Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mostafa Tabatabainejad

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 Keep. --Daniel Olsen 04:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mostafa Tabatabainejad

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

• Wikipedia Alexa ranking: ~14

• Wikinews Alexa ranking: ~11,042

I realize the huge disparity between Wikipedia and Wikinews web traffic rankings make Wikipedia a far more attractive platform when someone wants to spread word about a story. But for the good of Wikinews's profile and Wikipedia's identity, I hope that there will be an increasing trend of transwiking articles such as these to Wikinews. So much for that. Bwithh 06:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Update From Wikipedia Help on Current Events: "Wikipedia is not a news service. That's the job of Wikinews. We shouldn't be in the business of writing articles about breaking news stories, unless indeed we can be very confident, as in the case of the September 11 attacks, that in the future there will be a significant call for an encyclopedia article on that topic." Bwithh 07:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I hope there will not be, as Wikinews is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license, and so cannot accept our GFDL material. —Cryptic 07:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well then - whose brilliant idea was that? The system is an ass. I'm changing my nomination to an outright delete. Bwithh 07:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some explanation of the issue here Bwithh 07:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Query Does this restriction still apply to material deleted from Wikipedia's public article space? I realize that deleted content still resides on Wikimedia servers and are not actually permanently deleted - however they are removed and inaccessible from the public article space, so is this content still covered by GFDL? Particularly if the intention is to transwiki the content to another wiki owned by Wikimedia? Perhaps I'll write to the Wikimedia attorney about this question Bwithh 07:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable. Has been reported in major mainstream media. A unique and interesting case in that a six-minute video of the incident exists. Another example of misuse of Tasers, which is a hot topic. One of three similar incidents reported in LA this week, each one with accompanying cellphone footage. Wikipedia isn't paper. Countless similar articles exist already. Exploding Boy 07:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Added: it should also be noted that the UCLA article currently has a sizable section concerning this incident.[reply]

I stated in the nomination that the incident is newsworthy and emphasized that what I doubt is whether this incident is encyclopedically notable. Wikipedia is not a news service for breaking news and "hot topics". Wikipedia isn't paper but it's also an encyclopedia and news coverage - yes, even in major mainstream media - doesn't automatically translate to encyclopedic notability. I doubt that countless similar articles exist, but that's the usual

WP:NOT describes valid articles related to news events, "encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance"? Bwithh 07:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I doubt that it will survive for long on the UCLA page either. Unless this incident turns out in the future to be a defining moment in UCLA history (and predicting Rodney King riots or whatever now would be crystal balling), this incident does not belong on the UCLA page. It's a serious incident, but it's not obvious that its anywhere near the league of say, the Kent State shootings or the Jackson State killings in terms of historical/political significance Bwithh 07:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable for not the incident per se, but for the velocity with which it was propagated across the various media. --moof 09:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a site for everything which is a "hot topic". The velocity which this story has spread has not been unusual. Heck, its not even top story in the UCLA's Daily Bruin anymore Bwithh 13:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Maybe for now, I dont think this guy deserves his own article but I think since this piece of news can develope in to something intersting we should keep this. 136.159.133.91 10:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Bwithh 13:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. Well, this is still a current event - so it might have some historical/political/cultural/etc significance. Or it might not. I'd say to maybe let it stay for now. On a personal level, it makes me suddenly feel insecure and a little paranoid about the police force here and their use of power. I think many others feel the same way too. In that regard, I think this is where its point of signifance may particularly grow upon as the situation develops. At the very least though, this event does deserve a menton in the UCLA page under the controversy section... I personally like how is is expanded upon. I don't know if putting it under the student's name is the best way to explain the event in whole however, but there isn't exactly a real given name (that I'm aware of) to the situation either quite yet. -- Shadowolf 10:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; encyclopedias should be conservative in current event coverage, as advised by official Wikipedia current events help page (with support from

WP:NOT). Bwithh 13:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The information in the article is not speculative of what is going to happen; only facts and opinions offered by news articles are noted and sourced - therefore, this article is technically alright. I feel it would be trying to "be a crystal ball" to delete the article based on speculation of it being non-notable in the future. I feel we should bring up the issue of deletion again when things begin to settle down a little more; we don't know where this issue is going to head quite yet. -- Shadowolf 20:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The story has gained substantial recognition, especially on the Internet. --Czj 10:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a site for everything which has gained recognition. Bwithh 13:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that gained recognition in the media at its time, such as

internet memes. -- Shadowolf 20:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

