, then this article will still be notable, only it will require updating. Please keep in mind that "notability" is actually the name of an official policy at Wikipedia, with actual rules. It's not a matter of just saying "I don't think it's interesting, so it's not notable." When you nominate an article for deletion, you have to show that it demonstrably does not comply with the notability guidelines. In the case of this article, it has. — A lizard (talk) 05:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

:::Agree with A lizard. Whether he is guilty or not bears little (if at all) on whether he is notable; it is the nature of the coverage that is the key.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep / consider rename Notability has been established with multiple reliable and verifiable sources. A title covering the incident, rather than the person, may be appropriate. Alansohn (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep I inadvertently created a parallel article at 2010 Oregon bomb plot. Dawnseeker2000 01:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Aside from the BLP1E issue, there is nothing to suggest that this isn't just another nutter working on his own on yet another non-notable terrorist plot which we shouldn't be giving prominence to. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 01:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

::WP:DENY applies to vandalism on Wikipedia, not terrorists. Victor Victoria (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

:::I'm wholly aware. But it's exactly the same principle I'm applying here. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 03:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

::::You lost me. Why are you admittedly mis-using Wikipedia policies? Do you honestly believe that mis-using a policy enhances your point of view? Victor Victoria (talk) 05:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep There are too many similar articles on Wikipedia for this one to be inappropriate. There are too many legitimate sources for this not to be notable. The nominator has done nothing to demonstrate this article's lack of notability as a matter of fact. Please noite that "notability" is not a matter of opinion. Wikipedia actually has rules for this sort of thing. Please read them before writing "delete" on this page. — A lizard (talk) 05:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS are regularly abused by users such as bigissue who have a problematic editing record of enforcing a POV that any coverage of suspected terrorists is "slanted" or "disturbing" , especially Islamic terrorists caught in the act of trying to blow things up. He also called for deletion of the very similar case of Lloyd R. Woodson which received international coverage of being caught with a large amount of arms, maps of army bases, and PLO-fashion headgear. These two rules need to be modified to discourage their use to predictably erase every likely terrorism incident which hits international headlines/ Agree with first entry that this is an entry of interest to many people, and relevant to the public, just like entries covering similar subjects of the government stopping terrorist attacks, e.g. by Faisal Shahzad, Farooque Ahmed, and Hosam Maher Husein Smadi. AFD's like this are only part of a general environment bullying and intimidating editors who illuminate cases of alleged terrorism. Wjemather evidently agrees with this position on "POV terrorism edits" which explains what I suspect is his real motive, to undermine NPOV by surpressing that people like the portland bombing suspect are terrorists, rather that adding notable, reliable sources that state the "other points of view" that this fellow might not be a terrorist. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wjemather/Q1_Q2_2010#Time_for_the_next_step] "I think it's time we take the POV terrorism edits to the next level. At least dispute resolution since it clear they will just continue to edit against consensus and have made some very disturbing and telling statements [1] he pretty much states his agenda and POV right there for all to see. Ridernyc (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC) My attention has only recently been drawn to articles in this area but it would appear that there is an ongoing problem with a handful of editors disregarding core policies in order to slant articles to their personal way of thinking." wjematherbigissue 00:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)" It's pretty clear which "handful of editors" is slanting articles to a distinctly minority and politically motivated view of "what terrorism?" when his idea of an "unacceptable" and "slanted personally" POV or a "very disturbing and telling statements" is simply that this Portland person has been caught, in the words of reliable sources, red handed by the FBI in an act of jihadist terrorism. This is hardly a baseless accusation, it is clear to see who is trying to hide obvious terrorists from view. How many more example does it take before the pattern is clear? Can an editor continually abuse afd like this without censure? Bachcell (talk) 06:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

:Please keep personal attacks to a minimum. The editor who proposed deletion claimed wiki policies for support, thus please keep the discussion about wiki policies, and not ideology/religion.VR talk 17:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

