Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lanais Stoll

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 of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lanais Stoll

Fails CSD:A7, but I can't see any expansion on this. I don't think being the first baby born in a year is notable enough for Wikipedia. Stifle 12:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Undecided, surely there's hundreds if not thousands of kids born at the very same time? - Mgm|^(talk) 13:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not expandable, as you say. It just isn't information that says anything useful about society, the universe, or anything. There's always going to be a first baby born every year. Trivia. And also non-verifiable; birth time is subjective, 00:00:00 may well be fudging by the hospital, quite probable not acutally first baby born in the whole world, besides which the date line moves. If kept, change to recorded as the first... If someone wants to make a list of the first baby born in each year, fine, then Listify. Herostratus 18:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, smacks of numerology, not encyclopedic. They were born at 00:00:00, which is significant, because that is also the number of Google hits for "Lanais+Stoll" Turnstep 20:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: If all those problems weren't enough, you have the first baby born in the US, first in Finland, first in Somalia, and you also have first in Virginia, first in Massachussetts, first in Delaware, first in Maryland, first in North Carolina, etc. Geogre 03:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with January 1, 2003. Informative notable info that people want to know. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: As UTC is the earthly time and is not local time then the significance of UTC does indeed indicate that this person is likely to be the first person of the year 2003 and that certainly by the recorded time they can not be second. The information is also verifiable as hospitals by law have to record the time of birth, and if this alone is recognised in law then that time must be recognised as being accurate and not illegally "fudged". Given that there is likely to be just 1000 first persons in an entire millenium, whose passing may see billions of new people, then the significance is quite high given the importance of the calendar in general. That newspapers devote front page news to the phenomenon enforces that this is a definite seal of our society such that we attach national significance and importance to the event. Incidentally - if the odds were that just 100 people were born every second then we'd have over 3bn new people each year - so it is misguided to say that "surely" hundreds or even "thousands" of people qualify. It is more likely statistically that no other qualifies.--194.201.24.215 18:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not expandable and the only google hits are from Wikipedia. If someone really wants this information to be included, it would be lovely as part of a list of the first baby born in each year, as per Herostratus. peachlette 13:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

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.