Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madelaine Neumann

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Madelaine Neumann

Madelaine Neumann (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)
  • Delete. WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Nothing here beyond poor/misguided parenting. WWGB (talk) 10:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. A minor story, subject notable for one minor event. Royalbroil 13:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable for breadth of coverage in multiple major publications and ongoing reaction - if we're going to play alphabet soup WWGB I can play that game too. How about there are WP:RS? It can beWP:VERIFYied and what about Wikipedia:NOTABILITY#Notability_is_not_temporary? Currently 121 Google News reports - hardly a minor story.Exxolon (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The Google count is more like 58 news hits, of which about 37 are Wisconsin-based. This is Wikinews, not an encyclopedia article. WWGB (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
      • There were 121 when I checked. Exxolon (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
        • While I'm at at, thanks for notifying me you'd AFD'd the article, not. Exxolon (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Minor, not famous, if we incluede everything of this fame level, we'd crash the system. Star Garnet (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - no we wouldn't "crash" the system. Wikipedia is not paper, we have effectively unlimited space to expand. As for "minor" and "not famous", a subject does not have to be major and famous to justify an article. Exxolon (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The case of the girl is an internationally known, illustrative example of American Christian fundamentalism and its attitude towards science. Definitely important. 81.197.44.124 (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC) — 81.197.44.124 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . WWGB (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into Faith healing. There were other similar cases; I see no particular importance here. GregorB (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • She received local news coverage due to the circumstances of her death (Florida has had two similar cases in the past year-plus). So she doesn't satisfy WP:BIO and the article should not stand. GregorB has an excellent idea: Merge into Faith healing. B.Wind (talk) 04:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as several people have been covered in one news story, only to not be mentioned again. (That's a sad story). –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into Faith healing as per GregorB and redirect the article there .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 00:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge into a list of cases of death by faith healing. The parent article is pretty long now. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, leaning towards delete. I was going to close this debate, instead I offer a couple of opinions. My observations: Faith Healing is not an appropriate merge location/redirect location, as it is not the same concept (at least according to our article) as what these parents were doing with their own child. Spiritual Healing redirects to Faith Healing. Prayer healing redirects to Prayer. Prayer healing is what these parents were doing. I also don't believe this would be an adequate place for a merge. This particular biography, while yes, getting news coverage, falls squarely under our one event guideline. I don't believe this particular (and rather tragic) case merits a standalone article, and I also don't believe either merge/redirect proposal is appropriate. I therefore recommend deletion. The most promising suggestion is by Casliber: create a new list of articles, with citations, about deaths that happened whilst involved in faith or prayer healing, although that would be tough to maintain as POV. (By the way, I specifically am not saying Death by Faith Healing for POV reasons; diabetes killed this girl, not faith healing, any more than it would be appropriate to have a title called "Death by Dialysis". Faith Healing is an illfounded, but also in some circles well meaning, attempt at recovery or repair, it is not the cause of death.) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I think this does fall into the one event guidelines as described above and therefore should be deleted. I was impressed by the reasoning and way forward outlined by Keeper76 above, and would support this view. There is a need for an general article in this area that is not covered by existing pages. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2008 (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.