See

WP:POKEMON Bwithh 23:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I never said those articles were more important. You misunderstood my implication. Both the Prussian Blue and USA for Indonesia articles went through this same similar thing at its time of controversy, and many memes go through the same process as they suddenly come out (but may/may not become a cultural artifact later on). People still read and edit them. I'm saying you should consider that the importance of the subject now, does not mean it will not be important, or even at least relevant, later. People still refer to them. That said, Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, and neither are we. I say we just let it flow normally in its premature stages before determining if we should cut off its head. -- Shadowolf 01:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak (Temporary?) Keep Normally I wouldn't call for a temporary keep; we're not a crystal ball. However, in this case it will be apparently in within the next 3 or so days if this particular person is going to become notable enough to warrant an article, in fact we should know by the time the AfD is up since that takes up to five days. I think its likely that this is going to turn into a major court case/incident after watching the video related to it myself. Lets watch the news over the next couple of days and then decide. --The Way 11:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the police being caught on video violating civil rights is not particularly unique. There will likely be a lawsuit - how significant that is compared with similar cases would be the question; for instance, if it approaches the political impact of the Rodney King tape, for instance Bwithh 13:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the University of Southern California's (LA's other major university) student newspaper editorial on this incident: [1]"Unfortunately, such events are all too common on the streets of L.A.... [this is one of] the several cases of filmed police brutality to strike Los Angeles in recent weeks" Bwithh 13:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or recreate page if this case escalates to a more serious civil rights suit. The cell phone video did appear on Good Morning America so it has not only touched local news.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 14:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as per the above. A sad character in the history of incidents between law enforcement and civilians in Los Angeles. --Bobak 16:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep AfD is too early. The incident itself is notable, but I would give it a month before deciding whether to merge this content with the UCLA article, or to stick with the status quo, or neither. This incident of police brutality differs from the supposed thousands of related events in that it was captured on amateur video and it is exponentially gaining the attention of more people every minute. As for Wikipedia policies, please consult
  WP:IAR. I could continue on and write a seventy-page paper on this matter, but I'll leave it at that. --Ted 18:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

There's nothing special or groundbreaking about this incident being caught on camera. There's hundreds of such police brutality videos[ to be found on youtube/google video[2][3] etc. which predate this incident. As for

WP:IAR is secondary and in service to the primary and overarching goal of Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia rather than e.g. a news service or a dining guide or a crystal ball or whatever else. Bwithh 19:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Postpone debate It's too early to tell if this is notable or not, give it a month, and see if he had any lasting notability. Ariel. 20:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per Teddythetank and Ariel. Merosonox 21:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Too early for AfD ShinyWatchGuy

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Bwithh 21:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I hate to do it, but delete. He is certainly newsworthy, but not every newsworthy article is encylcopedic. Unless this balloons into a huge, national, police brutality case -- and it might, but until then -- this is an interesting, certainly troubling incident that isn't going to become part of the enduring historical record.
  Changing vote to KEEP, in light of more extended news coverage, including the Iranian government. This now satisfies
  WP:BIO 1, "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." (Vote Recommendation updated 21:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)). Dylan 22:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Woohoo! Bwithh 22:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yeah, I think I was your first delete vote... Dylan 22:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is not a vote. It is a discussion regarding the proposed deletion of this article. --Strothra 01:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete newsworthy at the moment but not encyclopedic. Create the article in about 6-8 months, if it's still out there then we'll know that it's notable. Keep due to considerable international press coverage, complies with
  WP:BIO. --Strothra 01:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep.--Kross^Talk 01:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's clearly encyclopediac. Lots of people are aware of the story, and interested in learning more from an encyclopedia article about Tabatabainejad. It's not an either/or choice with respect to wikinews. It can be in both places, with appropriate treatment in each place. To indulge for the moment in imputing motives, I think this is a good example of how people go overboard in trying to make wikipedia seem more important by imposing an inappropriately high standard of notability. Yes, a person who is notable only because he (or his mom, or his friend) write a blog post about him, sure, delete away. Someone like this? Please. Electrons aren't in such short supply that we need to be so zealous in conserving them. If this article had been deleted, it would have been a real inconvenience to me, and probably a fair number of other people, who are interested in what a wikipedia article on Tabatabainejad would contain. -- John Callender 01:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia Help on Current Events: "

