Deletion of Mamoudou Gassama

Comment: As things stand, this is just a  which fails the principle of . The amount of coverage this has received in the short term is not, in and of itself, evidence that he's permanently or enduringly notable — it happens ''all the time'' that people get brief blips of media coverage for doing something that doesn't warrant an encyclopedia article. Our role here is ''not'' to simply and uncritically maintain a standalone BLP of every single person who happens to get his name into the news cycle for a few days anywhere in the world for any reason whatsoever — our job is to ''filter'' this stuff for whether it passes the |ten-year test for ''enduring'' significance or not, but there's no evidence that he passes that test as of today. There are probably other pages, such as List of viral videos, where this could be mentioned, but it's not grounds for a standalone biography of him separately from that — as it stands today, this is more suitable for WikiNews than here. It's certainly possible that he might pull off something more enduringly notable in the future, so it can always be recreated in the future if and when that happens — maybe he manages to parlay his popularity into becoming the next President of France after Macron, weirder things have happened — but nothing that's true as of today is permanently notable enough to lift this out of BLP1E and NOTNEWS yet. "Media coverage exists" is not, in and of itself, an automatic exemption from also having to have a reason why the story has passed from currently newsy  into enduringly notable foreverism
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:10YT||WP:RECENTISM)

Comment: on account of  and way . Perhaps an article dedicated to the ''incident'' may be created in the near future if the incident stays in the news for more than one news cycle. Perhaps
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: Yes, |I like this guy, too, but that is not a policy-based argument. And I am happy to see so many editors with  crystal balls in good working order, that will come in handy not only for predicting future coverage of this person and whether they "may" remain high profile. "If it gets no visits in future years, it can always be deleted later" must be about the weirdest "keep" argument that I've seen in many years of AfD participation. In fact, this bio meets all three criteria of . Criterion 1: "reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event", check, obviously. Criterion 2: "that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual", check: no indication whatsoever that this person will become a high profile individual. And there's no |deadline. If this person in future becomes an influential personality, ''that'' is the moment to create an article. Criterion 3: "the event is not significant", check. Despite all our sympathies, the rescue of a single child is not a "significant event". With criterion 3, BLP1E gives an example: Reagan assassination attempt. It is extremely unlikely that we'll ever have an article on "boy dangling from balcony". In short, it seems to me that too many editors here let themselves be swayed by their sympathies for this heroic young man and by the current excitement, which according to ''my'' crystal ball most certainly will show to be ephemeral
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:BLP1E||WP:DEADLINE)

Comment: Given the amount of news coverage, this is sufficiently notable to justify encyclopedic coverage. As others have commented, this is not an ordinary occurance. Will it have a lasting effect? Probably not. But there is no requirement that events matter forever to be included in the encyclopedia. Not only does this matter today, as a rare occurance that has received unusually sustained coverage, but it may well also be relevant in future. For instance, this might have some impact on French immigration policy discussions. Regardless of whether or not that ends up happening though, the amount of discussion in the media earns the subject a brief article. Just to cover the  claim, criterion 1 is met but 2 and 3 remain open for interpretation. The consensus here should be read as suggesting that the event is significant and the individual may remain reasonably high profile
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)