Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diary of an Unborn Child


 * 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 no consensus. Opinion is split on notability. Despite two relists consensus has not formed. Just Chilling (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Diary of an Unborn Child

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Both of the current sources are deadlinks, but when looked up on Wayback Machine were clearly not reliable sources in the first place: one's a blog and the other's a wiki, both self-published sources: here's one and here's the other. I've looked for reliable sources to support this and can, indeed, easily find what is claimed in the article to be the original publication. But that's a PRIMARY source and isn't acceptable, alone, to support the article (and doesn't prove, of course, that it's the original publication). (If I can throw in a bit of original research, I have some doubt about that being the original publication because I seem to recall listening to a vinyl record album of this article being read out loud (not the song) long before 1980, perhaps as early as the late 1960's (but I'm old and my memory may have slipped a cog).) TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 12:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - This is an interesting story. An anonymous underground work that went the equivalent of "viral" in the 1980s among the pro-life movement. There is evidence that the item was often discussed within that movement, and also ironically within the pro-choice movement, but these were almost certainly internal discussions that did not make the leap into the mainstream media where reliable and significant coverage could be achieved. The same is true of the song that used the tract. It's the equivalent of something going viral in the blogosphere today, with lots of bloggers throwing it at other bloggers while nobody in the outside world notices. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 19:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep -, given the time period, the best way to look for reliable sources would a large academic library; these sources probably aren't online; the nominator did not specify looking for offline sources. Also interesting as Coffeeluvr613 stated.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. I have added five refs recovered from archives, hidden comments, and the talk page. One of them is from 1973 by Michele DuVal Aiello, another in from of a graphic novel from 1978 by Jack Thomas Chick. As odd as it is, this is too interesting as a track record of a story to be deleted. Also, given the long history of "usage example" over so many decades indicates some encyclopedic relevance per WP:N. I think, with some research it should be possible to put the fragments together into one coherent story, but that's normal article improvement, not AfD, see also WP:CONTN and WP:NEXIST. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The added "refs" are either just republications in various forms of the story or a copyright listing at the copyright office which has unsourced original research added to describe it and which is not itself substantiated by the source. Once again they're PRIMARY sources which are not alone sufficient to support the article. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Huh? Unless you assume bad faith in me or the editor who added that information in the first place the source does provide what is stated in the comment. We can ask the copyright office for confirmation of the facts. They have a copy of the work filed in an archive. Sources don't have to be online to be useful in an article.
 * Also, at present, that entry is not used to prove anything in the article - it is just a "further reading" which might be helpful to put the pieces of history together in the future.
 * You are right about primary sources, but primary sources are perfectly fine to support simple facts like the existance of something.
 * Please note, that I deliberately did not invoke WP:GNG above (because at the time I wrote this I didn't saw secondary sources). My argument, however, was that by the already given sources we could see that the theme is being used over many decades. Something that is not historically / encyclopedically relevant would long have been forgotten after so many years - but it isn't. Instead, at the time of my writing above it could be assumed with almost certainty that secondary sources must exist as well (I just was too busy with other stuff to search for them myself), and that is why I invoked WP:CONTN and WP:NEXIST.
 * And, fast forward to the present, Lightburst meanwhile found plenty of secondary sources, thereby proving my predition above and establishing notability per WP:GNG at the same time.
 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - I voted to delete above and don't mind if the article is eventually kept, especially since some more sources have been found. However, all three keep votes above use "interesting" as a reason to keep the article, and that's not too far from the "I Like It" argument that should be avoided in deletion discussions. I said it was "interesting" too, but what matters here is notability. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 15:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * That's true and is why I was refering to WP:CONTN and WP:NEXIST. I think, at this stage of sourcing and with some portion of good will we can assume that it will be possible to find even more sources (and given that this once was a hot topic there must have been some (written) debate over the topic in past decades, so secondary sources will probably exist as well somewhere), and this combined with the long-term usage over decades fulfills basic notability although at present WP:GNG might not be formally fulfilled. An alternative would be to merge this stuff into another article, but from the viewpoint of content organization and WP:PAGEDECIDE I think it makes more sense to collect the info related to this topic in a separate article, but that's just my opinion. I don't have strong feelings here...
 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NEXIST. The subject meets our general notability guidelines and therefore is worthy of inclusion. Lightburst (talk) 03:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - With the citation of NEXIST and CONTN, what people are saying is, in effect, "Wow, this is so interesting that sources must exist." As pointed out by Doomslayer520, this is really nothing more than "I Like It". Sources need to be about this, not just this itself repeated again and again. But at this point, this article does not meet the notability guidelines. - TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Passing WP:SIGCOV The first source I have found is the New York Times: I have determined that the original "Diary of an Unborn Child was read on the floor of the New York State Senate by Republican Senate Majority Leader Earl W Brydges on April 10, 1970. So our article is incorrect. There was also more than passing mention in the Los Angeles Times, and several other passing mentions, including: The New York Times, and Tangzine I will need spend some time adding this information to the article - unless someone wants to help? Lightburst (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Good job. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * No, there's a misunderstanding here. It's not at all about "I like it" or not. I think we should have an article about it because it is historically relevant, and thus of encyclopedic value - and it is not in the interest of our readers to not have an article about it. Also, we certainly don't have a criterium for articles to be not "interesting" in order to be notable.
 * If it can be reasonably well assumed that sources exist, they must not yet be part of the article. However, this assumption must not be based on "blue sky" wishful thinking. But with a controversial topic such as this one in use over so many decades, we can be almost certain that it was discussed in independent media somewhere, although not necessarily in mainstream media like large newspapers which we could easily find online, so it may take some time to find them, possibly even longer than this AfD lasts.
 * Update: Lightburst has meanwhile found sources (even in large newspapers), so it is clear that WP:GNG is fulfilled.
 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Of the current 7 sources, the first 2 are from The New York Times; the first does spend 5 or so lines describing how the senator read out "from what he described as “The Dairy of an Unborn Child.”...but not much more about the actual "diary"..the second is barely even one line "On the floor of the Senate chamber, a Republican senator read from a document that he called the “Diary of an Unborn Child.” The third source is just the lyrics from the watchtower, credited to "anonymous". the 4th source, from the LA Times is the best for some useable information..except its only 5 lines or so as well. 5 is a blog, not WP:RS 6 is a Wiki, not WP:RS 7 is another blog, not WP:RS Its mostly just different variations on lyrics in the external links. I do not see that there is anything to support the likelihood of further, in depth material out there. A senator produced it from places unknown, read it out trying to tug a few heartstrings, but didnt get the effect he wanted (if it had, that might've been a claim of significance). It was passed around fundamentalist sources, then rediscovered by bloggers of the weird and wonderful, but the mainstream never investigated it. Curdle (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Sorry, but it still does not meet WP:GNG, or WP:SIGCOV.- none of the sources are at all in depth, and quite a few are not RS
 * This is a controversial topic. That the senator was unsuccessful reading this on the floor of the NY Senate is a given: because it was liberal New York. The subject has been in the public domain since 1970, and has been used over and over by both sides of the controversial issue, and even made into a disturbing or campy song. It is a credit to our readers that we have the subject covered here. Lightburst (talk) 12:55, 19 July 2019 (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.