::I see less name calling than questioning of motive here. It is interpretation of wiki policies that is in play, and motive is an important consideration to the extent that it colors such interpretation - especially when it runs so far against consensus. Eegorr (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Rename - BLP1E is so overly cited it is no longer even funny. BLP1E only determines if we need a separate article for the individual players. So, that issue is easily resolved by renaming this as the bomb plot. NOTNEWS is also overly cited, as that really is just your everyday ordinary crap. Put it this way: if it makes the local paper once, that is NOTNEWS. If it makes say CNN (which the bomb plot has not only made their website but done so in what amounts to their mainpage) or other national media outlets in addition to your local news source, then we are removed from the ordinary, and thus removed from NOTNEWS (note I am not saying making it on CNN equals notability, as some things on national media outlets still qualifies as ordinary or would fail GNG as not everything there is really news). Here, I think the bomb plot has enough sources to pass GNG, and nothing but IAR is left to justify deletion. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Rename The incident itself was notable. The belligerents however are not. Cocoaguy ここがいいcontribstalk 17:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep/Snow Keep. The number one front page article in today's New York Times? Seems notable to me. Not even a close call. Agree with the vast majority of the above (out of 22!voters, only 3 !deletes, and one of those an IP who somehow found his way here for his second entry ever!) that do not see this as a !delete. Has all the earmarks of an article of lasting notability of recent events that are appropriate for wikipedia under blp1E and wp:notnews. Noms should read past the titles of those guidelines -- if the top stories in the Sunday NYT are not notable under those guidelines, then no events of recent vintage would be notable, which is clearly not the case. Whether it is renamed, or not (and we have two articles, one on the event and one on the incident, as w/the Christmas Day Bomber and Times Square Bomber, etc., can be thrashed out on the talk page and is not material to whether the article is kept IMHO -- and I don't care at the moment either way; certainly a good argument can be made that it is similar to the others, which have article for the people. Waste of time nomination. IMHO, of course. Difficult to understand nom's rationale for it, if one reads the guidelines and looks at the front-page coverage in major RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

::*(largely off-topic response) Like your good friend Bachcell before you, your ad hominem remarks, both towards myself and the IP contributor (who may well be a regular contributor from a dynamic adress for all you know), are unwarranted. Your continuing failure to assume good faith of anyone you disagree with is disappointing to say the least. I think it would be best for all if you stuck solely to discussing the merits of the article instead of concerning yourself with attacking other contributors, and interjecting IMHO does not make it any more acceptable. You will just have to accept that my interpretation of the guidelines and policies remains as I have elucidated above, and of course it is patently obvious to anyone that I have "read past the titles". wjematherbigissue 22:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

:::*First of all, you are the one making the ad hominem remark here. Asserting who is my "good friend". Second, I've commented only on your editing/noming. Third, what do you think the SPA template is for, if not for an editor making its second edit ever at an AfD? All it does is flag a possible issue for a closer -- why would you want to deny the closer that flag? Fourth, I've not failed to assume good faith. If you read my comment again, you will find no assertion of a failure of good faith on your part here -- rather, a failure to respect consensus on this issue, which if I recall correctly reflects a position you have taken in more than one AfD. I've not said here that your failure was one of good faith. Fifth, I am discussing the merits of your arguments, and not discussing you as a person--I'm sure that you are fine fellow or gal, who tips well, helps the elderly and blind across busy streets, and have never, ever stuck your chewed gum under the bottom of a middle school table.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

::::*(still off-topic) Your previous close interactions would make that self-evident and your comments speak for themselves, seeking to belittle the opinions of an anon who "somehow found his way here" and insinuating that I have not read the policies and guidelines. wjematherbigissue 22:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

:::::*1) Still an ad hominem (and curious synth) comment by you (as I've made none). 2) That's what the template is for--it's not an ad hominem comment. 3) If you have not read policies or guidelines, or read them and failed to understand them, or are not taking the consensus of your fellow editors to heart by repeatedly making the same non-consensus assertions as you seek to delete terrorism-related articles, that is not necessarily a reflection of your bad faith, but rather could be attributed to any number of other reasons. At the end of the day, though, when it just leads to waste-of-time landslide AfDs like this one, it is perhaps not the best use of the time of the editors of the Project, whatever the reason.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

