Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pregnancy of unnamed 10-year old Ohio girl in 2022

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. There is not a scenario where this content is going to be deleted. While the consensus is currently for a keep, this does not preclude coverage within the broader abortion in Ohio/Indiana/Dobbs case and a potential redirect thereto if it makes sense when the case is no longer actively in the news. Star Mississippi 01:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Pregnancy of unnamed 10-year old Ohio girl in 2022

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Pregnancy of unnamed 10-year old Ohio girl in 2022 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Not convinced that the article as written avoids WP:BLPCRIME. WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS may also be applicable. I am unable to see a long-lasting societal impact from this unwanted pregnancy. News stopped at where this story broke. A merge to Abortion in Ohio, at least to indicate that the abortion laws in the state may have resulted in such situation, may preferrable to an outright deletion. – robertsky (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Events, and United States of America. – robertsky (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Merge and Delete into Abortion in Ohio as per the nom statement. Although awful, I don't see this having a notably lasting impact and as things stand I don't think it needs a dedicated article. Obviously things can change if news coverage suddenly becomes more widespread or events occur on the back of this incident, but right now I don't think we need to be reporting news. I am unconvinced by a redirect as I am not sold on the article title as a common or useful search term. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep via WP:SKCRIT #3, erroneous nomination (no accurate rationale provided). This event already has enough citations to confer notability, it's not a crime to be pregnant, the identity of the girl is not relevant to the article so BLP1E is not relevant, and none of the 4 categories of WP:NOTNEWS apply. Therefore it is a erroneous nomination. The quality and length of the article, or a poor title, is irrelevant to a deletion debate and should be discussed in the talk page. Any additional article existing does not also delete this articles notability, and there's nothing preventing that other article from referencing this while also linking to it. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Agree with all of this. No case to answer. Nom themselves admits to several relevant uncertainties about whether deletion is appropriate, lamely expressing personal opinions including that they are unsure as to whether it is. So let us move on. Andrewa (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
  • My 'may's here are being courteous. I do believe it is BLP1E and NOTNEWS. SKCRIT #3 should not be applicable. – robertsky (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
    • WP:BLP1E applies to articles on persons. This is an article in an event.
    • WP:NOTNEWS is not applicable either, see below.
    • WP:SKCRIT #3 reads No accurate deletion rationale has been provided. That is exactly the case here. So why should it not be applied? I'm not convinced... is not a rationale for deletion. You say you were being courteous. Perhaps mistakenly so, as it destroyed the logic. Please rephrase in a logically valid manner. Andrewa (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: Merge has also been proposed at Talk:Pregnancy of unnamed 10-year old Ohio girl in 2022#Requested move 6 August 2022. That RM has now closed and unless this deletion succeeds suggest discussing informally at Talk:Pregnancy of unnamed 10-year old Ohio girl in 2022#Merge proposals unless someone wishes to make a formal merge proposal. Andrewa (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  There is no active ongoing discussion to merge the content, only a recently closed page rename discussion which was apparently opposed. A "merge" outcome is valid for AfD and a valid !vote none the less, whether it's less formally discussed or not. I have been keeping my eye on this article since it was created (I suggested it be CSD as per the previous AfD, which itself ended delete, but that was rejected), however I do not agree with the speedy keep stance myself and still stand by the fact this is a news story. Happy for the existing content to be merged, but I don't think, as things stand, we need an article. It is often the case with news stories that get a lot of media attention initially that it feels "big" and AfD discussions are often flawed when discussing an active news incident. You can only really judge the longer-term notability after the dust has settled, so to speak. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  Of course there is no ongoing discussion at a closed RM. But the discussion there is relevant to the merge proposals being made here, don't you think? Perhaps I just do not see your point.

  WP:NOTNEWS has been cited above. It reads in part Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. There are then listed some cases in which news content is not encyclopedic, but none of them seem applicable here.

  I respect your personal opinion that speedy close is not applicable, but you do not seem to have answered any of the arguments that suggest to me that it is. IMO we need to proceed to a focussed discussion of the merge options, with no merge being one possible outcome of course. But deletion will not improve Wikipedia, and I see no evidence at all that it will. That's why I still suggest speedy close and move on.

  I note that your !vote is still Merge and Delete. It is not clear to me what this even means. Deleting the article title and its history while retaining any content would seriously violate some important Wikipedia principles. Andrewa (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  (Before you revised your comment, when I wrote mine, you implied a merge discussion was ongoing). There is so little here that anyone could merge the fundamental nature of the prose from the source citations, even if not verbatim, so that prose attribution is not an issue if paraphrased differently. We can easily work around this and find a way that the history need not be retained (what there is of it, which is practically nothing). I wouldn't outright oppose a traditional merge (and redirect), but I don't see it being really necessary.

