Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oldenburg 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   keep. Consensus is that sources found constitute support for WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 09:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Oldenburg Baby

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I cannot find sufficient RS coverage of the subject of this article to meet our notability standards. Epeefleche (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * weak delete This could stand as an article if it shows that it's a relevant incident in a broader debate on abortion in Germany. Doing so would also require good sourcing, that just isn't here. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. There's some copyvio issues going on in this article, with much of the text being very closely phrased (almost identical) from the Youth Defence page for the Oldenburg Baby. I know the opening sentence was taken directly from this site and I was going to overlook that, but there's other phrases in the article that are taken almost directly from this page.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Additional. I've found that a lot of sources are under the term "Oldenburger Baby" rather than "Oldenburg baby". They're in German and my comprehension is nil at best, but I'll see what I can do with the translators and a little hard work.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79


 * Tentative keep. I'm finding sources in German and it appears that there's also been a documentary on this as well. There's mentions that people tried or are trying to pass abortion bans, but I'm not sure how far that went. I am finding that there are articles published later on down the line about this kid on his various birthdays and/or on other event days. Not sure if all of this is enough to keep since it all stems from one event. (BTW, if anyone wants to help me wade through these, here's a link to the google search .)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * I've found some sources to show that this is being taught in legal classes in Germany, so it looks like this has had lasting notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * It also appears that the family received a Federal Cross of Merit for taking the baby in, from what I can see, although there is a big language barrier here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79


 * Keep. Almost all sources are in German but as Tokyogirl79 has shown, they are there if you use the original German term - enough to suggest that the case attracts continuing human interest stories in reputable German newspapers and has become a standard example in German books on medical ethics (and also in anti-abortion arguments). Quite enough to meet GNG. PWilkinson (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep If it is taught in legal textbooks as a notable case, then it has lasting effect, and it did get coverage. Good work for Tokyogirl179 for finding that.   D r e a m Focus  21:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keepsignificant case. Maxdlink (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2011 (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.