Deletion of Disappearance of Sunil Tripathi

Comment: I agree that there was a rush to delete while the story is ongoing. However, there are good reasons that I see for a keep just on the merit of the article at this time, such as . The fact that the article is called "The disappearance of ..." already puts more weight toward the phenomenon than the person, and in this case was properly used. The later would be an argument against the . What we don't know now is whether this case will resonate enough with people later that they will refer back to it. Somebody should really have categorized the article at this point
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Yeah I just did - the openning line to  (the only thing relevant to this discusion) is "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" which is the only thing we need to read thanks--Special:Contributions/68.231.15.56|68.231.15.56
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: at least for now. There are probably  concerns here, but this story is getting substantial coverage in reliable sources at the moment. This story may become more notable as it relates to Reddit, Internet vigilantism, etc., and I suspect we'll know better whether that's the case before this AfD closes. Redirecting Sunil Tripathi to the bombings page would be far worse than having this article, IMO
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: It's kind of an odd situation; of course this wouldn't have received the coverage it did if not for the publicity from the bombing misidentification, but it's well-sourced and notable past just the mis-connection to the bombing, so just including information there doesn't make sense. It received widespread coverage before the bombing, and the misidentification just increased the existing coverage. As for it being covered under BLP1E...I don't see how that's the case. The subject isn't notable just for being a mistakenly identified suspect, he's also notable for being a missing person who received significant media coverage, even if the misidentification was what significantly increased the visibility of the story.  seems to be met. &ndash;&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Applying the logic of enduring importance is flawed. The event happened over the last month or so. How can you decide if it has enduring importance and by who's standard exactly? Many good points here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dlugar/WP:NOTANTINEWS  There is no way that this should be deleted while the topic is hot in the news around the world.  Also consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RAPID#Don.27t_rush_to_delete_articles which suggests strongly that this deletion discussion is premature.  On the basis of the votes, clear guidance against rushing to delete, this is a  case
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: a clear case of . This is only truly notable in the light of the Boston bombing and only deserves a brief mention there. While it may be notable in the sense of GNG, that isn't automatically a justification to write a separate article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Yeah I just did again - the openning line to  (the only thing else that is relevant to this discusion) is "Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article." which is the only thing we need to read thanks.--Special:Contributions/68.231.15.56|68.231.15.56
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: With regards to , an argument could be made that this event is notable under  in that it has or will have a lasting effect on Reddit and that there was significant coverage. While there hasn't been any policy change yet, there was this blog post http://blog.reddit.com/2013/04/reflections-on-recent-boston-crisis.html and given that they instituted policy changes due to witch hunts in the past, it's possible they might again
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:EVENT)