::::::*(very much still off-topic) Templating, while unnecessary in this case (have you read the associated essay?), is not the main issue. It's obvious this is going nowhere while you continue to play dumb. Oh, well. wjematherbigissue 23:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep. I've already commented a bit above, but as I had said, I waited to vote until I could give some thought to whether Mohamed Osman Mohamud himself warranted an article, or whether an article focused specifically on the plot was more appropriate, or both. I've decided that I feel an article on the individual is the best course of action. If there were multiple arrests or suspects, or if it had been a successful bombing with victims, I would feel that a separate plot article would be appropriate. But since this was basically a one-man show, I feel that the entirety of the plot can be conveyed through the article on the individual, which would also allow for more of his background to be highlighted. And, for the reasons I cited above, I don't think this article at all violates WP:NOTNEWS or WP:BLP1E. — Hunter Kahn 22:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I would just like to clarify my point from above, I am for the article being kept or renamed. I just proposed the rename as a possible compromise. I feel that the failed plot should be covered somewhere. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep I’ve long said that there ought to be a rule that articles like this shouldn’t be started until one month after the news hits. That would be a check against knee-jerk biographies about articles of local interest—like a school board that allowed some sexual-abusing creep to keep his job (or whatever). But the deed is done in this case and—clearly—this act of attempted terrorism is of widespread interest in the English-speaking world and would have been created even if a one-month grace period were in place. Besides, I got a laugh out of the story when they were taking this guy down and he was kicking at the cops’ shins yelling “Allahu Akbar!” Greg L (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

:* Quite. Our guidelines do suggest incubation for news related articles but there is really no way that is ever going to happen since they mostly get created by inexperienced contributors who are largely unfamiliar with our policies and guidelines. Clearly this article will kept, at least in part because it is a prominent new story right now, but that is the way these discussions (especially in this subject area) seem to go at the moment. wjematherbigissue 23:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

:**There's a flip side to this coin too, though. In the future, I'd suggest giving it a couple of days before you nominate it for AFD. That way you can determine whether the article is strong enough, and whether the news articles do die down after a short period of time. If so, and if you nominate it for AFD then, then your argument for deletion would probably be stronger. — Hunter Kahn 02:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

:***I half-agree with this, in the sense that less than 48 hours after the first reports this story is already well below the fold on almost all of the major news sites. Monday's op-eds will point to the coming week's trend, one way or the other, and that will be a pretty good indicator of whether or not the story has legs. I suspect not, but consensus seems to be heading towards 'keep' anyway. I'd like to think that a few months from now people will look back and realize that this person/event isn't very notable after all, but in reality it will be so forgettable that nobody is even going to bother looking back. And so another 50kb of storage is wasted on irrelevant trivia. 67.252.54.152 (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

:**I agree with User:Hunter Kahn. If anything was a knee-jerk reaction it was this AfD. This news story got world-wide attention. It wasn’t even close. Moreover, it is time consuming for the community to address AfDs because arguments have to be quite keen on both sides (see the above hat statement). I recently saw an admin who took it upon himself to reverse a majority decision by citing how the minority’s logic was so very superior to the majority’s and then deleted the article. Then he went back and actually *read* the citations and familiarized himself with the facts after being assailed for his actions. The majority view here is overwhelming and based on a consistent, valid basis. I move to SNOWBALL. Greg L (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

