Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mamoudou Gassama


 * 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 no consensus. Numerically it's more than 2:1 for keep. Whether something is a BLP1E issue is a matter of judgement, so not something I can second-guess as closer. That would lead us to a "keep" closure. But many "keep" opinions do not even address the BLP1E concerns and argue with the merits of the person or the human interest nature of the story. These are not policy-based opinions and need to be given less weight. Even so, given the numbers I can't find a consensus for deletion here, and so we have to settle for no consensus.  Sandstein  08:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Mamoudou Gassama

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don't think I've ever seen a more perfect example of WP:BLP1E or WP:NOTNEWS. Zero notability apart from the current, probably short-lived brouhaha related to his heroic rescue of a young boy. Randykitty (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Definitely notable enough: this has been in the news by major news outlets around the world, the man received personal congratulatory meeting with the French President for his actions - moreso; he will be granted citizenship by the President, which French President very rarely grants (that is, a person being granted citizenship by the President as is in his power - very rare - as opposed to receiving citizenship by common juridical pattern). --Kurt Leyman (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. If Lassana Bathily merits an article, Mamoudou Gassama does too because of the numerous parallels Gnangbade (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , perhaps you should click on the link for Bathily... --Randykitty (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Duh :) Gnangbade (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think the world-wide social media frenzy and the involvement of French President Emmanuel Macron tips the balance. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete on account of WP:BLP1E and way WP:TOOSOON. Perhaps an article dedicated to the incident may be created in the near future if the incident stays in the news for more than one news cycle. Perhaps. -The Gnome (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep an example: "You have become an example because millions have seen you" on social media, the president said." Some of the millions may look for more information. Wikipedia could be what they find - or not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Given the amount of news coverage, this is sufficiently notable to justify encyclopedic coverage. As others have commented, this is not an ordinary occurance. Will it have a lasting effect? Probably not. But there is no requirement that events matter forever to be included in the encyclopedia. Not only does this matter today, as a rare occurance that has received unusually sustained coverage, but it may well also be relevant in future. For instance, this might have some impact on French immigration policy discussions. Regardless of whether or not that ends up happening though, the amount of discussion in the media earns the subject a brief article. Just to cover the WP:BLP1E claim, criterion 1 is met but 2 and 3 remain open for interpretation. The consensus here should be read as suggesting that the event is significant and the individual may remain reasonably high profile. Tamwin (talk) 01:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes, it's just one incident, but it's an extraordinary incident and other people, as I did, may be looking for more information on this brave person. Expand the article, if anything. If it gets no visits in future years, it can always be deleted later. Right now all that will happen is somebody else will write another entry. Wikipedia should have an entry for such a notable human being. Quixote9 (talk) 01:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a extraordinary show of valour. In my opinion if Mohamed Atta can have a encyclopedic page. Why not someone who've shown incredible courage. Moreover, the notability is too strong on the news channels. I'm sure they'll cover this 22 yr for coming few years. Accesscrawl (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, I like this guy, too, but that is not a policy-based argument. And I am happy to see so many editors with WP:CRYSTAL crystal balls in good working order, that will come in handy not only for predicting future coverage of this person and whether they "may" remain high profile. "If it gets no visits in future years, it can always be deleted later" must be about the weirdest "keep" argument that I've seen in many years of AfD participation. In fact, this bio meets all three criteria of WP:BLP1E. Criterion 1: "reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event", check, obviously. Criterion 2: "that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual", check: no indication whatsoever that this person will become a high profile individual. And there's no deadline. If this person in future becomes an influential personality, that is the moment to create an article. Criterion 3: "the event is not significant", check. Despite all our sympathies, the rescue of a single child is not a "significant event". With criterion 3, BLP1E gives an example: Reagan assassination attempt. It is extremely unlikely that we'll ever have an article on "boy dangling from balcony". In short, it seems to me that too many editors here let themselves be swayed by their sympathies for this heroic young man and by the current excitement, which according to my crystal ball most certainly will show to be ephemeral. --Randykitty (talk) 08:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * How many illegal immigrants are offered a job and French citizenship, personally, by the President himself? (an annual estimate would suffice here, I think). Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * How many kids get rescued by a "spiderman" per year? Answer: WP:BLP1E. --Randykitty (talk) 10:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * For all I know there might be hundreds. Only this one has been captured on camera, enjoyed viral social media circulation and led to a meeting with Emmanuel Macron? I think it's the personal notability, not the event notability, that's the issue here. But which is the "one" event - the rescue, or the viral video or the Presidential meeting, offer and award? The guidelines say that the notability of "the one event" is irrelevant, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP1E says that a person may be notable if (s)he played an important role in a significant event. Hence, John Hinckley Jr. and Mohamed Atta are notable (and as you can see from those articles, coverage continued for decades, exactly because those events were very significant). Here, the event is not significant, not by a mile. It has already disappeared from most news websites or newspaper front pages that I am aware of and I'd be mightily surprised if there's any coverage (or interest) left 3 days from today. --Randykitty (talk) 11:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, a balanced encyclopedia will have room for at least as many heroes that become world famous as there are villains. Carol (Talk) 21:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please see WP:ILIKEIT. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * While this is perhaps not the strongest keep argument of all time (at least in my view articles should be considered on their own merits), it hardly reduces to WP:ILIKEIT. It is merely a claim that the presence of this article helps balance the encyclopedia. The basic point here is that those who want to keep the article think that this news item has received an unusual amount of attention, such that coverage is justified by public interests, and there are sufficient sources to make a good article. Those who want the article deleted think that this case isn't unusual enough to justify an exception. It's largely a matter of degree, and can be the subject of legitimate disagreement. Tamwin (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not news. All the coverage of Gassama is mere news coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep or Move/Merge to new article on the event. The rescue event is certainly notable, given its very non-routine nature and the amount of international media attention its attracted. As the man is inseparable from that event, his bio should be moved/merged into an article about such. Either that, or keep things as they are now. There certainty is something notable here to work with, it just seems we can't agree on how Wikipedia should cover it. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Although it has no direct bearing on this discussion, it is perhaps interesting to note that the article on the French Wikipedia has been deleted and SALTed. A request to restore the article has been rejected. --Randykitty (talk) 13:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's quite interesting. I see we even already have a French Spiderman!! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak keep and move as per Indy Beetle. This solution looks reasonable for both sides and no doubt this event will affect the migration debate. 79.189.206.17 (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I wish you would be correct, but I sincerely doubt that this event will have any influence whatsoever on the migration debate. And the event itself is hardly notable either (WP:NOTNEWS). --Randykitty (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Is your crystal ball not in good working order, Randy? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Very well then, as Mamoudou's notability is challenged in both English and French with the latter being salted and it is too late for Wikinews by now has anyone here considered putting on alternative outlets as a temporary measure? We can always check back in a year or so to see if it has affected the migration debate. 79.189.206.17 (talk)


 * Keep. Definitely notable enough--Panam2014 (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete, as per WP:BLP1E: all three conditions appear to be met ("reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event", "that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual"...), even though one could argue whether or not what he did is "significant". Azurfrog (talk) 11:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep due to the huge media coverage. An aspect that must be covered though on the page is how it raised serious questions about France's and in general Europe's treatment of migrants. For example The Independent article, the Washington Post article, The Guardian article or Eyewitness News opinion article. Also a suggestion as an alternative if this Mamoudou Gassama page will have to be deleted, that we add the video of the incident on the page List of viral videos that we have. werldwayd (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. As things stand, this is just a WP:BLP1E which fails the principle of WP:NOTNEWS. The amount of coverage this has received in the short term is not, in and of itself, evidence that he's permanently or enduringly notable — it happens all the time that people get brief blips of media coverage for doing something that doesn't warrant an encyclopedia article. Our role here is not to simply and uncritically maintain a standalone BLP of every single person who happens to get his name into the news cycle for a few days anywhere in the world for any reason whatsoever — our job is to filter this stuff for whether it passes the ten-year test for enduring significance or not, but there's no evidence that he passes that test as of today. There are probably other pages, such as List of viral videos, where this could be mentioned, but it's not grounds for a standalone biography of him separately from that — as it stands today, this is more suitable for WikiNews than here. It's certainly possible that he might pull off something more enduringly notable in the future, so it can always be recreated in the future if and when that happens — maybe he manages to parlay his popularity into becoming the next President of France after Macron, weirder things have happened — but nothing that's true as of today is permanently notable enough to lift this out of BLP1E and NOTNEWS yet. "Media coverage exists" is not, in and of itself, an automatic exemption from also having to have a reason why the story has passed from currently newsy WP:RECENTISM into enduringly notable foreverism. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * He's not looking very foreverly, is he. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Regrettably, the keep !votes doesn't look to be much well-founded in policies esp. in light of the later counter-arguments.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged Blades Godric  13:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Sample of reasons offered above for Keep:
 * (1) Gassama received personal congratulations from the French president.
 * (2) French prez said to Gassama "You are now an article!"; no, sorry, my bad, he said "You're now an example!"
 * (3) The involvement of the French President tips the balance.
 * (4) A balanced encyclopedia must have room for at least as many heroes as villains!
 * (5) Wikipedia should have an entry for such a notable human being!
 * (6) Another hero also has an article.
 * (7) This was an extraordinary show of valour!
 * (8) There is something notable here to work with. It just seems we can't agree on how Wikipedia should cover it.
 * Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. -The Gnome (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Que?Coolabahapple (talk) 08:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Current BLP1E policy states: "We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met...and the third point is 'If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." And this event is obviously significant and Gassama's role in that was sheer substantial. So BLP1E or NOTNEWS doesn't apply here. Dial911 (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, whether that event was significant or not is not for us to decide. Given that by now this has already completely disappeared from any reporting, the burden is on you to show with reliable sources that this is significant. In the absence of continued coverage, it would appear that all three criteria of BLP1E are more than met. --Randykitty (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There is definitely not an absence of continued coverage. The guy was in the news as early as May 27 and he has been in the coverage till now for different reasons. News stories are coming out regularly on the subject. Some of these are here, published on June 3rd, 4th and 6th. What else does continued coverage mean?
 * https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-44320538
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/06/01/migrants-shouldnt-have-to-be-superheroes-to-be-accepted-in-france/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b00140022e25
 * https://www.voanews.com/a/accolades-for-malian-spider-man-as-france-razes-migrant-camps/4424820.html
 * https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2018/06/06/de-zero-en-heros-un-paradoxe-democratique_5310390_3232.html
 * https://www.lanouvellerepublique.fr/tours/naturalises-dans-l-ombre-de-mamoudou-gassama
 * There are many other news stories published in french media that talk about the subject. I think that should make this article survive this AfD. Maybe, after 10 years we can discuss BLP1E and continuous coverage again. Dial911 (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's the other way around. There's no deadline, so if after a few years there still is coverage of this minor event, that would be the moment to create an encyclopedic article. And while it's commendable that you went to the trouble of finding those references, it's easy to see that the initial torrent is drying up. So far, no evidence of continued coverage (which is difficult anyway, given that this event occurred less than 2 weeks ago: WP:TOOSOON). --Randykitty (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I would suggest you to stay on Wikipedia's core policies only while gauging the merit of an article and not keep on citing essays like WP:TOOSOON or WP:DEADLINE for your excuse of deleting this article. As far as I know, this article satisfies all necessary policies of Wikipedia and there is no reason whatsoever to get this deleted now. Dial911 (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The WP:BLP1E policy, on which Dial911 bases his whole "strong" argument, states also the following: The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.
 * Please place emphasis on the term "persistent." As the policy goes on to provide a real-life example of what is notable under the policy and what is not, John Hinckley Jr has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented. This means that we are still today, decades after the assassination attempt, talk and read and watch references about both the perpetrator and the event. Which means that Randykitty has the essence of the policy down pat while Dial911 mistakes the current brouhaha for everlasting notability. WP:TOOSOON, despite the arbitrary attempts to reject it, fully applies. -The Gnome (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You too place some emphasis on the term “persistent”. The notability of this event has been established already. See WP:NTEMP which says, Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. And as per it, the subject has garnered "significant coverage" in accordance with GNG. And for the sake of talking and reading and watching references in future, I would say if decades after no significant source talks about this person ever, we can go ahead and start an AfD then. There is no point in deleting this article now. Dial911 (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So I guess your next step will be to propose TOOSOON, NOTNEWS, and BLP1E for deletion, because we can do without them. To paraphrase: "there's no point in creating an article like this now". --Randykitty (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, things work on consensus on Wikipedia. And that is what we all are trying to reach here. As far as your argument about my next step is concerned, I won't mind if consensus warrants the deletion of any essay from Wikipedia. There is a reason why these essays are essays and not core content policies of Wikipedia. And there is no harm in changing/deleting/modifying even policies if the community wishes to do so. We in fact, have been changing/modifying/creating and deleting policies and procedures to get better. This project is a work in progress after all. I respect your nomination. Being an administrator yourself, you should try to focus on your actions and not anticipating what mine are gonna be. Thanks! Dial911 (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Bubble-bursting time: WP:BLP1E is not an essay, Dial911. It is extant and enforceable policy. If the consensus on some AfD is to keep instead of deleting an article about a contributor's loss of hair, rest assured that such a consensus would only reflect temporarily how "things work" in Wikipedia. As long as the policies about the biographies of living persons are in force, we shall and will go on enforcing them. The place to dispute them is not AfD proposals. You might want to use AfD outcomes as an argument against current policies, of course. -The Gnome (talk) 10:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , Didn’t you read what I said above? I know BLP1E is a policy and that is why I said even policies can change if consensus reaches. Dial911 (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, you were not too clear when you wrote "There is a reason why these essays are essays and not core content policies of Wikipedia." This seemed to include WP:BLP1E. But thanks for the clarification. As far as this AfD is concerned, I repeat for clarity, WP:BLP1E is fully valid, extant, and enforceable policy. -The Gnome (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think those essays currently reflect consensus here. Anyway, thanks for the advice. I've said what needed to be said, let's see what the closing admin has to say. --Randykitty (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2018 (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.