Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean Hilliard


 * 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. Courcelles (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Jean Hilliard

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP1E of an accident survivor, which demonstrates no sustained notability outside the context of that accident itself. If her incident had documentably led to a major advance in medical science, then there might be a case to be made that she warrants an article for it — but if the sum total of its enduring impact is that she awoke from a coma 49 days later, the end, then that's just not enough to warrant permanent inclusion in an international encyclopedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep We look for continuing coverage two of the reliable sources posted are from 2015 showing the subject has been covered for 3 decades. Also sources describe the case as a miracle. The uniqueness of the case lends itself to notability. Valoem   talk   contrib  22:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Miracle" is not a claim of notability that gets a person into an encyclopedia — it's an inherently unverifiable and non-neutral assertion. And the fact that one or two human interest stories might look back on something that happened 35 years ago does not demonstrate that the subject has been covered in a sustained way "for three decades", if you can't find any sources that are dated anywhere between 1981 and 2015. Bearcat (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The subject here is clearly verifiable by reliable sources. Here is a book source from 2002 and another medical source from 1983 .  Valoem   talk   contrib  00:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Uncertain but maybe weak keep simply because this seems interesting and acceptable. SwisterTwister   talk  07:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, as unique case discussed in-depth as the singular focus of secondary sources. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk   16:33, 7 October 2015 (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.