:***Let's not kid ourselves. That kind of close in favour of an overwhelming minority regardless of the strength of argument is so infrequent it isn't worth mentioning. And it is far from a knee-jerk reaction to list a news story at AfD, it is very common procedure. The fact that this AfD is littered with "it's in the news" arguments just illustrates the problem. wjematherbigissue 08:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep. Agree with the points made above by other users. He is a major figure in a major news story. -- Evans1982 (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. I highly doubt that the press will cease interest in Mohamud's story, as there will continue to be prosecution in the future. I mean, the Wikipedia article of other foiled terrorists (such as Shahzad etc.) all were kept after AFDs set up within a day of article creation. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep or rename per previous comments. Klopek007 (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. This story on Wikipedia is already ready for significant updates as of a few hours ago, that's how rapidly evolving it is. It's a watershed in Somali-US relations, a low mark. We all know what Kristallnacht was, but do we remember the instigation, an assassination by Herschel Greenszpan, which I only know because of a very complete separate article that was a link in the Wiki article on the event Kristallnacht? Keep this name as a separate entry and link it to an article on the event. Kristallnacht can't make any sense whatsoever unless you view the rage at the time against what were felt to be foreign agents provacateurs operating in Germany. The truth was a sad and hopeless case of a stateless immigrant trapped by closing borders, and the suggestion that a gay relationship with a German diplomat that did not result in a visa may have triggered Greenszpan to kill the German diplomat, thus triggering Kristallnacht. In this case of a failed assassin, who triggers world events he had no intention of causing such as diplomatic crisis, hostile backlash, and retrenchment of US Security policy, Mohamud is already clearly part of the cascade of the US into deepening suspicion of radical Islam and war. I think this is the true fear of many of the calls to delete, however we delete history at our peril. 67.100.132.54 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

::Very, very interesting. I had to read this twice to understand where you were going with Kristallnacht. Your message point is powerful. You should register as a wikipedian. Greg L (talk) 06:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

:::Indeed- congratulations on the early invocation of Godwin's Law! tedder (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

:::*As the article on Goodwin’s Law states: “Godwin put forth the sarcastic observation that, given enough time, all discussions—regardless of topic or scope—inevitably end up being about Hitler and the Nazis.” The phenomenon occurs on Wikipedia, for example, when editors label those who would promote the International System of Units to absurd lengths (beyond how the real world works in astronomy for instance) as “SI-Nazis.” The I.P. editor is making a non-humorous and—I think—valid commentary on a potential hazard here and a parallel in history: that of a majority that seizes upon a reckless and despicable act by a single member of a minority and uses that act as a pretense for sweeping actions against the minority. Your comment, Tedder, seemed intended to be humorous but could be interpreted by some as both glib and deprecating to a thoughtful and serious observation by the I.P. Greg L (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

::::It was glib and deprecating, as Wikipedia is not a forum, and sweeping generalizations about history and Wikipedia's role on it would be better suited on a personal blog. tedder (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

:::::Yes; that’s what I suspected. That’s your opinion as to what Wikipedia is and is not so we’ll just have to agree to disagree. In your post, you have a link in one of those I made it Blue so it must be True®™© stunts. Try reading and understanding what you link to next time. WP:NOTFORUM could not be clearer that it speaks to the issue of keeping our articles free of advocacy and opinion pieces, nor can our articles be used to self-promotion or advertising of commercial ventures. And commercial advertising has no place on individuals’ user pages, IMO. But this venue is not in articlespace. Nor is this a userpage. This is a venue where the sharing of thought and vigorous debate occurs. Moreover, the subject of the article in question pertains to terrorism. The I.P. editor was reminding others here about the value of looking at this subject in a big-picture, historical context while deciding whether it is sufficiently encyclopedic. Moreover, the I.P. editor didn’t once mention “Nazis”, s/he mentioned only about “Kristallnacht” so your invoking “Goodwin’s Law” and its reference to Nazism was unseemly and—as you say—glib and deprecating. In a discussion venue on this subject matter, the observations of the I.P. are perfectly appropriate. Since we are now quoting Wikipedia policies and linking to them, you might read up on Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. And you might keep your “glib and deprecating” (by your own admission) to yourself next time; it was unbecoming of a registered wikipedian. Greg L (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Strong keep He has become quite notable for his would-be actions, and the investigation and arrest. He is certainly as notable as Mechele Linehan, among others, known for "1 event". AlaskaMike (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename to the incident. the person by himself isn't notable at all outside the of incident. Its the event that is notable.VR talk 17:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep for now, perhaps rename. It's absurd to even nominate or argue on this article- if it is worthy of keeping or worthy of deletion, it's hard to sort out until some time has passed. tedder (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

