Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omer Bhatti


 * 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   delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 22:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Omer Bhatti

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A person who knew a famous person, and is only known for one event, that is, recent, unfounded speculation that he is Michael Jackson's son, despite the fact that this speculation is rejected as a pure fabrication/nonsense by both himself and his family('Michael Jackson was not my father,' says man at centre of lovechild rumours), and that everybody can see he's not the son of a black person. Relevant policy: WP:ONEEVENT plus large invasion of privacy (both of his parents are alive and there is no question over his parentage - the claim is based on completely unfounded speculation that Jackson had a one-night stand with his mother three years after he was born (sic!).). I haven't found any articles about him not related to his relationship with Jackson/the recent gossip, that could establish independent notability. Note that not even Jackson's acknowledged "kids" have their own articles (they were previously deleted). Being an aspiring rapper (not known as a rapper) doesn't make him notable either. Nashassum (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Subject not notable on his own. If any proof of Jackson's claims surface, add it to his page. Forteblast (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions.  --  The  left orium  20:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable per nom and wp:note --emerson7 01:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, but without prejudice to re-creation if he becomes involved in a paternity suit against Jackson's estate or anything like that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This subject is definitely notable and requires coverage on Wikipedia somewhere, probably just on Michael Jackson's own article, but Mr Bhatti does not meet notability beyond this for his own article. U-Mos (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Omer Bhatti has been a public person In Norway for many years. See this Norwegian news search. His relationship to Michal Jackson has been the most reported, like the involvement in the dedication of Micheal Jacksons album Invincible to Benjamin Hermansen, but he has also been covered as an individua dance artist. All this should be incorporated to the article though, but it should not be deleted. Rettetast (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * He's only mentioned in connection with his relationship with Michael Jackson (mostly in connection with the rumours he is Jackson's son) in the articles you are referring to. He's not a public person in Norway, give me a break! I haven't seen a single article about him which is not about his relationship with Jackson, he is a person who happened to know a famous person, but he isn't notable independently. Nashassum (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you read the articles? Rettetast (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I have. Nashassum (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not the most public person, I agree, but he is so known that Norwegian nwspapers uses his name in headlines expecting that readers know who he is. Independent sources also finds his drug arrest so interesting that they report it. Sure his relationships to Jackson always gets mentioned, but that is not a drawback on his notability. There is in my opinion enough coverage in independent reliable sources to have an entry on wikipedia WP:GNG. Rettetast (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's no different from newspapers in other countries. The mere fact that there has recently been many reports about him (both in Norway and elsewhere) doesn't change the fact that he is only known for one event, his relationship with Jackson (i.e., he knew a famous person). Any relevant coverage should be included in the article about Jackson (I'm not sure the "lovechild" rubbish is relevant at all, because it's only hearsay, it's totally unfounded and unlikely, it's denied by the involved party (himself and his family) and it's a huge privacy invasion to state that his mother had one-night-stands and that his father isn't his father). Nashassum (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look at the sesam link i provided you'll see that most of the mentions of Omer Bhatti in Norwegian media is before 2009. This article from 2006 for instance is about a dance performance in Stavanger. Another article about a music video project with The National Bank in 2008. I respect your opinion, but it is too easy to say that every article about him is solely about his relationship to Micheal Jackson. Rettetast (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And here is a pretty in depth interview with Bhatti from May this year, and it is sure not just about Micheal Jackson. Rettetast (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's true that this article is about a dance performance, but his relationship with Jackson is mentioned in almost every second sentence, and without Jackson, there probably wouldn't be an article either. The same is true for almost all other press coverage about him, I found less than half a dozen articles (some in the local paper) that weren't about Bhatti and Jackson. Nashassum (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that Bhatti is notable but his relationship with Jackson isn't an "event" that is covered by ONEEVENT. It is in my opinion more similar to how Michael Gomez wouldn't be notable if he hadn't been a professional boxer. Everything that makes Gomez notable springs out of his being a professional boxer, similar to how everything that makes Bhatti notable springs out of his relationship with Jackson. --Aqwis (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would just like to point out that the site sesam.no has disappeared forever, starting today. Geschichte (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: From what there is right now, this article fails notability. Most of it is about Bhatti's relations with Jackson, so this article should be redirected to the death of Michael Jackson article because the allegations of Bhatti being the "fourth child" came up only after Jackson died. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per WP:BLP1E and WP:COMMONSENSE. Unit  Anode  15:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I say wait and see. WookMuff (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * May I ask, "wait and see" for what? I've never seen this offered as a "keep" rationale before, so if you could help me out with what you mean, and what policy it's based upon, I would appreciate it. Unit  Anode  22:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP1E, for one. "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." So, in other words, at the moment in the US media he is mostly famous for the "event" which is the possibility of him being the son of Michael Jackson. If that continues to be the case, and nothing changes such as a positive paternity test or a hit single, then I will happily change to Delete. But reliable sources do cover the person, and not only in the context of a particular event even if they mention it a lot. WookMuff (talk) 07:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We cannot allow any mention of the unfounded speculation that his legal father isn't his father in the article, per the principles applied to Michael Jackson's donor children (see Talk:Michael Jackson). It is legally established that Humayun Bhatti is his father, and that is the end of the story for us so far. Nashassum (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, no. Not at all. It's not unfounded. Joe Jackson has stated that Bhatti was Jackson's son. Not unfounded. We can't ignore sources because they go against a legal document. I still say delete, but that is not right. U-Mos (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2009 (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.