WP:POLICY. News items are clearly not automatically encyclopedic. What is the point of having a separate Wikinews project (run by the same foundation as Wikipedia) if everyone prefers to use Wikipedia to archive news report links instead? The way things are going on Wikipedia, I beginning to believe that the project should just stop claiming to be an encyclopedia, as too many people think that that idea is "inappropriate" and that this should be a free-for-all anything-goes POV information dump instead. Bwithh 03:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not disputing the point you're making. Wikipedia shouldn't be a respository of news articles; agreed. I just don't think that point supports the deletion of this article. When I went looking for it, I wasn't looking for a news article. I can get any number of those from any number of sources. I tend not to use Wikinews for that, because I think there are things about wiki technology that work really well for an encyclopedia, but don't work particularly well for a news site. But that's a completely separate issue. And if the point about calling for this article's deletion is to somehow help Wikinews get traffic it wouldn't otherwise get, well, I don't think the cost is worth the benefit. -- John Callender 06:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But people are' using Wikipedia as a news site. which makes Wikinews kind of pointless. Bwithh 18:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is HISTORY, it is an event that describes racial profiling and it is one of the many events that are probably going to occur in the future where acts of violence against Middle-Eastern individuals is on the rise. It is also an historical account in terms of police brutality. I say it should stay on wikipedia under police brutality/racism/racial profiling or one of all of those categories, along with anymore "excessive force" events that occur. Remember, this may be todays news, but it's tomorrows history, and deserves a place here. Haramzadi 06:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question is an issue of scale - yes, this is part of "history", but will this incident have substantial historical significance? It's not obvious that it will and suggesting it will is crystalballing. Wikipedia is not a police incident archive or an activist platform. If we were to include every documented incident in even just 20th century history which occured at this level, the category would at least be in the tens of thousands in size Bwithh 18:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. What would Wikipedia gain by deleting it? It's informative, it has been widely reported and it's of importance in the ongoing debate about electroshock guns, USA police behaviour and so on -debate that is of probable historical importance. --Cyclopia 08:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now anyway, in a couple months it may be more obvious what we should do. It doesn't hurt existing until then. - cohesion 08:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Provides context for a pattern of police brutality in California that appears to have some historical significance. Same motivation as, say, the bios of people involved of Kent State shootings. Stammer 10:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This is an example of aggressive behavior of police in a scientific area. In many countries police does not have the right to enter universities; Let alone using taser to punish a student who is studying in a library!. Zeelkey 14:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's absurd. Police in every country have the right to enter universities. --Strothra 15:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does that matter in a discussion about deleting the article? » K i G O E | talk 18:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete-notable and informative,but not fit for an encyclopedia. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's been heavily reported and has become one of the most viewed video's on youtube. It's entering into internet lure and therefor is encyclopedic. Trilemma 17:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an internet "hot topic" archive Bwithh 18:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article is informative. The subject have also been covered extensively in media and there were reactions at the level of governments as well. I suggest to keep the article under a new title like: Powell Library Event or UCLA Library Event or incident. Sina Kardar 17:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Definitely notable, of an encyclopedic nature. » K i G O E | talk 18:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Please explain Bwithh 18:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: For the very following reasons: 1) Mostafa is an American of Iranian-decent and based on his laywer's claim, he was singled out for ID check. This brings this issue from a police brutality case to a highly political issue of discriminations against Middle Eastern after 911. 2) This is probably the significant event of police brutality on campuses at least since 70's. 3) This is probably the only case of civil disobedience that has reached to this level of coverage in recent years. Definitely is worthy of having its own page. Zharf 19:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the 1970s???? What about the