{{admin-note}} The creator of this article has been indefinitely blocked as a sock of banned user {{User|Grundle2600}}, though it looks clear, at least to me, that we're way past WP:CSD#G5 right now. Also, folks, please stop trying to evoke emotion by mentioning Nazism here and try to score brownie points; those who are are not contributing anything additional to the discussion and is disruptive. –MuZemike 18:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment: At this point, given the overwhelming community reaction to nom's AfD, it appears that this would be an opportune time to invoke SNOW, and close this early. I doubt nom will learn anything from a continued pile-on reflecting how non-consensus his views are. If he hasn't learned anything from the above input, which appears by his comments to be the case. And for the rest of the community, it is a classic waste of time to satisfy the desire of one non-consensus editor for further feedback on an issue where the conclusion is clear. Someone please close this merit-less AfD, and let the good editors return to useful and productive work building the Project.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

::Not yet - The point of this discussion is not to teach the "nom" anything. While if one does nothing but read the bold text, one might come to the conclusion that the discussion is long over. However, I'm hoping that the closing admin will be able to take the time to take all relevant (to the suitability of the article) comments at face value and be able to come to a clear decision, whatever that final decision may be. There is no need to rush this, and the outcome is not yet obvious. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

::* Of course the outcome is obvious. It’s a landslide and the community consensus is sufficiently thoughtful that it doesn’t need second guessing from an admin. An admin is just another volunteer editor who the community granted access to extra tools. Nothing in that understanding says that admins are understood to be [http://www.libertybellmuseum.com/images/product_images/23053.jpg wise judges] who sit in judgement as to whether a landslide consensus like this had reasoning he or she finds *suitable*. Dragging this out any further is just WP:BUREAU and needless wikidrama because of a knee-jerk reaction from a single editor who was sufficiently experienced that he should have known better as this attempted act of terrorism drew world-wide attention. Greg L (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

:::Take the senseless "Fear of Terrorism" out of the equation, and there is nothing notable about the event (nothing happened) or the suspect (who has not been found guilty.) There is no evidence of the event having an effect on future law enforcement tactics or methods that would possibly make it notable. Right now fear-mongers are doing their best to keep the story alive in the media, and from what I can see (based on various site's "most viewed stories") no one seems to care. A new article is not needed for every single successful law-enforcement sting, and this one's effect on the general public is similar to the local alcohol commission catching store clerks selling to minors. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

:::::With 33 editors having !voted, the landslide outcome is indeed obvious IMHO. Unless one is looking at the issue with Nelson's eye. Agree that the discussion should not be used to teach nom anything -- that would have been the only other reason one could posit to keep it open. We don't rely on individual editors' personal views as to whether what the RSs focus on is "senseless" or not. If the RSs cover a subject extensively, it is notable for our purposes. Period. To do otherwise crosses the line into applying our personal POVs to the issue of notability. We don't censor articles and delete them because we think the RSs' extensive coverage is senseless. The coverage of this matter has been extensive and international in scope. I find it difficult to imagine one saying that the result is not a landslide without hearing them giggle as they say it. Contrary to Uncle's "nobody seems to care" comment, 5K people viewed this article in the past two days. Not quite what one would expect from his selling to minors example. WP:SNOW is intended for circumstances such as this ("If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process.").--Epeefleche (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

:::::* Indeed, I agree. Uncle Milty: It’s “notable” (and encyclopedic) any time there is an attempted act of terrorism where the hoped-for result would be thousands of casualties amongst Christmas revelers and their children, and where news organizations from al Jazeera to the BBC and everyone between pick up the story. It’s certainly at least as notable and encyclopedic as the ninth episode of the second season of The Simpsons (“Itchy & Scratchy & Marge”). I must say that if admins really do step in and were tempted to second-guess an overwhelming community consensus and parse the *logic and merit* of the arguments used here, your opining that this incident is {{xt|similar to the local alcohol commission catching store clerks selling to minors}} seriously undermined one of the few “delete” votes on this page. Greg L (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

::::::Per WP:AFDEQ: "Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself." --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Given that the justification for your !vote was a comparison between this and a local alcohol commission catching store clerks selling to minors and a misrepresentation that "nobody seems to care"--when in fact the article has had 5K hits in the last two days--I would say that on that basis the SNOW nature of this discussion is even more one-sided than the overwhelming !vote of nearly three dozen editors to this point.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

