Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Rafiq (retired army)


 * 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 merge to Bærum mosque shooting. The WP:BLP1E- and WP:BIO1E-based (nobody has explicitly linked BIO1E, but arguments like "not independently notable from the event" are about that guideline) arguments carry the day, as even going by the arguments provided by the few keep !voters do not show much evidence of substantial notability independent from the event. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Muhammad Rafiq (retired army)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a person who is known for his involvement in one event, not to a scale which warrants his own bio. Any information not already covered at the appropriate event can be easily merged there. Kingsif (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. 65-year-old immigrant single-handedly overpowering an active shooter is a badass hero, regardless of independent criteria-box-checking coverage which he has and will continue to get. First reactions of people I've seen hear the story are all about more details on him: diet, training, workout routine, etc. Details of his own life inappropriate to shooting page should have a home here. Obviously the dab should be better. — Llywelyn II   14:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * By that standard, every "badass" old person who stops people in any old armed barfight deserves an article - but generally that barfight is not going to get an article itself! He's a pretty cool guy, but until coverage shifts to him over the web messages of the shooter (you'll see there's no EndChan messages sent by Philip Manshaus article...), he's not got enough for a bio. Kingsif (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you consider this a single event compared to a barfight while the person is considered a hero in an extraordinary event in a peaceful country, an event with international scales that is rooted to New Zealand Attack and El Paso shooting. Sattar91 (talk) 12:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In WP terms, it is. It is one event, in which one person stopped another from attacker others. You're looking too much at emotion rather than simple facts. Context can matter - specifically for the event, where the intentions of the attacker make it obviously very different to a barfight, but you want to establish notability on this man's actions, where he can be simply described as an unarmed man stopping an armed assailant. You can call him a hero, the media can call him a hero, WP policy won't be swayed by emotive language. Kingsif (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:BLP1E. He's known only for his involvement one event. Jim Michael (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge with Bærum mosque shooting per WP:BLP1E. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * All of the information is already in that article. Kingsif (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is not an isolated event for a low-profile person. The incident has significant domestic/international dimensions and was extensively covered both for the event itself and also the central hero of that, which is Mohammad Rafiq. There are several standalone articles and interviews with this specific person (as referenced in the article), suggesting that he may be a notable subject by himself. The incident will remain in the historical memory of people and its hero will also be remembered for years to come. Therefore the subject will be independently notable as soon as he has been characterized as the one tackling the terrorist and taking him down. The person has been portrayed in multiple independent credible sources both in Norwegian and English, including but not limited to Reuters, BBC and Wall Street Journal. It has been said that the attacker does not have an article to justify deleting this article. It seems that there is a tendency not to give space to terrorists in Wikipedia as New Zealand attacker also did not get an article, but I don't see this an excuse for removing a positive human being's article.Sattar91 (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't care how good or bad someone is, it cares how independently notable someone is. It has space for as many 'bad people' bios as good, but the fact of the matter is that (at the moment) neither the attacker nor the 'hero' have any relevance outside of the one event and can be satisfactorily covered there. Kingsif (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC) ETA and how is it not an isolated event for a low-profile person? Has he done anything else of note? Outside of this event is he known to the media at all? No and no. Anyone would be delusion to think otherwise. Kingsif (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * This person is independently notable now. Of course there is always a starting point, but then the world has a notable person forever given that the event possesses large enough dimensions. In this particular case I think the terrorist can have an article in Wikipedia too but I obviously can not bring up reasoning on why nobody started that yet. Breivik's article is a clear instance for a person who became notable in one single event and remained notable afterwards. He will be always remembered as a negative character. Likewise, Rafiq will be always remembered, however as a positive character as a National Danish newspaper writes: "Rafiq is Norway's new hero ...he acted instinctively and courageously and prevented a terror attack from developing. This is the opinion of Norwegian police, Prime Minister Erna Solberg and many other Norwegians".Sattar91 (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You have false expectations of Wikipedia. Every time I try to make the article neutral, you come and change it to worship the man. Wikipedia reports facts, it doesn't want to create a reverent praise song because you think the guy's the best. Without all the praise you are heaping on him, there is even less notability. You may really like him, and many people around you may be talking about nothing but him, cheering, wanting his autograph, but that doesn't make him notable in Wikipedia terms. So I feel for you, but I could name you my little old teacher who singlehandedly took down a kid trying to stab people and, guess what, she doesn't have an article. Hero to some, but widely unimportant. From your edits it