  Your opinion is that WP:NOTNEWS is irrelevant - that's your view, not a fact, in as much as it is my view that it is relevant. The nature of the article presently is too ambiguous and generic, without any real purpose in its existence, though not sure it violates WP:BLPCRIME. A "keep" or "speedy keep" also implies support of keeping the article standalone, which based on the nature of the event, the little passage of time and the lack of evident significant ongoing reporting, I can't support as things stand. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  If I violated WP:TALK#REVISE I apologise and would like to correct that. Can you be specific? I certainly did not intend to do so. Or is it just that you didn't read the current version before replying to it? That is your fault not mine if so. The edit conflict software handles this well, in my experience. But you need to check why the conflict occurred before proceeding.

  I have no objection to a proper merge discussion, in fact I have been suggesting one. That's part of the reason we should close this AfD asap. But see my comment below regarding your merge and delete !vote. Andrewa (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  I use the GUI reply feature which does not necessarily stop a response being submitted if the article has changed in the meantime. I don't think "Or is it just that you didn't read the current version before replying to it? That is your fault not mine if so." is compatible with WP:AGF. It's also entirely irrelevant. We have alternate opinions on this matter, which is entirely acceptable in the scheme of reaching consensus (or not, if it concludes as NC), though a separate merge discussion would be a viable consideration in any case. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  I also use that feature. I'm surprised that it doesn't notify edit conflicts for you. It does for me.

  I did not accuse you of acting in bad faith. Andrewa (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Merge as above, it's relevant only because the Supreme Court changed the law, otherwise it would just be another medical issue/event. Oaktree b (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  Relevance or irrelevance is not the same as notability. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• Keep - Keep this important event which is likely a result of the SCOTUS overturning Roe v Wade. I am not opposed to speedy keep per above. However, if this page cannot be kept, it should be merged with history into Abortion in Ohio or Abortion in Indiana. In any case, do not delete. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge- into Abortion in Ohio, Abortion in Indiana and the impact section at Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. All of these are more appropriate venues for this content. The content is pretty much entirely tied to the last of the three articles but is also obviously important for the first two, not notable enough as some standalone event (yet at least). This is reflected in the article name too, which is just an educated proposal until some writer comes up with a better name. --Killuminator (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Killuminator and Bungle, I suggest you explain what you mean by Delete and Merge and Merge and Delete respectively. If any text content is merged, then the article history must be somehow preserved in order to satisfy the attribution requirements of our copyleft licences. See Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Andrewa (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Delete the standalone article but reuse content for other articles. The logistics of it would be up to the person applying the consensus once it's reached. Also, I believe this story warrants inclusion in those three articles regardless of this article's ultimate outcome. --Killuminator (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
      • Thank you! Did you note that the explanatory essay to which I linked states a merge and delete is not usually done unless there is a specific and pressing problem with the redirect and later Unless there is a particular reason to delete a redirect, admins should feel free to interpret "Merge and delete" votes as "Merge." A new editor may make such a vote without understanding the licensing requirements; this can be safely read as a merge vote. An advanced editor who wishes to argue for a merge and delete should make clear why the redirect would be unacceptable.
      • Yes, there are other ways of satisfying the licensing requirements, but they are a lot more trouble. Is there any reason to delete the redirect? Andrewa (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

        @Andrewa: I see Killuminator offered a rationale, as did I further up when you originally asked this. When !voting merge in an AfD, it does not necessarily have to exclusively mean "copy and paste the content, verbatim and then redirect, so that existing attribution must be preserved", although I accept that is usually what happens. My position is that the article does not need to exist and the merging in this instance can also mean reusing the source citations and the premise of what is written to include a similar mention on the target article(s), even if worded differently. Nearly half the prose here is verbal quotation anyway, so we don't attribute that to an editor. Otherwise, I am saying "delete" (but mention it on Example article), which is basically "merge and delete".

        I would not oppose a traditional merge if there is preferred consensus for that and do not object to the additional article mentions aforementioned, but either way, my position can be taken as "not keep". Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

        Disagree. Neither of you have offered any reason at all as to why the redirect should be deleted. We know that you want to do it, but why you think that it would improve Wikipedia to do it remains a mystery. There is no basis for it in policy or guidelines.