Seattle protests of 1999 and/or the RNC protests of 2004, just for instance, would disagree strongly with you Bwithh 18:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - everything has already been said so far. Tājik 20:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Zharf and others. Khorshid 20:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, recentism and utter non-notability. Wikipedia is
  not a local newspaper. Several light years from being encyclopedic. Hello!!!! Have any of you heard that Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not the local paper's police blotter???? Weregerbil 20:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Woohoo!! Bwithh 18:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being in the news may indicate significance. Besides, It is not a local issue and there were international reactions: Iran's foreign minister condemed it and the government is going to enter the issue. The event have been covered by numerous news agencies , including BBC and CNN. I don't understand what you mean by "local newspaper". Mitso Bel 21:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even coverage by major international news sources (and ministries of propaganda) does not automatically translate to encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 18:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I suggest we change the title to:
  Powell Library Incident. Mitso Bel 21:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Definitely notable. Has received global attention, particularly in Iran. DragonRouge 21:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But is it encyclopedic? Bwithh 18:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep This is definately a moment in history and possibly a breakthrough historically in terms of police policies regarding tasering, racial profiling, the actions of the UCPD, and the situational use or mis-use of tasers/energy weapons. I state my Strong Keep on this article. Haramzadi 23:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really, a historical breakthough in your opinion? Bwithh 18:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: factually accurate and verifiable. --Oldak Quill 00:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But is it encyclopedic? Bwithh 18:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Notable subject in the news.--
  ManiF 01:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

But is it encyclopedic? Bwithh 18:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per all of the above. Khoikhoi 01:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: it's been said above. I would also support a rename per suggestions above. Tyro 01:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep My main concern is that some reliable information on this very important incident be easily "findable" on Wikipedia. This situation is currently of global interest and could be a breakthrough or watershed in terms of Taser misuse finally getting on the "radar screen" of many, especially in the US. Our world is changing rapidly, and Wikipedia is becoming one of the world's reference sources for people trying to keep up with, and make sense of, the changes. A factual, verifiable article on the Tabatabainejad situation is a must. Wikinews is not yet nearly as well known as Wikipedia. I looked here first, and I've been involved in the Wiki community for a while. It honestly didn't occur to me to check Wikinews. The information needs to be where people go to find it, and at the same time some "education" regarding the role of Wikinews should be taking place. - Mark Dixon 02:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per others Bless sins 04:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Noteable incident, and like
  Jake Brahm, just an idiot who thought he can fight the law. --293.xx.xxx.xx 07:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep This one may be a historic event for UCLA and UCPD!!!!

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Bwithh 18:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep This incident is as equally importatnt to American History as the beating of Rodney King. EricJosepi 08:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No evidence that this is as significant as Rodney King case at the moment, especially as this incident occured after a spate of similar incidents. Bwithh 18:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Everyone who wants five minutes of fame (or infamy) should not be able to find it on a resource we strive to make as reliable as Wikipedia. Wikinews at best as discussed above. Truce57 08:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Testify!!! Bwithh 18:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I'm not sure what your cheering of each "delete" response is adding to the discussion, other than to reinforce the point that you have a strong emotional investment in the outcome. So: you really, really want the article deleted. We got it. Thanks.--John Callender 18:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now; the story is developing, might become a significant issue. Come back to it in six months/a year and see if he's still worthy of an article. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Bwithh 18:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - that's why I suggest waiting. We don't know if this incident will become a well-known one, or whether it will be seen as a minor one. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 18:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia is

WP:NOT a crystal ball as matter of policy Bwithh 18:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

The Wikipedia community is also not to be used as a battleground, again

WP:NOT as a matter of policy. This is supposed to be an intelligent discussion of the relevant issues, not an argument for your side or mine. It is neither necessary nor helpful to jump on every contribution one disagrees with (it could even cause some to choose not to participate, and then we lose the benefit of their perspective), nor to crow "Testify!" after those one does agree with. - Mark Dixon 16:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

