Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiron (baby)


 * 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 moot, speedied by Lar, see below. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Kiron (baby)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete. Not notable beyond WP:ONEEVENT, the poor child only survived four days. Already mentioned at Polycephaly which seems more appropriate. WWGB (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Polycephaly.-- S Marshall  Talk / Cont  01:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect (edit conflict) I agree that the mention at Polycephaly is satisfactory and is inline with WP:ONEEVENT's "Cover the event, not the person" policy. ~ Ame I iorate U T C @ 01:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Polycephaly; merge any info. if appropriate, but it looks like a rd will do. JJL (talk) 02:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete one event, little room for expansion; merge any missing info into Polycephaly. Redirecting this title seems unnecessary as Kiron itself is a dab page. Maralia (talk) 03:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with Polycephaly. The child was mentioned in reliable sources, and probably deserves a mention in the parent article. --  JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 10:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment the child is already mentioned in the parent article, significantly more so than the other five. ~ Ame I iorate U T C @ 10:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In which case... Redirect to Polycephaly. -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 11:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough this article was a test. I conducted a test to see how long it would be before it was up for AFD. I would have just added the info in the parent article but I wanted to see how long the non notability brigade would take to come across it. Surprisingly it took this long. It is still referenced though to notable sources. Merge all info into the parent article as suggested as it is a notable case of the condition certainly but perhaps not for its own articles.  The Bald One       White cat 11:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So you were essentially disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point? ~ Ame I iorate U T C @ 11:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Disrupting wikipedia? Go and ride your bike elsewhere. If thats what you call spending time creating content and seeking out references on a curent notable event disruption. And no I didn't create the article to prove a point, I did wonder how long it would last as a seperate article thats all. The Bald One       White cat 11:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So, you didn't create the article as a test to see how long it was before the "non-notability brigade" got to it? Because if you had just added the content to the parent article to start with, instead of forking it, there would be no AFD and everyone who has contributed to this AFD wouldn't have wasted their time. ~ Ame I iorate U T C @ 11:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I find The Bald One's statement to be amazingly arrogant. It smacks of WP:POINTY, WP:OR and borders on WP:Trolling. The author has confirmed that this was a deliberate test of WP process and not intended to remain as a genuine article. Disgraceful behavior. 220.253.176.247 (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * AFD's are often a waste of time. If the nominator had asked me forthright if I thought the information was best presented in the parent article I would have fully agreed and saved you all wasting your time with another AFD when there are more serious problems to fix. Nobody can deny that the case it worthy of mentioning there. Most of time AFDs can be prevented if the nominator shows some courtesy to the creator and either asks him to expand or improve it to assert notability or propose to redirect or delete it first before going ahead with the AFD. I'm not saying that some AFDs aren't necessary and aren't a good solution to some articles where notability is debatable and a wider consensus may be needed, but in many circumstances such as this one it is obviously more appropriate to cover the event in the parent article as it is a notable event rather than a notable person.   The Bald One       White cat 11:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy redirect certainly. If you look at Kiron the articl eis linked there. The redirect is appropriate because somebody may be looking for an article on the baby in Bangladesh. If they find it and it redirects to the main article, problem solved. Other than that delete the article and redirect and just have the link to the main article from the Kiron page. The Bald One       White cat 12:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and mention the poor baby on Polycephaly. Redirecting seems unnecessary, since no article currently links to Kiron (baby) and it's very unlikely that someone will be looking for an article called exactly "Kiron (baby)". --Damiens .rf 11:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy-Delete as moot, since creator agrees and we're going offtopic here. --Damiens .rf 12:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But Kiron already links to dicephalus. Wouldn't it be pointless to have it to link to Kiron (baby) when it's just a redirect to dicephalus? I'm for K.I.S.S.. --Damiens .rf 15:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That page currently breaks WP:MOSDAB for having multiple blue links per line. I'll fix that now.  If the article is deleted then the entry can be changed to "Kiron, a baby born with dicephalus (two heads) in Bangladesh." — Preceding unsigned comment added by JediLofty (talk • contribs)
 * Yes exactly thats what I meant  The Bald One       White cat 19:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should keep this article. Someone might be looking for an article about that baby. It was a very well publicized story. Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw_talk 19:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This person will more likely try the article called "Kiron", and not "Kiron (baby)". That's why I believe JediLofty's suggestion above is the best option. --Damiens .rf 20:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. A redirect is pointless - this is not a disambiguation page, so no-one will land here. The redirect should be applied to Kiron, not this page. 220.253.176.247 (talk) 08:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted this article as a courtesy to the victim's family. If the outcome of this discussion is keep, which I doubt it will be, someone can restore it. But this is such a clear BLP issue I see no reason for the article to remain and get further picked up by the Google spiders meanwhile. ++Lar: t/c 21:29, 31 August 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.