::::::::Of course, many keep !voters have provided little or no rationale at all for their position, so they should really be discounted. It will be for a neutral judge to determine the merits of the arguments, not GregL or Epeefleche. Although anything other than a keep close does seem unlikely, it is unnecessary to attempt to steer the discussion to an early conclusion. wjematherbigissue 21:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::Sure… why not just count only the five “Delete” votes because only their arguments are sound and sane. Is that it? This AfD wastes the time of contributors from the community who could have been doing something better than to (*sigh*) and deal with what you’ve done. You should have full well known from ample prior experience what this outcome was going to be. Why not think a bit more before acting next time? Greg L (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

::::::::"in fact"?? I was not aware that articles here had publicly-visible hit counters. What percentage of those exactly 5000 hits were from unique IPs? What percentage trace back to a small cave in Afghanistan? --| Uncle Milty | talk | 21:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::Yes -- [http://stats.grok.se/en/201011/Mohamed_Osman_Mohamud in fact]. 3,900 just yesterday -- the first full (non-stub) day. I believe that when balancing the objective hit counter vs. your well-intentioned but unsubstantiated assumption (which you submitted as fact), it might be seen as somewhat more objective to give greater weight to the hit counter. That, coupled with the number of articles, the global scope of the articles, and the placement by such newspapers as the New York Times on their front page may serve to suggest a degree of interest in the matter somewhat more than your "nobody seems to care" assertion.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::Thank you for that link. I should have known that there would be a bot doing that. Just for a sense of scale, however, WikiLeaks had approximately 294,800 hits yesterday alone. Ronald Reagan had over 10,000. Not bad for a historical figure, I suppose. I stand by my assertion that this article is a story-of-the-week that will soon be eclipsed by the next missing blonde girl story. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 22:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::I just now noticed that you wrote this, Uncle: {{xt|Take the senseless "Fear of Terrorism" out of the equation}}… Just pardon me all over the place for saying what precisely is on my mind, but “fear of terrorism” is not senseless. What you wrote is the perhaps the biggest absurdity I have ever seen written on Wikipedia. And frankly, it looks like the product of someone who is *working it hard* to be seen as a wise, unflappable Leader Of Men©™® who broods quietly off in the corner worrying about more important things as the little people run around like chickens with their heads cut off. Terrorism captures people’s interest because it evokes powerful emotions; that’s why the root of the word “terrorism” is “terror”. That much is [http://members.iinet.net.au/~jez/junk/well-duh.jpg just too obvious]. Of course, maybe you weren’t trying to posture as Moses leading a frightened wikipedian community across turbulent waters in frightening times; maybe you wrote a metric ton of weapons-grade bullonium purely because you really feel that way (it is senseless for people to fear terrorism). AGF would grant you that. Please advise: were you Special Forces in the military or something? Greg L (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

:*SNOW is premature I admit this article has slim chance of being deleted anytime in the next 30 days, but there are very valid issues being brought up and I dislike the attempts by you and a couple other people to drown out the dissent by repeatedly attacking dissenters' motivation without addressing their arguments. Yes, it has been well established that this story has a gazillion reliable sources, and yes, that is the primary criteria for inclusion. It is not, however, the only one. Nobody has suggested how this event is substantially different than the 11,000 reported terrorist incidents in 2009, other than the coverage. Opinions on how this event may be relevant in the future have tended towards the realm of Alien space bats. There have been a few thoughtful opinions from those who voted 'keep', but the only reason most have given is that "everybody is talking about it". That's not always enough, as shown by policies like WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:BREAKING, and that's why these sorts of things frequently end up in contentious AfD debates. There is room for improving the project here. It probably won't be solved in this discussion, but this may be a start. This process should be seen through, and dissenting opinion should be addressed, not shouted down by repeatedly pointing out the obvious extent of media coverage or number of votes. 67.252.54.152 (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

