Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desiree Jennings controversy


 * 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. Tone 22:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Desiree Jennings controversy

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article fails WP:ONEEVENT, the person involved was briefly mentioned in the media in the context of one event and is unlikely to be a high-profile individual in the future. The "event" itself is of questionable notability and the article is mostly referenced to blogs. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that the media discussion of dystonia and flu vaccines is briefly discussed in the 2009 flu pandemic vaccine article, using the few semi-reliable sources available, but without mentioning this unfortunate woman's name. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and per WP:NOT. It's a passing event - an incorrect diagnosis that did not spur any great activity, but disappeared from the public eye. Ray  Talk 22:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This could become a story about media process if a second-party analysis is ever published in a reliable source important enough to establish notability. Until then, it is a non-notable, fizzled, almost-news story. Novangelis (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. per Ray. A flash in the pan news story not reaching threshold of notability for an encyclopedia.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  23:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. She not notable; I am a newshound and never heard of this "event". Also fails due to WP:RS, WP:COAT, and WP:SOAP. Bearian (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Desiree Jennings deserves an article (she is much more notable than thousands of existing entries here), but it would just become another battleground for people pushing their agendas.FX (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:TABLOID and WP:NOTSCANDAL. No way this event meets the criteria at WP:Notability (events). Referencing is poor. There's been an hysterical burst of coverage in US fringe sources that has died to almost nothing, with virtually no attention paid to this non-event in most mainstream media or outside the US. Wikipedia is not for repeating material from tabloids and conspiracy blogs. Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not appear to meet the persistence requirements set out in WP:EVENT, the relevant notability guideline. The Wordsmith Communicate 06:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not much to add to the above reasons, specifically Fences and windows' reasons, Lord Spongefrog,  (I am Czar of all Russias!)  20:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Single event, not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not the rest of the internet. JFW | T@lk  00:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge: Since it seems Doomed to Deletion, there must be some greater article on vaccination fears where this should be mentioned.  In that context, most should agree its a notable event.--Milowent (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2009 (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.