Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inés Ramírez

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 keep and move to Self-inflicted caesarean section. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inés Ramírez

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

Per WP:BLP1E. Perhaps some of the material can be merged with Cesarean section. Gamaliel (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While Wikipedia is not "Ripley's Believe It or Not", such "unusual events" do not belong in the encyclopedia. Collect (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Caesarean section. I note there's already a blurb there about the subject. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

redirect per FreeRangeFrog. I don't see the need for a separate article, and it's definitely a one-event situation (at least for her sake, I hope so). Mangoe (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that, given the severity of the situation, the fact that the mother survived, and the fact that this was a medical situation with possible academic impact (this very possibly is and will be discussed in medical lectures, etc), this article should be kept as-is.155.101.84.101 (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a fascinating article that documents a notable natal incident. Wikipedia prides itself on its eccentric and tragic biographies. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Self inflicted caesarean section and keep. The event is clearly notable, and in cases of 1E we should write about the event, not the bio. -- cyclopia^speak! 13:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move and keep - per Cyclopia and expand to include notable cases of death of the mother and infant, doctors' opinions about it, etc. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 16:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed other cases that could be covered in a general article. -- cyclopia^speak! 17:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename per Cyclopia's rationale or merge to a new section of Caesarian section. This content is sourced, relevant, and encyclopedic. It belongs somewhere. The single sentence now included in Caesarian section could be expanded, or we can keep it in a separate article. That can be considered over time in the normal editing process. In any event deletion would not be an appropriate result here, and neither would a mere redirect without incorporating more of the detail. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is clearly a notable event. Either move to a new article for the event or keep as is, but such a notable, and properly referenced event belongs somewhere. CooperDB (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2013 (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.