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 improve, rename to Virginia v. Cherrix. Sr13 04:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starchild Abraham Cherrix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

DRV concludes that there is significant dispute over whether, and how, BLP concerns are present in this article. In keeping with the recommendations of the Arbitration Committee, this article will be protected blank, with history available, for the duration of this AfD. Deletion is on the table, as well as any other options that might make use of the content in a different way. Xoloz 14:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck is BLP? Don't be obscure, be clear. Hu 15:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP refers to our biographies of living persons policy, one of our core policies. MartinDK 15:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Is the case itself notable as a matter of precedent? It strikes me that this should actually be about the case, if it is significant, rather than Cherrix, who is only significant if the case itself is. Hiberniantears 15:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: after contemplating WP:BIO, I don't think Cherrix is significant enough at this time to warrant his own article. However, as in my comment above, I think we should consider transferring some of the content into an article on the case, if the case is significant enough. Hiberniantears 15:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think he pretty clearly meets WP:BIO ("has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject") - but the question of whether his biography violates WP:BLP is a sticking point. MastCell ^Talk 19:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't think the biography violates BLP, since the material in the article is readily found in the public domain. Andrew73 20:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteKeep. I agree that the article should cover the case and not the kid. Based on what was brought forward on DRV, I do believe that the case is notable and there are parts of the article that could be reused unless someone wants to start all over. I changed my !vote. Having thought this through some more I think it would be wrong to delete the article when the first tree Google hits are all reliable sources by our own standards and the family clearly does not object to the attention. There is nothing libel in the article and I don't see how ethics could be used as an argument against keeping it. I still think we need to allow those who favoured deletion to comment here but the main issue seems to me to be a content dispute rather than a deletion dispute. That said, I still believe that this should be about the case and the law in particular rather than focused on the kid himself. MartinDK 16:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. First off, shouldn't the article be restored so that people know what the AFD is about? Several reasons why this individual is notable, or at least more notable than the least notable person on Wikipedia: A Google search shows several news articles about this individual (e.g. [1], and in fact, Abraham's law was passed in Virginia because of this individual [2], and several articles in Wikipedia already link to this article. Andrew73 16:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see any BLP issues here in the version 2 edits before blanking, the article is not derogatory to him, but pretty much neutral in reporting the facts (more neutral than most people would be.) If it's thought that there are BLP issues, then edit the article in a way you think will make it comply, rather than deleting. I don't see a BLP issue, and the case is important.Merkinsmum 17:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The BLP debate is because of WP:BLP1E which tells us to cover the event and not the person. MartinDK 17:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm trying to understand this particular application of the policy. As the event (Cherrix's decision to forgo chemo, the resulting court case, implications for medical ethics and decision-making) clearly meets and exceeds notability requirements, is the issue simply that the article should be retitled and focused on the details of the case rather than Cherrix's life story? If so, I think you'll find consensus to do just that, even from people who advocate keeping the article. MastCell ^Talk 18:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually yes, that is exactly what I believe. However, given the DRV and the problems that these articles have caused before I also think this AfD is important to ensure that everyone agrees on this. Also, we need to figure out how much of the article should be removed and if there is anything in the article that would warrant complete deletion of the article before we start over. These are issues that I think everyone should have the opportunity to comment on - including those who endorsed the deletion on DRV. MartinDK 19:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While I can see the whole "noticeable for one event" angle, it is clear that the event is in this case centered on the person themselves, and it is dubious how we could cover this without having practically the exact same content that would not be a "fake biography," or even what the article's title could be. Circeus 18:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suppose I don't mind this article moved/renamed. But I think the content should be kept in some form, because it's important and well-known, at least in the sceptical vs. alt-med circles in which I move.Merkinsmum 21:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as seems to be agreed, the importance is clearly mainly with respect to libertarian views about medical treatment, not the child. the article needs to be re-oriented as MartinDK suggests, there will be material. I think the title will have to stand, but given that the child--and apparently the parents--obviously do not dislike publicity, and that their position is legal, I cant see the point of objecting. DGG (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but change the title to something like "Cherrix medical refusal case", with the name as a redirect. We have plenty of material for an article on the event, but not enough for an article which claims (by being titled with the person's name) to be a full biography on the person. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename to Virginia v. Cherrix or something descriptive of the case, with a rewrite in accordance. --Dhartung | Talk 09:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea. Seems the best course. Circeus 19:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Drv comments. Extensive coverage shows notability. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (as the case is notable) but rename so it's clear that it's not a biographical article, per WP:BLP. Terraxos 22:16, 9 July 2007 (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.