Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chukwu octuplets (2nd nomination)


 * 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 consensus. WP:BLP does urge us to be cautious with respect to privacy, and I personally appreciate editors who are mindful of that particularly in regards to minors (however such editors may have decided on this individual case), but WP:ONEEVENT does not mandate its removal. Several responders have suggested or conceded that merger may be appropriate, but there is not clear consensus to close as merge, and that can, of course, still be accomplished outside of AfD. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Chukwu octuplets
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Whilst octuplets are rare, they are not unique. Simply being an octuplet does not make one notable, and certainly does not necessitate us having a bio on these children. Yes, we kept this 2 years ago, but I suggest our tolerance for unjustified  BLPs (especially of minors) has decreased since then. Docg 16:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability does not degrade over time. Hazillow (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Em, I'm not arguing it does, so how is your argument relevant? I'm contending that consensus can (and has) changed--Docg 16:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Em, I'm arguing consensus should not be changed because notability does not degrade over time. So how is your objection to my argument relevant? Hazillow (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make sense to me. Why should the contention that notability doesn't change mean that Wikipedia's consensus should not change? Wikipedia's consensuses are not set in stone. There's a non sequitur in your logic.--Docg 17:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I mean that the consensus can change, but it shouldn't in this instance. If it was notable then, the consensus should be that it is notable now. To be fair, I sort of ignored your argument that we feel differently than we did before about living people, especially minors. I guess what I'm saying is that, yeah, we feel differently about living people now due to accusations of slander, but as long as we are really careful there should be no reason to delete this article based on that. These children are still notable. I hope that makes sense. I think I explained it adequately but it still looks really confusing. Hazillow (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete- Not notable enough. &Lambda;ua&int;  Wi  se  (Operibus anteire) 16:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep apparently first set of octuplets in the US and significant RS coverage. Granted the media goes crazy for multiple births and this could easily fall in the scope of BLP1E, but I don't know .. there's been some coverage many years post birth as well. I think they might eke in. Yes they're notable for their birth, but then wouldn't we be all? I'm really not sure on this one. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 16:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are not sure, and think BLPIE applies, and (WP:NOTNEWS?) isn't it safer to delete. We need a good reason to keep such articles.--Docg 16:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * BLP1E might apply, but it goes beyond news to the overall issue of multiple births (an example. I wholly agree that had they not been part of a multibirth, we wouldn't be hearing of them at ~9 years old, could it be merged somewhere? I don't think it's an obvious has to be deleted as there are no BLP issues. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 17:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge. Octuplets are a rare occurence, but Fermat numbers are rare, too. Yet, we don't have an article about each of them. It may deserve its own paragraph and maybe even a subsection in the Multiple birth article (that's where octuplets redirect), but it isn't worth a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Admiral Norton (talk • contribs) 18:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, we do have separate articles on 3 (number), 5 (number), 17 (number)... JoshuaZ (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's true, but we have articles on these numbers because they're small enough to be often mentioned and important. 4294967297 (number) is also a Fermat number (and notable, because it's the first composite Fermat number) and yet it doesn't have its own page and I wouldn't advocate its creation. Chukwu octuplets have been a major news event, but not much more than that. BTW, we don't even have an article on octuplets, so why should we have an article on one of its specific occurences. Admiral Norton (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I see that we did at one point have a separate article on 4294967297 (number) and it was merged. I'm tempted to unmerge and give it a separate article (the story of that number's history might be long enough for its own article). I wouldn't object to adding an article on octuplets either but that's not an argument against having this article. It is also the large number of births that has made them notable, not necessarily the exact number. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. (Edit conflict) Not my favorite article, but I don't see where BLP requires us to get rid of it. I'm assuming that there's not a different article specifically about the births, as a merge to that article would be our normal resolution per WP:BLP1E. The story was following by major news outlets for the entire time the surviving octuplets were in the hospital, see the 12 articles in NYT here. Xymmax (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * keep This is an interesting case. If we had a direct request by the parents for deletion I would advocate deletion since we are not talking about willing public figures. See User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP. However, we should not engage in BLP-penumbra deletions unless we have a request from individuals or their guardians to delete an article. BLP1E is also not relevant given the high level of news coverage and the lack of any reasonable merge source. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with that argument is that it insists that if people do not want publicity, then they must publicly ask, on a website that anyone can access, for the removal of their biography. They must publicly argue for their own privacy, and have their right to that privacy openly debated, scrutinised, and noted. That really is not a solution to Wikipedia's potential for harming private persons, now is it.--Docg 23:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We explain very clearly how they can make a request by email to OTRS. DGG (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As DGG observes we have OTRS for a reason. If we took this argument to its logical conclusion we would need to AfD all articles that remotely had the possibility of such a request occurring. Furthermore, the family gave interviews and talked to the press demonstrating that they didn't mind certain levels of publicity. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The OTRS argument is invalid. As OTRS people cannot delete articles on request. They still have to publicly have their request for privacy reported to the community and publicly discussed - sometimes heatedly and nastily, anyone who thinks that's a real option of private people needs to carefully rethink.--Docg 08:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, so they can request an AfD which will then be courtesy blanked. Given that they gave interviews and other work, the default assumption that they would want deletion of this article is hard to understand. Furthermore it is simply not our job to anticipate that people will not want an article about them except in the obvious cases. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Rare but not unique? I'm sorry, how many other cases of octuplets have there been in human history?  Mandsford (talk) 00:57, 26 February 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.