Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subway Platform Birth in New York City

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. PhilKnight (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subway Platform Birth in New York City[edit]

This event is described as a news. H2H (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, births happen outside hospitals quite frequently still. Not a notable event. Author probably wanted Wikinews, judging by the newsy writing style, but we can't transwiki there due to GFDL issues. --Dhartung | Talk 11:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally non-notable, at best WP:ONEEVENT. Babies are born every day, in the darnedest of places. WWGB (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why? This doesn't warrant an entry. Citedcover (talk) 13:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is more like an essay than an article. I wouldn't be surprised if it was created by a person related to the event. Tavix (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:N. Leonard^(Bloom) 23:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:ONEEVENT, since this is an unremarkable one-off news event. --DAJF (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please kindly view author's response on the Talk Page of the the respective article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mail09876 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC) It is the same as follows: Hello all; thank you for reviewing this page. Perhaps this article needs to be re-written for peer consideration, rather than deleted. It seems that in the attempt to document some key elements of the story, the uniqueness of the situation and reasons why I thought it should be included in Wikipedia were lost.[reply]

Although babies are not very rarely born outside hospitals, they seldom occur within a major metropolitan train station, with hundreds of individuals walking by. This increases its need for notablity due to it being an extremely rare category of a (2) lives endangering event inside a New York City Train Station, utilized by millions of people each year. Perhaps evidence of this are contained within the references, reflecting that the story was covered in full broadcast stories with valuable minutes of time, rather than as a mention at the conclusion of the broadcast, for example. Within the extreme multitude of out of hospital births, local hero situations, accidents, and others situations, it stood out within the New York community (and eventually internationally) as an event by sheer nature of its occurrence as it took place, to be given attention.

Individuals, for example, researching notable events within this or other transit system; and/or elements of bystander reaction, would be able to access the detail. In additon, while it was a particula event, and involved individuals who would, perhaps, not otherwise be on Wikipedia, its ramifications were also of note. These include the above elements, as well as the occurrence of a birth in a particularly dirty, overpopulated area.

This event was a bellweather to all of reactions of New Yorkers to a situation requiring unique types of help. The case of "Kitty Genovese" for example, is still discussed periodically in New York news, though it occurred more than thirty years ago, as a measure of how New Yorkers and other can or should respond in case of emergencies. The theme of individuals "pitching in," even though hundreds of bystanders were present was of note to the media and public, and, I believe, would be of interest to those seeking information on such events, or any of the themes contained therein.

In conclusion, though written in a journalistic rather than documentary format, as was pointed out, I respectfully suggest that it is noteworthy because although an "out of hospital birth" may in and of itself be newsworthy but not encyclopedia worthy, this particular occurence was unique in that it was a historical occurence of particular interest even to those in a city with many thousands of unusual occurences. In the event that it needs to be revised to reflect these qualities, I would request the opportunity to to do so for resubmission.Mail09876 (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:01, 20 August 2008 (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.