::*I'm honestly getting a little perturbed by the "11,000 terrorist attacks in 2009" argument. It honestly strikes me as being something of a strawman. as I mentioned elsewhere where it was brought up, how many of those 11,000 are "lone nut with an AK" type incidents, vs. somebody trying to blow up an entire town centre involved in a religious celebration? - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 23:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

:::*That's a good question for which I do not have an answer. Let me rephrase my question, then. Why is this incident in Portland notable enough to have its own article while most of the ones on the List of terrorist incidents, 2010 don't? In fact, I'm now changing my vote. I no longer support full delete, as I believe the incident does warrant brief mention in the pre-established list of terrorist activities. And that list is pretty damning evidence that neither this event nor this person deserves their own entry. 67.252.54.152 (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

:::*Agree w/Bush. As to IP -- the above discussion is all about Uncle's rationale; his assertion without basis that "nobody cares", countervailing info, the guidelines and how they apply here, his views that this has as much coverage and interest as meaningless events (despite the fact that it is a front page of the NY Times story), etc. The proper approach has been followed, and application of the guidelines is the key -- nothing in the guidelines suggests your preferred digression away from "is this notable, with notability being measured by widespread coverage in RSs". Your preferred approach -- discussing and distinguishing this event from others -- is not the guideline. If you like, you can seek to change the guideline, but I don't see it as even requiring a response (though others have tendered one, or two). Let's stick with application of the guidelines, and we will get to a 90% agreement on the issue. If we're not there already.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

::::*No, I don't think we're there already. In fact, I think the list I just linked to clearly shows that this article is a huge deviation from the norm. 67.252.54.152 (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep - attempts to delete articles like this that are clearly informative and useful to people wanting to find facts about this case shows everything that is wrong with Wikipedia. Get over your arguments about policy, and start behaving with regard to what is useful to users of the encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.106.4 (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • KEEP and close as per WP:SNOW. Rename would also be fine, with simple redirect. Rorybowman (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly notworthy. Renaming may be appropriate, deletion would not.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Rename. "In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like Time, Newsweek, or The Economist), and TV news specialty shows (such as 60 Minutes or CNN Presents in the US, or Newsnight in the UK" This event passes this test [http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2033372,00.html] [http://www.newsweek.com/2010/11/27/somali-bomber-oregon-alleged-terrorist.html] Edkollin (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep and ideally rename to the incident. The article as it currently stands is about the incident, and the incident is indisputably notable. Pretty simple. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. He is notable for attempting to perpetrate a significant attack. Per Cube, it may be appropriate to re-center (Rename) the article around the event, while keeping a section on his background. However, I also think keeping the current focus is reasonable. Superm401 - Talk 02:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename to incident. An attempted terrorist attack on a large crowd of people in an area where such events are not commonplace is notable. --Esprqii (talk) 06:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep article should be kept as it is a high profile criminal plot with loads of coverage in RS as per WP:N/CA. whether it should be renamed can be discussed on the article talk page.--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep, but consider renaming the article to "2010 Portland bomb plot" or similar. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment FYI, Man Sentenced for Threatening Illinois Mosque which documents a terrorist incident against a mosque in which a man has been sentenced for a hate crime has been recommended for deletion. It's been covered in a number of newspapers and in muslim blogs and media, as well as by Pam Geller, though that hasn't been added to the article. 17:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • That article doesn't appear to be nominated for AFD at this time (although, now, I imagine it's inevitable that it will be). However, I personally don't think the two are comparable. At a glance, that appears to be more of a local news matter better in line with what WP:NOTNEWS seeks to prevent, not an incident like this Mohamud case that is of a much larger scale and affects many more people. — Hunter Kahn 19:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • 100% agree with HK on that. The other article (aside from having a very unencyclopedic name) is WP:NOTNEWS (and WP:DOGBITESMAN, which I'll write an independant essay on one of these days). This article here, however, is an entirely different kettle of fish. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 20:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree. Being *sentenced* for threatening a mosque ranks along the same lines as phone threats to colleges to shut down classes before a test is given in Common sense 101 class. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and would be filled to the gills if we had an article for every dude sentenced for making threats. The rules don’t change just because it was a threat against mosque used by Muslims who are feeling beleaguered due to a perceived backlash over terrorism in the news. This is true, just as rules don’t change for extraterrestrials circling Vega who feel under appreciated for their blueprints to [http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTQ0NzA0MDgzMF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwNTQxMDU3._V1._SX475_SY324_.jpg the space-portal transportation device] used in the movie Contact. Wikipedia is not to become a battleground for those with a strong sense of religious indignation and who want to make a point. The litmus test for articles is whether the item is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. I note one citation in “Man Sentenced for Threatening Illinois Mosque”. There also is no evidence currently in the article that this news bit was widely picked up by news organizations across the English-speaking world. If such evidence exists, it needs to be put into the article. Greg L (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Snow Keep Barely worth the effort to type "Keep," it's so obvious. IronDuke 00:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete and Comment I would say delete, obviously I would be a minority here, but hear me out. This case is one of hundreds in the FBIs files where information was traced to a person and acted on. This person is a 19 year old moron who thought it was cool to kill a bunch of people. He makes plans to connect himself with a terrorist cell, instead ties himself to an FBI agent. They toy with him a little, try to judge what he wants to do, they figure out said moron wants to blow things up, and they let him run himself right into a good old fashioned trap. The only reason this person is notable is that he is a moron, an apparently religious moron judging by the "God is great" shouting incident, and that all he actually ended up doing? NOT DOING A DAMN THING BUT MAKING HIMSELF LOOK LIKE A MORON TO THE WORLD. Intent does not make a person notable, otherwise every person who in the world who wanted to do something would be notable. If anything at all is shown by this case, is that the FBI is making inroads into POTENTIAL terrorists and that real ones still exist somewhere else, but not in this case. He wasnt anything, didnt actually do anything therefore no WP:EVENT unless you want to add it to the FBIs page as a job well done. In the end he couldnt even screw up something well, since he actually believed the agent when they told him that the cars windows were blocking the cell phone signal. For whats its worth, that is my opinion. I believe we as a community need to sit down and figure out the standards for cases like this because we seriously need a way to guard against sensationalism in the WIki and IMO this article is sensationalism. We will probably see more and more incidents for things like this and we need a standard to go by. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