We can say at this point that this story has attracted considerable international interest. We can't predict whether it will be maintained, or diminished. "Wikipedia not being a crystal ball" does not mean that we should delete on the assumption that it will diminish. You seem to be saying that we should assume precisely that. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It could be argued that it's the position Bwitth is advocating that is relying on crystal-ball gazing, to determine, in advance, that the incident is destined to be viewed as insignificant. Yes, there are a lot of other similar incidents that could be covered in Wikipedia in the same fashion. And yes, it may be only an odd side-effect of the posting of the video on YouTube that has led to the degree of notability the incident currently appears to have. Regardless of the reasons for its notability, though, it seems pretty clearly to have achieved it, or at least gives preliminary indications of doing so. Lots of people have contributed to the article, and continue to update it. Maybe those people, and some of the people stating positions on this page about dramatic historical significance, are overstating things, and will tone down their views with the benefit of hindsight. I'd agree that that's probably likely. But it doesn't mean the article fails a notability test. At least as I see it, it's way, way over that bar already. --John Callender 19:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - This is definitely a keeper. We are probably beginning to see the extension of public journalism where cell phone camera is being used to capture and disseminate news events. This is probably one of the most touching videos I have seen and since it is not being picked up by national media, its wikipedia should keep this.

As already noted above, there are hundreds of videos like this available on youtube and google which predate this video. Also, Wikipedia is not indymedia/alternative news service Bwithh 18:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're incorrect that it hasn't been picked up by the national media: LA Times, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, the AP wire, and Iranian and Chinese state newspapers have all reported on it. Dylan 19:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - although I agree with the person earlier who said that the title should be changed. This is not really an article about Mostafa Tabatabainejad but about the incident.Ms medusa 20:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It is notable, as long as there is enough room in the wiki servers, we should be inclusive. Of course, since it is a living person bio, we should pay attention. As for the rename (or reorientation) proposal to make this article about that particular incident, I suppose it is ok since I don't think that this person's bio is of the importance in itself, but it is because of the incident that he made the news, so if somebody was willing to change the title, it would be ok. Baristarim 23:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, change title and focus to the incident itself.. --Masamage 02:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP - We should definitely keep this up until we at least know what the outcome of the situation is. If those police officers are found to be guilty of violating this man's right or if they are found guilty of police brutality then this incident becomes significant when discussing the subject of police brutality or for that matter police brutality and the LAPD/UCLAPD. So until we learn more about the situation and more importantly the outcome, I think we should have this article on Wikipedia. -DAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.180.192.61 (talk • contribs)
• KEEP - With all my respect to the previous comments for deltion of this entry fully understanding the concerns and agreeing that wikipedia is not a new story repository. This is not just about an incident, this is about the person Mostafa Tabatabainejad. Mostafa has become a bit of a hero. A voice of definance and resistance to the erosion of personal freedom. Wikipedia will serve as a fine place to collect information about this very interesting character.
• Keep - Wikipedia does not, to my knowledge, require a level of popularity before an article is kept. I can find articles on obscure alien races from obscure 1990's video games; I don't think an article on a guy who got famous for being tasered warrents a deletion simply because it's not big enough for an encyclopedia to cover. I would suggest if this entry is deleted, then the entry for Rodney King should also be deleted, for the exact same reasons. Or they should both be kept, because they are, after all, interesting subjects that people might want information on.--TheCynic 04:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I was in favor of deleting the article beforehand, but the topic has garnered significant attention in national news. Deletion might constitute blatant omission. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 05:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with Bwitth that this should go to WikiNews for now because it is so new and prior to this incident Mr. Tabatabainejad was clearly non-notable. When a significant, fully substantiated factual record has developed (either through the administrative review or the lawsuit which Mr. Tabatabainejad is apparently about to file), then we can do an article on him. --Coolcaesar 06:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not encyclopedic. Mike Dillon 08:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge with University of California, Los Angeles. --Ixfd64 09:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - He is notable now and will be notable in the future. That we do not know this for a fact should not form an argument for the "Wikipedia Is Not A Crystal Ball" principle justifying its deletion, if it does, then any new article about a newly notable person or event is liable to be deleted for the same reason. Thedangerouskitchen 12:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is quite notable. There is significant controversy about the (over)use of tasers, and this case also involves the use of newly-ubiquitous camera phones to film police actions that would otherwise be eyewitness accounts only. We're not going to run out of paper if we keep it. — Omegatron 19:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly notable. -Lapinmies 22:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Mostafa Tabatabainejad is the Rosa Parks of this generation. It would be utter madness to delete this article. Xj 03:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Omegatron. Badagnani 05:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is a very notable incident and per statements said above.
• Keep and change title. historically significant like
  Shooting of Latasha Harlins, Robert Davis (New Orleans), and many other incidents. doesn't matter what happens in the aftermath. still significant for a student of history and police conduct. Wizmo 07:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. I think it's a bit premature to be drawing conclusions about the historical significance before the fullness of time has made it apparent, and to be making comparisons to events whose historical significance are already clear, the subject of this article is significant enough for inclusion on Wikipedia on the basis of the broad-based national news coverage he is receiving right now. As a side note, if the subject of an article is very recent, then perhaps it would be a good idea to give it a week or so before trying to decide whether it is noteworthy enough for inclusion, rather than to immediately start deletion proceedings. I think it's quite clear at this point that this article is going to stay, and a whole lot of unnecessary rhubarb in this discussion could have been avoided if we had just waited a few days. Nohat 08:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep although WP is not a crystal ball and without evidence we have to assume that it is not noteworthy. This should be a wikinews entry first and foremost, but this is the kind of articles we should have links to under police brutality, tasers, etc. That these kinds of things happen are not only news, they are also a fact about how things seem to work in the world (including democracies) - saying they are only news and thus not encyclopedic is saying that they are unique occurences. Its notable because it is so damn important.

