Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chukwu octuplets (3rd 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. (non-admin closure) buidhe 17:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Chukwu octuplets
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is trivial. Per WP:BLP1E, "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article." User:Namiba 16:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 16:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete trvia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep There was understandably a lot of coverage when this ocurred, but there's rather sustained coverage 2009, 2008, ,  and they are referenced just about every time octuplets are born  . It's borderline, but I think there's enough to indicate a significance that isn't just passing or trivia. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - This special set is so rare, and therefore the amount of sources used in the article are very large, I would say the article could be expanded, but it shouldn't be deleted as it has multiple reliable sources. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 22:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - The birth of octuplets who are all still alive and thriving (except for one) ten years later is too exceptional an event, and very well documented. But if we can find reliable updates on the octuplets' lives as teenagers and adults, that would be great. Methychroma (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: There is discussion of the Chukwu octuplets in Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in Human Sexuality, McGraw-Hill (2000), pages 123-130. I think that this along with the considerable contemporary news coverage demonstrates notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2020 (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.