Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baby P


 * 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 per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). I would invite those in the discussion who recommended renaming the article to give the article a new title. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 02:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Baby P

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:BIO1E. Media hype. Boshinoi (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - The case of Baby P seems to be notable, in the same manner as that of Victoria Climbié. The child involved may have been notable for just one event, as per WP:BIO1E, but the page specifically mentions that the person may have been involved in a 'relatively unimportant crime': the murder of this child certainly isn't unimportant. In addition, regarding the 'media hype', it is perhaps worth saying that people like Madeleine McCann and Natalee Holloway were also associated with single events which probably had even more hype associated with them, and yet these people have their own articles. Andrew (My talk) 21:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Week Keep There are occasional cases where authorities overlook something like this it until it ended up in disaster, and the public takes such great interest--as shown by newspaper accounts--that they are notable. But I'd be a little more secure about it if there were stories in other national papers also; the Guardian has a taste for sensationalism.  DGG (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I think this will become a notable case, maybe something like "2008 investigation into child protection services", for which "Baby P" will be a redirect. For now, I'd let this article develop but there is a case for saying it is a one time event and the article should wait. Unusual? Quite  TalkQu  21:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Subject of high-profile controversy about public service provision and child protection. Possibly consider renaming. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. This is quite a large story, but perhaps renaming to something like "Baby P tragedy", with the council failings being the main focus, not a biography. 78.33.73.43 (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Already the subject of massive media coverage, I think there can be little doubt now that this will be comparable to Victoria Climbié. Agree that the focus of the article should be the event, not the person. Oh, and whether or not this is "media hype" is not important. If the mainstream media covers it in depth, it's notable, whether or not they should have been covering it. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep In agreement with the similiar Victoria Klimbé case. This infant's story and the social, and political consequences are themselves notable, as are the national and international press coverage. I would consider re-naming if the story develops, with links to the necessary WikiNews article too doktorb wordsdeeds 01:22, 15 November 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.