Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abigail and Brittany Hensel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep Ral315 05:11, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
nn conjoined twins. Zoe 08:55, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I approve your work on deleting vanity entries on non-notables, Zoe, but in this case I think it is something different. Only today I saw a television documentary on these girls; I was reminded of an article I had previously read on them a few years back. I was after extra information, and a google came up with this article, which I found an extremely useful summary. It also contained some information I couldn't find easily elsewhere on the web. --211.29.199.111 09:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Agree with above comments. Moreover, are there many conjoined twins that aren't notable simply for being conjoined twins (or for associated medical complications)? -- Smjg 10:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep There are only few pairs of cojoined twins aliwe in the world, and this girls are extremely rare type of cojoined twins, what makes them unicue mediacal case. Kneiphof 10:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per 211, but needs a reference to the documentary as proof of notability. I'll cleanup the language a bit as well. Last Malthusian 12:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I went through several edits before being happy with it, but in the end I deleted the quotes from the twins as unencyclopaedic, though if someone can figure out how to include them in the context of an encyclopaedia they are quite cute. I deleted the section on their personal tastes for the same reason, then changed my mind, and put it back in. I still don't know whether it belongs in an encyclopaedia or not, but I've erred on the side of caution and left it there. I deleted the sentence about how "rumours of the twins appearing in a sitcom are unfounded", since it's unsubstantiated by definition and frankly sounds like patent nonsense. Still needs the name of the documentary they appeared in. (I also posted this comment on the talk page.) Last Malthusian 12:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The name of the television documentary you are most likely referring to is "Katie and Eilish: Siamese Twins", which aired on the Discovery Health Channel in early 2002. Hall Monitor 23:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I went through several edits before being happy with it, but in the end I deleted the quotes from the twins as unencyclopaedic, though if someone can figure out how to include them in the context of an encyclopaedia they are quite cute. I deleted the section on their personal tastes for the same reason, then changed my mind, and put it back in. I still don't know whether it belongs in an encyclopaedia or not, but I've erred on the side of caution and left it there. I deleted the sentence about how "rumours of the twins appearing in a sitcom are unfounded", since it's unsubstantiated by definition and frankly sounds like patent nonsense. Still needs the name of the documentary they appeared in. (I also posted this comment on the talk page.) Last Malthusian 12:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, rare and exceptional type of conjoined twins.Gateman1997 16:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, significant internet and media presence... very notable and interesting pair HoratioVitero 16:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC) (sorry about that)[reply]
- Keep As above. CalJW 18:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- strong keep These girls are exceptionally notable. I'm a little suprised that this article was nominated. Roodog2k (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep conjoinedtwinscruft. JFW | T@lk 21:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per the comments above. Hall Monitor 23:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. And this serves as an example of how anons should contribute to AFD. :) Titoxd 23:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Life Magazine ain't what it used to be, but if you're on the cover, you're de facto notable. --MCB 06:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. LIFE magazine cover stories are non-notable? Seriously Zoe, what the fuck? —RaD Man (talk) 07:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Pay attention: the VfD predates the magazine cover having been added to the article, even if by less than a day. -- Smjg 09:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but Zoe could have done her own research. --211.29.198.218 10:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- So every soldier and B-girl who made the cover of LIFE during WWII should have an article? Zoe 18:59, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
- No, but unique medical cases who make magazine covers and have whole documentaries devoted entirely to them should have an article. --203.173.8.12 03:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Pay attention: the VfD predates the magazine cover having been added to the article, even if by less than a day. -- Smjg 09:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- So, when will it be decided that this article should be kept, and the ridiculous votes for deletion thing stop and be removed from the top of the article? --211.29.198.100 07:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Zoe, what were you thinking?; they were on the cover of Life magazine! ---CH (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I see, Zoe didn't know about the cover when she VfD's the original version. Sorry, Zoe. ---CH (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Interesting phenomenon Patio 07:11, 12 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.