If this is deleted all the same, I suggest we link to a mention somewhere under police brutality (and have a link there to the wikinews article which we certainly should have). Lundse 08:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a noteworthy and probably historic event. Discussion has been heated and there is a need for a neutral collection of the facts. Whatever anybody thinks of tasers, it's doubtful we'll ever hear of one used in a library ever again. Revolute 09:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Although we can't be 100 % sure, the amount of coverage and exposure would suggest this incident will be remembered as a noteworthy event for a very long time (although Revolute's suggestion that it will become a historic event is pushing it). To debunk the Crystal Ball/News event argument: often elections (just an example, other kinds of events too) have an WP article dedicated to them, that was started the moment the event was ongoing, and for which deletion was never considered. Several of these elections/events proved to be less noteworthy than this incident. Still, they have some importance, and merit a WP article. On a side note, I would suggest renaming the article to Powell Library Incident. The article is about the incident rather than about the victim; and that's just fine: the incident is far more noteworthy as the person Mostafa Tabatabainejad. — Adhemar 11:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest splitting into two articles, one on the incident and its aftermath, as well as the current one with biographical information on Tabatabainejad. The biographical one will be fairly short for now, but it could be expanded as new information comes to light. And running another call for deletion on the biographical article will give all of us something to do with our time. :-) -- John Callender 14:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - Do you really want to start an article for everyone that happens to make it onto someone's cell phone camera? This started as a violation of college policy that was escalated to what amounts to a misdemeanor. The ruckus that took place is no more notable than any other resisting arrest. It's always ugly from the outside. How about the black guy in New Orleans post Katrina that was captured on tape being beaten by NOPD? How about every car chase that makes it onto a news helicopter camera? Just because this is a UTube/blog phenomena doesn't make it encyclopedic. --
  Geneb1955 11:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Of course we should not include everything caught on camera, nor should every piece of news have an article. But important court cases, good examples of a phenomenon (such as police brutality) should be included. Not because they are caught on tape or good news, but because they are important culturally, legally or otherwise. If this was just a misdeameanor, a ruckus and someone resisting arrest, then I would agree. But I see it more as an instance of misuse of force, taser used for punishment of a handcuffed subject and police brutality. Lundse 14:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have personally heard about it from three separate sources since it occurred, and I believe it is notable enough to deserve an article under the
  WP:BIO guideline. CoderGnome 18:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep but change name to something like "November 14 2006 UCLA Incident".
  Nicolas1981 00:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep - Article highlights a shocking event that there is interest in, and a need for correct information on. The article also documents the aftermath of the event, which is important to be noted and held on record. The ongoing legal case will also develop with time, and the article should serve to provide users with access to the latest developments and truth about the issue. I would, however, recommend that the article is moved from "Mostafa Tabatabainejad" to "Mostafa Tabatabainejad Tasering Incident" to ensure that the person and the event (which fills the entireity of the article) can be logically seperated. AdamSebWolf 00:09, 22 November 2006 (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.