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.
Keep - I undersand the "famous for one event" principle, but it is only a principle. This lady seems interesting enough, notable enough, and is covered by a wide variety of reliable sources. The article is of a healthy length and depth of detail, and deleting it seems a bit extreme! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢09:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ms. Suleman has gained international notoriety. There are literally dozens of articles written about and interviews of Ms. Suleman in the mainstream media which clearly qualify her as a notable subject for a Wikipedia article. There are many thousands of less notable biographies on WP that are unopposed. It seems those who want this article deleted may have an agenda of preventing additional attention to her, however the Wikipedia notability standard relies on coverage by reliable sources and is not agenda driven. Numerous reliable sources have covered Nadya Suleman, therefore the existance of an article about her should not be controversial. Toounstable (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: the editor who requested deletion did so based upon a variable principle that biographies of living people who are notable for one event should be covered in the article on the event. However Nadya Suleman is certainly NOT notable for only one "EVENT" -- the birth of historic octuplets. The literally hundreds of news and opinion articles about her demonstrate that her notability includes myriad other issues that have been documented and discussed in/by qualified reliable sources. Toounstable (talk) 10:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She was initially just notable for the birth of octuplets, but with the growing controversy and laws being enacted to prevent this from happening again I think shes surpassed the "one event" clause as the nominator has proposed this article violates. There has been over 17,000 news articles indexed by Google news referencing her name in the past month alone. — raeky(talk | edits)12:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Raeky makes a very valid point I think. Even if it was WP:ONEEVENT, this is a perfect example where WP:IAR is appropriate. This is something that a lot of people would be interested in, and if we don't have an article on a subject that has such a huge controversy surrounding it, that would be really weird. Chamaltalk13:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a note to the admin who makes this decision, if it is for delete then give the editors time to merge the content back to the octuplets article BEFORE you delete this page, much of the content of that page was removed when the articles was split. Thank you. — raeky(talk | edits)13:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As annoying as this whole thing is, and as much as I personally cringe at the idea this women is getting attention, this person is now unfortunately notable. It may be considered just a media circus too. I wouldn't be against a delete either, but the wikipedian in me wants to stay fair. Virek(talk♦contribs)14:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The birth of the octuplets is the one event for which she is now famous. Her notability will certainly extend beyond this one event, so I don't think WP:ONEEVENT is applicable. --User101010 (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Query- I thought this was a redirect to the octuplets? Enh, no matter. She's had enough exposure in putting herself before the media that reliable sources are easy to find. That she's famous for one event is, quite frankly, wrong. She's taken that birth and become notable all on her own. So, KEEP. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1E doesn't apply, given her serial publicity seeking / ongoing celeb-esque media attention, and the broad policy arguments that her decisions have sparked. She's more than "just" a mother of octuplets(!) at this point. Townlake (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
snowball keep While these types of births have become more common, this one is different because the mom already had a bunch of kids, that is why it has gained so much media attention, and why it should be kept. Suggest nominator withdraw. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that we should have a page on this woman, but I appear to be overwhelmingly in the minority and I have withdrawn the nomination. I will remove this page and the octuplets from my watchlist, as I appear to have fundamentally different views of how we should handle these articles. If there are any other parts of the AFD which have to be removed, feel free to do so, I have removed the notice from the page itself and I'm not sure where else it has to be delisted. SDY (talk) 18:48, 1 March 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.