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 REDIRECT. This is an early WP:SNOW close, and there seems no realistic outcome, other that DELETE/REDIRECT. The clear consensus seems to be that the article goes against WP:BLP1E, and there are only a very small handful of editors suggesting that the article is kept, with reasons being either that he has been mentioned in numerous news articles, that he satisfies WP:GNG, that he witnessed an important event or that he has a lot of Twitter followers. None of these arguments are fatal to a finding of "one event" (in fact, very many "one event" articles have the same characteristics) and they do not seem to have a chance of changing the "one event" consensus in this case. I'm happy to discuss this further on my talk page, or for anybody to go ahead and reopen it, but it seems to me that keeping this open is not productive. TigerShark (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sohaib Athar[edit]

Sohaib Athar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

WP:BLP1E. He's getting his fifteen minutes of fame for unwittingly tweeting the raid on Osama bin Laden's hideout in Pakistan, and is not deserving of an article on Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Userfy/Merge - (edit conflict) I don't usually nominate articles so early in their development but I feel this subject's notability may hinge entirely on one event. Marcus Qwertyus 22:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - obviously not notable as a person. Possibly worthy of a mention in Death of Osama bin Laden, at most, but not a Wikipedia biography. Robofish (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is an interesting piece of trivia that should definitely be used in the Death of Osama bin Laden article, but Athar does not warrant his own article. BurtAlert (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly a case of WP:BLP1E. Qrsdogg (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Worth incorporating in Death of Osama bin Laden as evidence of date and time (not just interesting trivia) but he's not notable enough for an article. FightingMac (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E. Khazar (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Retain When the article was created, the objection would surely arise that Sohaib Athar is just a flash in the pan. That concern is understandable. The answer to the question, however, cannot be ascertained until all the implications of the events surrounding the raid on Bin Ladin's hideout in Abbottabad are known. That is going to take some time. Until then, please be patient and let Wikipedia gain the utility which readers attribute to it as they look for information on Sohaib Athar, whose use of Twitter has gone atmospheric. Rammer (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that the one news item about him is still reaching people and piquing their curiosity a mere 24 hours later, is hardly evidence of lasting notablity. (I was famous for a day once, too.) Anyone notable enough to create an article for will still be notable enough for that to happen a week or a month from now. The creation of this article jumped the gun, presuming notability when it does not exist, and may never exist. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Death of Osama bin Laden. It is a likely search term, so it makes sense to redirect to the article for which he is known. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 23:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow delete/redirect. Per the above like-minded consensus. If more makes him notable in the future, recreate at that time.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Textbook WP:BLP1E at this time. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Death of Osama bin Laden - the information here is important, but it would make more sense in the article about bin Laden's death than it would in its own article. Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 23:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not even a little bit notable. V7-sport (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict)Delete per WP:BLP1E. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Death of Osama bin Laden per Russavia. Tampabay721 (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - individual with a unique perspective of a momentous event, widely covered in reliable sources.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Textbook 15 minutes. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete again. How lovely that someone improperly opened a 2nd AfD in tandem with this one! I will paste my comment from the other: Delete as a textbook example of how and when WP:BLP1E should be applied. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 00:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Death of Osama bin Laden per Russavia. Plausible search term. Location (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. Go ahead and mention him in death of Osama bin Laden... that'll get edited out as short-lived trivia as the article gets worked on. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the "live tweeting" and enormous explosion of followers afterwards is notable enough for inclusion at the death article. Just not enough to give him his own. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that's merely novelty in action... but it will be sorted out in the "death of" article, in due time. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Death of Osama bin Laden, there is nothing really noteworthy to merge here per WP:BLP1E. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can twitter even be counted as a reliable source? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No, but the reports of the tweet are reliable sources. Location (talk) 00:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly. Twitter isn't a reliable source even when it's a legit journalist or a celebrity with a verified account. The print media has picked up on this guy, though, which makes his tweeting the event worthy of being included in the death article. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Not everyone who shows up in news articles is noteworthy; most are 24-hour "celebrities" never heard of again. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect with and to death of bin Laden article--Williamsburgland (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - WP:BIO isn't met here Nick-D (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Seems pretty obvious. Kaldari (talk) 01:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. Clear case of 1E, but also a likely search term. Preserve the history in case he shows up on Dancing with the Stars. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect after merging anything relevant to the Death article, as per WP:BLP1E. --joe decker^{talk to me} 02:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per BLP1E. Death article should say, at most, "a local tweeted about hearing some helicopters". Do NOT allow a redirect, let Google and the internal Wikipedia search function be all that remains, to discourage future BLP violations. Abductive (reasoning) 03:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Given the paucity of keep sentiment, after a fair number of editor comments, might it not perhaps be time for a snow close?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep now has articles on news written about him. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Given the significance of Bin Laden's death, all events and tit-bits surrounding his death, including eye-witnesses should be kept. News outlets would be running at the doors of these witness in future to make a documentary on the death of Bin Laden. Jalal0 (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the death article. There's no need for this person to have an article. His live reporting can go in that article. 65.93.12.8 (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Keep Is there an article on George Holliday, the guy that shot the Rodney King video? The point is, there are countless individuals who happen to be on or near the scene of an incident and will get interviewed. Sohaib Athar is a classic WP:BLP1E, particularly, as his sole role was tweeting that there were helicopters and explosions but he did not know why until nine hours later. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment - the guy makes his own case for delete with "I am JUST a tweeter, awake at the time of the crash. Not many twitter users in Abbottabad, these guys are more into facebook. That's all."