Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Snowden

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 Speedy Keep. Overwhelming support to keep, closed early per WP:SNOWBALL. bogdan (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Snowden[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E applies, this man is notable for one event only. Much of this article is (or should be) in the PRISM article. Martin451 (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because Snowden does not meet two of the three conditions at WP:BLP1E. While it is a single event, he is not likely to remain a low-profile individual, and his role in the leak is definitely substantial and well-documented. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does anyone actually read these "guidelines" before posting links to them?

WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 17:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very notable person, no reason he shouldn't have an article. Bui (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Similar individuals such as Daniel Ellsberg have pages. ZStoler (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject does not meet WP:BLP1E that was cited by the AFD nominator. 1) At present the subject is regarded as a high profile individual with regard to the leak about the PRISM (surveillance program). 2) The individual's role in the leak is substantial and well-documented. --Marc Kupper|talk 17:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Keep Doesn't fit low-profile individuals as Hillbilly noted. Furthermore, the PRISM leak is a significant event in which he played a substantial role. Failing both of those criteria out of the three at WP:BLP1E, there is no reason for this article to be deleted under that policy. Post-edit conflict: Essentially, per Kupper. --RAN1 (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Erik: simply does not meet WP:BLP1E criteria. --hydrox (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Edward is not of low notoriety, and will likely be involved in more than one event. If you even consider US surveillance to be a single event. The rule seems to be intended to prevent people from making pages about every single person who gets on the local news for no reason. This is a major event, and he is a major player. NAP2013 (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Special:Contributions/NAP2013 First and only contribution from user NAP2013. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BIO1E His role is significant enough to justify a seperate article. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This (Personal attack removed) has made himself into a huge story that is not going away anytime soon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(I have removed a completely unnecessary personal attack that has no place on the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Keep This fellow is certainly notable, viz Daniel Ellsberg's remark that his leak is "perhaps the most significant leak in American history". Ericoides (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (Personal attack removed) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Keep the personal attacks out of the AfD discussion, please. Thanks, RAN1 (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and likely to remain so. WP:BLP1E does not apply. —Steve Summit (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Big story, hard for media to brand/pidgeon hole this fellow either way so the story is likely to generate even more attention to the subject mater and the subject. May122013 (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW. This seems to happen every time a huge event occurs, que ridiculo. Just like when the Tsarnaev brothers article was AfD'd unsuccessfully and the nominator cited BLP1E. — -dainomite 19:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It barely gets more notable than this. Without a second 'delete' vote, this deletion discussion should be closed. petrarchan47 t c 19:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seriously? #facepalm —Nightstallion 19:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seriously? This isn't even debatable. Sprhodes (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2013 (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.