Talk:Mohammad Rafiq (Norwegian folk hero)

Contested deletion
Speedily deletion for such a media star just does not make sense. A person very central in an important event that has been covered internationally, can fulfill the criteria for notability. The person has been portrayed in multiple independent credible sources both in Norwegian and English over the past two days, including but not limited to Reuters, BBC and Wall Street Journal. Sattar91 (talk) 13:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * BLP1E: unimportant person involved in one notable event, does not necessarily meet criteria. Some can qualify, but, for example, there is no page for the attacker, who is more central to the story and featured in more RS. Kingsif (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

COI & POV
You seem like an nice guy, but you are way too fond of the subject to keep this article neutral, and to listen to arguments that he's not truly notable enough. We all have heroes, especially ones that rise so quickly and out of national tragedy, but he did one thing in one event, before which he was completely non-notable, and his entire media coverage has been 'the guy who did that one thing in that one event'. It doesn't matter that it was a brave thing that stopped a terrorist attack, in WP terms it is one event. More coverage over a period of time might establish him some notability, but the attack barely made it onto international radars - likely only because it followed the US ones so closely - and this guy's name hasn't. Kingsif (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the compliment here. But I hoped you would adhere to WP:PA as to not comment on my writing with terms like 'the author is making a shrine for the subject person' and not to unnecessarily COI-tag the article. It was annoying. I of course have my personal opinion, as much as you do, but I did abide by WP rules. If I call the subject person in the article 'hero', it is not my own word. I directly used the wording and terminology on the Norwegian and Danish Newspapers when describing the person in question by quotation from different politicians and ordinary citizens. WP does not care on the exact number of the sources covering this (perhaps the US event had got more), but as soon as multiple independent credible sources got assigned to the story, it may be considered credible.Sattar91 (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't consider it a personal attack, just pointing out COI. Maybe with some colorful language, but in a manner that explains the editing behavior succintly - though I didn't mean to annoy you. I think the guy was brave etc., but we can only say 'he did X, source Y described this action as "brave".' for WP neutrality; and policy also wouldn't give him an article yet. I have a short essay on my userpage about how COI also includes caring about the subject, which your edits show. Maybe I'm misinterpreting them, but rephrasing a perfectly correct sentence to put more emphasis on being a remarkable hero seems quite POV. If you are calling him a hero, use quotation marks. Putting it in a header especially is asserting in Wikipedia's voice that he is an important hero. I do not dispute calling him a 'folk hero in Norway' in WP voice, like in the move suggestion below, because this is easily demonstrated by the media coverage.
 * Hmm, I'm not sure I understand your last comment, from "WP does not care..." to the end; are you saying 'there are more RS for the US attacks but that doesn't matter'? Well, yes, I never disputed that. I suggested that the only reason US sources were talking about it is because it happened only a week after mass shootings over there; American media love to make a big deal out of a trend. Kingsif (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * ok, now I got the point for US media and I think I agree with that. "Don't Care"? is that the essay? But frankly, who is going to write/edit something if he/she does not care about that topic at all, given that everything is on a volunteer basis in WP?Sattar91 (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Care by the definition of the subject being very important to you. e.g. I like Black Mirror, but if one episode was bad and the show got slated by the media, I'd have no problem including that. Say if after this bump, media stopped referring to Rafiq as a hero or even said 'eh, not really a hero' after all, it would probably be inappropriate to still use that term in the article, would you happily edit it to reflect that or still want to maintain he's a hero? That's what "Don't Care" gets at. Even the best editors have the things they care about - in both directions. Kingsif (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see your point. I have no problem to include neutral or even negative comments about the subject person in the article if that has got 'significant coverage' from credible sources. Sattar91 (talk) 09:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed move
If this is rescued from the delete pile, it should be moved to Mohammad Rafiq (Norwegian folk hero) or something equally correct in regards grammar/syntax/spelling, and relevant to his point of fame. Kingsif (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Jeblad (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Huh? Kingsif (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC) Comment posted in wrong place Kingsif (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Why not incorporate into "Bærum Mosque Shooting" article?
Hi, to me it seems logical to incorporate at least some of the info on this page in the article on the BMS, and then Wikipedia can manage without a separate bio page: The esteemed mr. Muhammad Rafiq is now and will hereafter be known for is role in the BMS. His actions constitute the resolution to the dangerous attack. The reactions from politicians, as well as the fundraising, are part of the "Reaction" (or "Impact" ...? You know, the after-effects and after-events). There is no category for people who foil terrorist attacks (is there?), so MR would be included more or less due to a criterion that applied only to him. People would have to go to the BMS page to get the whole picture, anyway. All these are, in my eyes, although not excellent, at least reasonable arguments for a merger. And for the record, this is not to diminish the person, actions and importance of the actions of MR. For that reason also, if there is no merger, I would like to propose that this article then is linked in the BMS "See also" section. BTW, picking a nit, "helt" is just norwegian for "hero", and I don't get why EN Wiki readers need to know that MR "was called a 'helt' "; although it might expand someone's NO vocabulary, it doesn't add anything to the story, but rather clutters it up. It should suffice to say that he was "called a hero (NO: "helt")", or even drop the translation alltogether ("he was called a hero"). But that's just my opinion. T 85.166.160.249 (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)