:Keep your vote, but it is not his intent that made him notable, that role belongs to the media who covered the story. No coverage, no notability. And thus to answer your final call, we do have a standard to go by for your "morons", and that is our notability guideline for people, which is basically if the media wants to cover it, well, then the person is notable. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

:: That cannot be the case, since then every person who has ever been written in a newspaper would be notable enough for a Wiki article. I myself have been written up several times over the years for different things I have done, both good and bad, and I really dont believe I would qualify. If the media coverage alone makes it notable, then we would not have policies like WP:NOTNEWS or WP:BLP1E but we do. "Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." He and others that are listed for very similar events are noted for only one thing, they were caught in FBI sting operations. The plots they were involved in were generated to catch them doing something, not ones they thought up on their own. Like I said, a "well done" to the FBI and put these people away, and when their in jail, no one will write about them anymore since they actually did nothing. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 08:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

:::You quote BIO, but from your opening comments, I'm not sure you get it. It is not that every person covered in a newspaper is notable, hence NOTNEWS. But when you have repeated, in-depth coverage by say the national media, then bingo, you pass BIO (I would have explained this, BIO, in more detail originally, but honestly it gets tiring when there is a link that can explain it in all its glory and minutia). As to BLP1E, you may want to read how I !voted above. Though, one could argue that he is not a "low-profile individual" going by the coverage in the national media. As to you as a subject: did your deeds make the local paper or the national news?; was there in-depth coverage of your childhood?; was there in-depth coverage period about you, versus the event? If your deeds were covered in-depth, repeatedly, and by more than your small circulation local newspaper, then you too might pass BIO/NOTE. But if its like me where my name was regularly in the local paper during high school due to my participation in athletics and listings for honor roll, then that is what NOTNEWS is all about (same if your mentions were listings for say arrests). Aboutmovies (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep Notable and important.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

: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.