^[1] --Marc Kupper|talk 07:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed from Delete to Keep based on WP:N qualifying news coverage of this individual. CNN, WTOP, NY Daily News, Times of India, Times of India (another article), and Newswise (coverage is not of Sohaib Athar himself but uses him in an analysis of the role of the individual voice and "eye on the ground"). Google News has 1,978 hits for Sohaib-Athar at the moment. Many of those are blogs but there's additional news media coverage beyond what I just noted. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP He's got 89,000 followers on Twitter now (up from just a several hundred originally)! You've got to be joking! Lyk4 (talk) 07:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Show me where in WP:GNG twitter followers is a factor in notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, BLP1E was invented for people like Sohaib Athar. Do not merge or redirect yet, as the Death article still needs time to be sorted out and I expect Athar will be at best a footnote even there.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 08:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should really check all the attention he's getting in the press. His name is all over Google, not to mention the thousands of twitter views he's got. Lyk4 (talk) 08:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, we can't start up an article about every trivia in twitter. --82.174.248.144 (talk) 10:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for now Further developments may add some more content and notability to this article. The policy about notability hinging on one event seems spurious to me. Can't the same be said about Mark David Chapman, Chesley Sullenberger, or John Wilkes Booth? Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 10:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those guys arguably have significant notability, even though it stems from their 1E. Sully I'm less convinced about than the others, but his coverage proved to be lasting. If Athar's turns out to be similarly substantial, the article can be recreated. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep cause he witnessed an history event and wrote about it in real time and he have now become a very known person over the globe. 80.216.199.228 (talk) 11:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Before voting delete, people should really take into account that he was not just a random twitter user. He happened to be in the same neighborhood where the whole thing happened, and he's been getting tons of attention. That's clearly enough notability. Lyk4 (talk) 10:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Anotherclown (talk) 11:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable BLP. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. He's a meme now, especially on the issue of people assuming that Abbottabad is "remote" (relative to the observer) and backwards, and here is a work-from-home IT consultant tweeting this raid in real time, which puts the town squarely in the 21st century. In this context, his meme-hood and details of his life illustrate and undermine cultural assumptions, and so he deserves to be documented for the convenience of people interested in this subject. Erxnmedia (talk) 12:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats very Template:Globalize/West from you. -- 21:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - We are not news; we should not even name him as his identity is not important to the understanding of the event which has picked him up completely unawares. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-The individual is now the subject coverage himself with several papers calling him a celebrity. His account has received substantial coverage. WP:BLP1E states that If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented...a separate biography may be appropriate. I hope this doesn't turn out like Debrahlee Lorenzana.Smallman12q (talk) 13:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How "substantial" is it really that he made some tweets about helicopters and explosions, though? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The value of their contribution is debatable, but it appears that he together with Mohsin Shah were the first to provide coverage. Nonetheless, the individual themselves are now subject to coverage.Smallman12q (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's also received coverage for having his website hacked with the black hole exploit kit.Smallman12q (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/merge per WP:N which states that "deletion should be a last resort". The name of this person is clearly significant within the overall story and is a useful search term. We should therefore direct readers to a relevant article rather than making this a redlink. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect - I find the sources presented to grant inclusion, but the content is definitely too scarce, and not because there is an impediment to find more content but because such content simply doesn't exist. There are mentions about them receiving offers for interviews but such interviews have not been produced, and even after they are something of significance about the subject(s) would have to come out from them. My point is, I think the issue is not so much one of notability but of significance instead. These guys unknowingly reported on the raid, that's it. That pertains to and can be easily summarized at the main article. At the current state of things a full article about the subject is simply screaming WP:BLP1E. Redirection is due since it is a likely search term - frankieMR (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as above, BLP1E. His mention in death article is significant enough. - Pennstatephil (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable by person. huji—TALK 17:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, wasting my own time to repeat the obvious. -- eiland (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Recentism. Will not be relevant in the future. Jamsta (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after making a note of this in the Death article. Unlike the previously cited Rodney King incident, the tweet is unlikely to play a large role in the story. It's only getting attention because the 24 hours new cycle doesn't have many details to chew on so they are focusing on what they have. This will die out soon. The rodney King incident was defined by the video footage. This event is unlikely to be defined by the tweet.Jamsta (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.246 (talk) [reply]
• Delete or slight merge/redirect to Death of Osama bin Laden after removing the unnecessary details. Textbook WP:BLP1E. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Notable enough to be mentioned on Death of Osama bin Laden, but not notable enough for a redirect. Denaar (talk) 06:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect→ Death of Osama bin Laden - redirects are cheap and notbility isn't as much of an issue for a redirect. pablo 09:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Redirect. Subject of article already passed WP:GNG as there is significant coverage of the individual from multiple reliable sources. however it can be argued that the only reason why the subject is notable is due to one event, namely Death of Osama bin Laden. If this is the case, given that the subject himself already passes WP:GNG, a section could be created and referenced material merged into the article of the event. If further expansion of the content relating to the subject is created to warrant his own article again, it can be spun out at a future date. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Pymouss Let's talk 11:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Every yahoo who ever appeared in a movie or strummed a guitar or spouted nonsense on a TV news program has a wikipedia entry. Why not a guy who witnessed -- and was the first to report a historic event? Herbert Morrison (announcer), the journalist who witnessed the crash of the Hindenberg, has a long Wikipedia article. The whole basis of his fame is his two minutes of reporting on the crash. The killing of Osama bin Laden is obviously much more important than the crash of a blimp. So, why arent people up in arms that Morrison is the subject of a wikipedia article? Smallchief (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2011 (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.