Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ella Rose Riehle

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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ella Rose Riehle[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. I don't want to repeat myself, so I've helpfully linked my prod rationale. Essentially, the article fails to meet WP:BABY. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since WP:BABY is empty, I'd say it passes. :) Whose Your Guy (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A set of sequential numbers does not a Wikipedia article make. LiteralKa (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nowhere enough notability Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete merely being born at an unusual time is not sufficient to demonstrate notability, and the news organisations that have covered it because it is amusing and/or local, not because it is newsworthy. Hut 8.5 11:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's no indication of notability and Wikipedia is not a place for news reports. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete not notable in any sense of the word. LiteralKa (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does it make me notable if I expell someone out of my vagina on September 10th 2011 at 12:13 PM? No Dr pepper for life (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BABY does not exist, and the baby is very cute. Also, LiteralKa, please be aware of WP:CANVAS; advertising this article in a public IRC room is in violating this policy. Thanks. Harry (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. The whole privacy issue concerns me here. This child's parents may have chosen to expose her to the media, but that doesn't mean she's going to be excited about having an article on one of the world's most popular websites when she's old enough to hear about it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neat trivia, but not notable. Şłџğģő 20:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SluggoOne S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just one of around three hundred thousand born on this date. East of Borschov 23:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hut 8.5. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: outside the USA, her date of birth expressed in the conventional numerical forms is unremarkable. For example, where I am, it's 09/08/10 at 11:12 PM EDT; in Japan (Gregorian calendar assumed), it's 10/08/09 at 11:12 PM EDT.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and the fact that her "interest" isn't even interesting outside the US and places which do month-day-year. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no notability demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to hear the author's take on the page. LiteralKa (talk) 06:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the fact that you've reduced it to a mere one line, my "take" on it is moot since consensus is going to be to delete the article. Whose Your Guy (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reduced it to one line because the rest was trivia, nobody really cares if the parents won't forget the date. This is an encyclopedia. LiteralKa (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notable because of merely beeing born?! WP:BLP1E is also very clear here regarding the news beside that the media response is actually rather limited. I am also sure that there are a lot of other different dates and times with a certain mathemetical, sequential, astronomical or even religious meaning. So there is no point to have an article for every baby born on such a "special" time. Testales (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2010 (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.