- 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 redirect to heteropaternal superfecundation. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mia Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
The subject is only seems to be notable for one event and therefore doesn't warrant an article on Wikipedia. The third reference on the page suggests that the subject will have a role in a reality tv show but it's only speculation. OlYellerTalktome 04:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Superfecundation. WP:ONEVENT Drawn Some (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect it probably deserves a mention in heteropaternal superfecundation. We can always recreate it later if she becomes famous for something else. RJaguar3 | u | t 05:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Just went to add it to heteropaternal superfecundation and it looks like there's already a mention on that page (which may have been added recently but I didn't check). OlYellerTalktome 05:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Part of the notability policy is designed to protect those who have inadvertently been thrust into the limelight. This is a good example of that. A redirect would neglect this portion of WP:N. Redirect is used too often as a kind of middle ground between delete and keep, and it needs to be understood as something different than that. WP:N provides some guidelines to help with that determination, and this is a good example of how a redirect should not be used. Shadowjams (talk) 07:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would note too that "merge" aside (which is in many cases a redirect), the fact that this individual had this phenomenon occur is noted in the literature and in the article page. That should be more than enough. If the reality show is picked up, then certainly an article is in order, but then it will be no problem to recreate the article at that time. Shadowjams (talk) 07:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and or redirect to heteropaternal superfecundation until we can link to the show. Someone who agrees to work on a reality show that shows the heteropaternal superfecundation is hardly shoved in the limelight against their will so even when you consider WP:BLP or other policies to cover privacy in the way mentioned by Shadowjams, this wouldn't qualify because of the show. - Mgm|(talk) 09:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 3 comments 1. Heteropaternal superfecundation redirects to Superfecundation. 2. Someone who goes on a reality show isn't wanting privacy but publicity so "being thrust in the limelight" doesn't apply. 3. This is not as rare as you might imagine, as far as twins go, women just don't usually discuss it. Drawn Some (talk) 11:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect for now. If the reality show gets made, she can go back to having her own article. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am unwilling to trust in the truth of this on the authority of Fox. The mention in superfecundation. should also be removed unless there is a report from a scientific journal or at least a news source of greater reliability in science and medicine. I note the early case there as well is not based on what we would nowadays consider scientific evidence. DGG (talk) 05:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2009 (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.