Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alamjan Nematilaev
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 merged to Fetus in fetu and redirected. AKRadecki 20:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Alamjan Nematilaev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
OK, this is a clear case of WP:NOT an archive for expired newspaper stories. Google shows very little ongoing interest [1]. There simply is no way we can write a biography here - all we've got is a report of childhood misfortune. And there seems no reason why we should perpetuate this story into the child's future life. -Docg 18:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge to an appropriate medical article. The individual is nonnotable so far except for this medical abnormality. Seems as good a candidate for an IN PROCESS deletion as the article about the fat kid Q Z which produced so much drama a few days ago. There seem to be only a couple of source stories after all this time. (Wonder how the parents' plan to keep it a secret from him has worked out?)Edison 19:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the article but merge content to Parasitic twin as an extreme example of the condition. Davewild 19:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. Not a news article but instead a unique example of a rare phenomena that can be expanded beyond this as time progresses. Worth noting that a search for his name turns up non-WP links first, showing continued interest and demonstrating a lack of any perceived harm we could cause (not that there's any harm here whatsoever). --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.See below Evidently notable from the two good references provided, an interesting story, and very relevent to an awful lot of people. Very encyclopedic- this isn't just some tabloid rubbish, and so is not a violation of WP:NOT. J Milburn 20:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Give me any evidence of ongoing discussion of this beyond the reporting of it in 2003.--Docg 21:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Now, maybe I have completely missed some policy somewhere, but do we actually need any? My logic is thus- we allow articles on bands which will die out in a couple of years, and then never be heard from again, because they are only just notable now, and will never really get anywhere. So, should we, in a few years, when people stop reporting them, delete these articles? I repeat, this is NOT tabloid news, this is a relevent story which I suspect will be written about in journals (and no, I can't cite any) for a long time. If something was once notable and encyclopedic, it always is. J Milburn 21:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just that you've go no evidence for that?--Docg 21:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have no evidence it is still being written about, no. Why do we need it? Can something 'stop' being notable? I am probably forgetting something here, please link me. J Milburn 21:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just that you've go no evidence for that?--Docg 21:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Now, maybe I have completely missed some policy somewhere, but do we actually need any? My logic is thus- we allow articles on bands which will die out in a couple of years, and then never be heard from again, because they are only just notable now, and will never really get anywhere. So, should we, in a few years, when people stop reporting them, delete these articles? I repeat, this is NOT tabloid news, this is a relevent story which I suspect will be written about in journals (and no, I can't cite any) for a long time. If something was once notable and encyclopedic, it always is. J Milburn 21:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- After discussing this with Doc, I now see that this should be deleted, due to lack of continued reporting of the case. The single isolated incident does not confer notability, and, despite this being an unusual condition, there was nothing particuarly noteworthy about this particular case. Should someone write about the case again, perhaps due to the individual in question doing something in later life, then an article would be required. As it stands, this is an article about a single incident of little lasting relevence or value, masquerading as a biography that will never be anything more than a stub. Alternatively, merging the information somewhere would be good, but we would need to find somewhere relevent first. J Milburn 21:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not necessarily JUST a once-shot news event. It might be significant as an example of a rare medical condition. However, perhaps it IS just AN example and not THE most outstanding example? someone with a medical background can perhaps answer this. Smerge a brief mention (as an example case) into parasitic twin, with one of the news references. However if more medically significant case is available then delete, since our aim is not to list hundreds of example cases. Zunaid©® 13:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is the relevent section of the relevent article; it would appear that Sanju Bhagat is more relevent and groundbreaking, and appears to show more of a lasting interest. J Milburn 14:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.