Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mamoudou Gassama
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
— User:Randykitty, 08:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:ILIKEIT||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:BLP1E||WP:DEADLINE (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)