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. Kurykh (talk) 04:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sidd Bikkannavar[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and runs afoul of WP:BLP1E. Only claim of notability is his Twitter post detailing his experience as a temporary detainee by United States Customs & Border Protection (CBP) officials due to Executive Order 13769, and even that cannot be independently verified. Hundreds if not thousands of people were detained, some of them wrongly, and while his case is interesting it does not meet notability standards for a standalone Wikipedia article. General Ization ^Talk 13:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. General Ization ^Talk 13:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. General Ization ^Talk 13:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. General Ization ^Talk 14:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Though the subject has been named as a co-author of several scientific papers in the course of his work at NASA, there is no evidence he meets the special requirements for academics at WP:NACADEMIC. Also, the subject is essentially a self-identified "victim", albeit in a well-publicized and notable incident that received ~~national~~ international coverage. We do not as a rule create articles for individual victims of crime and/or terrorism, much less an administrative detention at an airport. His role in the larger incident is minor and unlikely to receive additional coverage, other than his experience being used as an example of the potential overreach of the Executive Order. At the very most (and I would not support it), this could be a redirect to the article on the Executive Order. General Ization ^Talk 15:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I propose that User:‎Graeme Bartlett put it perfectly in his edit sum, declined A7 delete, this person is mentioned on many news sites. Here's a pretty big one. This is a bigger deal than the typical wrongful detention because here we have a US citizen who is a government agency scientist, who has never been to any country on the list, not only detained but illegally required as well to unlock a government-owned phone. It is additionally possible to find notability materials for this guy predating this occurrence due to his research activities and his solar racing (by the way it boggles my mind that we've no page on solar racing). I don't have the time right now, but they're there to be found. Pandeist (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the standards for speedy delete under criterion A7 are different than the standards for retention of an article at AfD. As I said above, his case is "interesting", but having an interesting experience does not equate to notability. Also, I have taken the liberty of adding "Keep" to your comments as I assume that's what you're advocating. General Ization ^Talk 15:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also: see Solar car racing. General Ization ^Talk 15:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unclear I came to Wikipedia to read about this person because there are several news stories about him. Very helpful to have. Unsure if notable by Wikipedia standards but I know some unknown British Member of Parliament from 400 years ago that has no known cited achievements has a Wikipedia article. Lakeshook (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stricken because the editor has been blocked as a sockpuppet (so cannot participate in AfD discussions). General Ization ^Talk 22:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely agree with the nom. Being detained by border officials, wrongly or otherwise, does not make one notable. Thousands of people were detained while this executive order was being enforced. Textbook case of WP:BLP1E. AusLondonder (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Countless US Citizens have "interesting" (interest is very subjective and biased) experiences with CPB every day upon re-entry into the USA. I myself have enjoyed an "interesting" border-crossing experience post-9/11; but before Trump & Obama. Nothing is new and nothing has changed; when you leave the USA and/or upon re-entry you are given a document (or must request one) that specifically states that CPB has the right to detain, unlock, and view the contents of your electronic devices and that you do not enjoy the same Constitutional protections at the border (there have been past Court cases on this matter.) You can bypass some of that by getting your devices checked and certified before you leave the USA (and avoid potentially paying duties upon re-entry.) Sidd is just an individual who thought he would be immune or exempt to the experience because of his Pre-Screening, employment, family connections, or whatever his thinking was; he just got unlucky and was randomly selected by a computer. It is a self-reported experience (I just self-reported my experience) with no independent corroboration or documentation, from the Government or outside source, to prove this in-fact did and happen, this is what happened, it was because of his ethnicity (this is what all of the "news" is implying), etc. Just because a lot of "reputable" media organizations pick-up a story, doesn't make it truth, newsworthy, or notable (Rolling Stones Rape Case; et al.) It is just an individual who has gone "viral" pushing a political agenda. Would it be news worthy if Sid Smith underwent the same experience as Sidd Bikkannavar? The only argument I can see for retention is that he is a minor person of note regarding Solar racing. The political matters - even if "news" by media standards - needs to be excluded; unless we're going to start including every Facebook post, tweet, blog entry, etc. by every "notable" person and their self-reported experiences. Bandlero (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Bandlero. Sounds like a standard secondary screening upon re-entry, unrelated to the executive order. IHTFP (talk) 12:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:BLP1E.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect BLP1E. Note: Content may be relevant to some other artcile. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete -- classic WP:BIO1E situation. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not news.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.