Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebeca Martínez

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 delete in the name of human dignity and our own self respect. It might be appropriate to include a reference to this case [1] in conjoined twins, but the name of the unfortunate infant should not be used on this encyclopedia. Writing from that external reference would not incur any licensing problems. --Tony Sidaway 00:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the most appropriate action would be to merge the information about this clearly notable case, without using names, into the "parasitic twin" article. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 00:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. --Tony Sidaway 00:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebeca Martínez[edit]

This article is about a victim of circumstance. Wikipedia is not a tabloid and there is no need for the article to exist. If you must, redirect the name of the victim to Cojoined twins but I don't even see the need for that. Wikipedia is, I beleive, moving in a more ethical direction, and removing this article will be part of that change. ++Lar: t/c 11:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete, per my nom ++Lar: t/c 11:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons I outlined in the Manar Maged AfD. What is unethical about this article? It's a perfectly factual event which is sourced and clearly notable. What part of Wikipedia policy do these two articles breach? Nick mallory 11:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable and within policy. The references need work. violet/riga (t) 12:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and/or Merge - The subject is notable, but I am thinking it may be better for her to be a Notable Case in the article for Craniopagus parasiticus rather than an individual article. --Ozgod 12:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - What is notable is the condition, not the patient. - Tangotango (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the benefit of a separate article is, at best, negligible.Martinp23 13:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If merging this into conjoined twin improves that article, fine. otherwise delete. There is simply no case for an independent article here.--Doc^g 13:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete per Doc glasgow. Notability not asserted nor assertable. Mackensen (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless our new approach is to have an article about everyone who suffered from a rare medical condition. Danny 13:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to conjoined twin. —Phil | Talk 13:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, per several above. this is not a biography it's coverage of a condition (or rather, two unfortunates who have the condition). Let's not become the Internet freakshow, eh? Guy (Help!) 13:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Conjoined twins. This is a proper subject for an encyclopedia, and this case adds to the knowledge of the state of the art for separating them. An editors distaste for the subject is not a basis for deletion is the subject has substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, since Wikipedia is not censored to suit each editor's "ethical" notions. Edison 14:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with censorship. WP:NOT censored is about the inclusion of frank portrayals of sexual or other content, this is not about that, it's about an agglomeration of tabloid news stories masquerading as a biography. There is a core if intelligent content, on the procedures used to separate these twins, but the twins themselves are not culturally or historically important other than by reference to their condition, so the logical place to cover the information is in the article on the condition. Please do not bandy the term "censorship" about, since that is absolutely not what motivates this debate; this debate is motivated by concern for human dignity. Even if you disagree on the approach, I woudl ask you to respect Lar's motives in initiating the debate. Guy (Help!) 14:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but when someone says an article must be removed not because it lacks sources satisfying WP:A and WP:N but because it seems to them "tabloid" and "unethical" and they wish to make Wikipedia not have articles they find offensive, that IS censorship per se. The dictionary says a censor is a person who removes "what he considers morally or otherwise objectionable." Edison 14:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then Wikipedia is censored. Phil Sandifer 14:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Craniopagus parasiticus. No reason to have a separate article. Kusma (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eliminate in some fashion for BLP reasons. Phil Sandifer 14:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't it amazing that when "Rebeca Martínez" is put into Google every single link on the first page is about this person. Removing it "for BLP reasons" is invalid a) because the person in question is dead, and b) the information is so readily available that all we would serve to do is let other places deal with the topic. The latter might not be a problem, but if we can show notability then it therefore warrants inclusion. violet/riga (t) 14:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep do not merge as above - meets all relevant standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Doc, Danny, Phil, et al. These people are not biographical candidates. They are encyclopedic only insofar as they relate to the medical procedure and phenomenon at issue, thus they should be mentioned in that context. FCYTravis 17:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per others above only notable for condition so should only be mentioned as an example of the condition. Davewild 19:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per the others, reads like a WP:COATRACK to me. Burntsauce 22:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above coments.--MONGO 22:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parasitic twin, applicable content from several articles already merged there. See my longer response at the other AFD. Serpent's Choice 22:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge covered in reliable and reputable sources, no reason to delete. Kla'quot 04:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC) The fact that this was a briefly-covered news event would ordinarily incline me towards deletion, per WP:NOTNEWS. However, "first surgery of its kind" means that there is lasting scientific significance to the story. Kla'quot 08:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant content to elsewhere, do not leave redirect. I am flummoxed as to how this individual was ever considered notable enough for an individual biography. Articles on medical cases go in articles concerning that syndrome. Moreschi ^Talk 09:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This and other relevant cases can be noted in Parasitic twin while being sensitive to the family and the impact of being listed in a top-ten web site in perpetuity. Do not maintain as a redirect. Thatcher131 14:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a medical case pretending to be a biography. Jkelly 21:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to meet WP:V and WP:N. Since this case is notable on its own, I don't see the need for merging the content anywhere. Prolog 14:12, 2 June 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.