appears you are too invested in this man and think too highly of him to understand or accept that he doesn't meet WP criteria. Kingsif (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You're also not looking at how much bigger Breivik's attack was. 70-something people died, many children. He spent two hours spree shooting after bombing the capital. That's on a whole other scale to this attack. Some single events are massively notable. The events the news stops around the world for. 22/7 was one. This was not. Kingsif (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Very nice point. The size of the events are different, but the natures are not. That only means that the size of the articles will be different spontaneously as a result. It will never mean that one of these events gets an article and the other one is just deemed irrelevant for WP.Sattar91 (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Both events have pages. But sizes of events also determine their global effect/impact and importance. Kingsif (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, both events have pages, but you keep saying that only one can have article for its character. Global effect/impact and importance? how do you judge that this person/event does not have that? Reuters, BBC and Wall Street Journal and 20+ references that I have added and you did the favor of removing some of them. 2011 Norway attacks and Bærum mosque shooting both have the same roots in Islamofobia and far-right extremism and the characters of both events can have an article in WP given that they are covered extensively with multiple credible independent source.Sattar91 (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Being simply named in multiple RS is tantamount to "this exists, and media tells us this exists". There's no added notability since all the RS just repeat the same tale where 'X did Y one time' and nothing more of note - 100 RS with the same story, some down to the same wording, is no better than 5 RS. And that doesn't get a bio. If something more transpires of his 15 minutes of fame, like if there's a beautiful shift of media coverage of future attacks to not give details of attackers but look at victims' actions after this guy highlighted strength of resistance or something, or there's new legislation in Norway, or people planning attacks stop and release statements saying they were scared of being stopped by a badass old man, you can revisit making an article, but it's not widely notable atm. Kingsif (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * But in all events, this huge, all media will do the same, repeating 'X did Y and Z was the aftermath'. Repeating, per se, does not void the credibility/notability of the event nor its characters. I still did not get the answer to this simple question: what is the difference between the characters in Breivik's story and Bærum shooting, other than the size of killing? Nobody knew Breivik before the incident, so it was a single event, made him (in)famous. The root cause for both act of terror are the same, the motives are the same, the terminology utilized by the perpetrators before committing the act are almost identical, the type of weapons are similar, but the number of innocent human beings murdered are different: so will be the size of the articles for the events and their characters.Sattar91 (talk) 08:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge to Bærum mosque shooting - BLP1E, not notable outside of the context of the event. Can have a short mini-bio there. Icewhiz (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Those with votes to delete or merge base this on policy, whereas those with votes to keep base this on the media referring to him as a "hero", which they argue denotes importance enough for an article. I'd also like to quote from WP:CRIME: "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." and WP:NOTWHOSWHO: "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." Kingsif (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * A deletion discussion where the two active is one that created the page and the other is the user nominating the page for deletion tend to be not very convincing for neither deletion or keep. I find the whole situation a little amusing; an unarmed person single-handedly apprehended an armed attacker and stopped an on-going attempt of terrorism. That is reason enough for me to vote keep, but I would rather prefer a real biograph about the person that just a note about the fight with Philip Manshaus. Jeblad (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I collapsed the discussion for a reason... Thing is, there is no other information to create a "real biography" as you like. Hence, AfD. Kingsif (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If the AfD has any merit, then you don't have to argue on every post. Jeblad (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ...I never thought of it as arguing, I hope nobody else sees it that way. I thought I was discussing to come to an educated conclusion. Challenging reasoning that either goes against policy or seems illogical, so that views come from an informed base. That's valuable no matter where it's done. Kingsif (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to main article. Not notable independently, comes under WP:BLP1E. Störm   (talk)  19:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the same applies to Philip Manshaus, who's more notable than Rafiq - yet no-one appears to want his redirect to be turned into an article. Jim Michael (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge now that there's more information. Note that the 2019 Sydney stabbing attack, where the media coverage is entirely focused on how the attacker was taken down by pedestrians, hasn't had any new pages made for these "heroes" (one already had a page, made nearly 10 years ago, as he is a professional footballer). They've been similarly named and profiled, and are of more focus in relation to the event, but no pages. Kingsif (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Link to comments from : Why not incorporate into "Bærum Mosque Shooting" article?.
 * Accept He is insignificant to other terror related events --RazorTheDJ (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to Bærum mosque shooting per BLP1E.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:09, 19 August 2019 (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.