        No, "delete" is not basically "merge and delete", and the difference is very important. But your thinking that it is basically the same thing might explain a lot. Andrewa (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

        You are, I think, only reading what you want to read and are mis-interpreting statements, so I am unsure if this extended discussion will be fruitful. I have not implied "delete" == "merge and delete", but "delete with some content being useful in another article" could be delete/merge. In essence, I think we can mention this in passing in another article but I don't think we need a standalone article nor a redirect, but I wouldn't outright reject the existence of a redirect if consensus favours it. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

        Didn't you accuse me of violating wp:AGF above? You might like to read my (other-wiki) essay how to reveal yourself without really trying. Andrewa (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

        • I've said what I wanted to say. If the closing editor wants to interpret it as a merge vote, they're free to do so. I'll join Bungle in the redirect remarks and add that I feel we don't need a redirect any more than we need a standalone article on this story and that interested people could type in any combination of words to look for this story here (for example 2022 Ohio pregnant girl abortion cases or the same title without the year). There are at least 3 articles suitable to include mention of this event that are all intuitive and related to the story so a redirect is superfluous. --Killuminator (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: Lots above. Just to summarize my position, there is no argument yet presented for deleting the redirect if this article were to be merged, and nor is this the best place to discuss a merge, hence I have created Talk:Pregnancy of unnamed 10-year old Ohio girl in 2022#Merge proposals (but there is no discussion there as of yet). There is likewise no argument presented above that would justify deletion. There is however confusion as to what merge and delete means and when such an action would be justified. This is not to pre-empt the assessment of the closer, but I hope it will spare them needing to wade through my many replies above. Andrewa (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  Again, I reiterate: I do believe it is BLP1E and NOTNEWS. – robertsky (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think we understand that. What I don't understand is how you got from that belief to wanting to delete the redirect if the article were to be merged. Andrewa (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  In my original nom, I put forth in gist as "merge may be preferrable to deletion", that is if deletion is not desirable by the consensus, I rather it merged. I don't think I did advocate for deleting the redirect. I am fully aware that 'merge and delete' are typically treated as 'merge' in most cases. – robertsky (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  Excellent! Perhaps I misunderstood. So it appears that the only contributors wanting to delete the redirect, or in any sense wanting the result of this AfD to be delete, are Bungle and Killuminator, is that correct? Andrewa (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe I just do not think it's appropriate for us to have an article dedicated to the rape and subsequent pregnancy of a 10 year old child, where it doesn't seem to have had extensive long-term coverage, a conviction or long-lasting effects. I am puzzled why anyone would want to keep this, not least "speedily". I can understand some reasoning behind wanting to mention it somewhere though, so as to not pretend it hasn't happened. @Andrewa, I respect you as an editor (a veteran, no less) and I don't want to get into a personal discussion about various matters, not least things that are, frankly, irrelevant. It's positive we can all have different views about things, as long as each expressed view is respected, and expressed respectfully. If this outcome results in the status-quo, we can consider the merits of a merge, as you propose, but as the AfD has been initiated, lets at least see where we go with this first. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  Undoubtedly you do believe that. And I hope I have respected these beliefs. (I do not however have any respect at all for your unprovoked accusation of bad faith, and suggest you strike it out per WP:REDACT. But I am not going to raise it on your talk page as a behavioural matter. We all make mistakes.)

  Agree that we need to close this AfD as the next step, in fact I still think it could have been speedied. There is no case for deletion and never was, just a lack of understanding as to what this means and when it is appropriate, which is of course exactly what Wikipedia:Merge and delete discusses and why I linked to it before, in order to save saying it all here. But nobody affected seems to have read the page, so that was a waste of time.

  But I do not think there is any harm in discussing possible merges in the meantime, in a more appropriate place, and of course that's why I created Talk:Pregnancy of unnamed 10-year old Ohio girl in 2022#Merge proposals, but there is as yet no proposal there, so maybe that was a waste of my time too. Andrewa (talk) 05:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:HEY (but rename; "unnamed" is superfluous in a title that clearly doesn't name a subject). I have added content on the Indiana Attorney General's comments and investigation. The investigation will necessarily culminate in further activity, whether that constitutes charges or exoneration, so we are past the point of this being a single news event. BD2412 T 17:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
  • All criminal investigations necessarily culminate in further activity, this doesn't make the case any more notable than it really is. --Killuminator (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
    • The notability of the case is derived from national and international news reporting on various aspects of it. The significance of the ongoing investigation is that it will lead to more coverage, although notability is already more than sufficiently supported by sources in the article. BD2412 T 20:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
  • There is of course a recently closed RM at Talk:Pregnancy of unnamed 10-year old Ohio girl in 2022#Requested move 6 August 2022 which resulted in not moved, and note that nom Jax 0677 stated there I am open to suggestions on other shorter names. You seem to be opposing a merge, but there has been no comment at all at Talk:Pregnancy of unnamed 10-year old Ohio girl in 2022#Merge proposals so I suspect that the proposed merges are all dead in the water anyway. Having failed to attract any interest there, I'm reluctant to open a new RM or even a new section for informal discussion focussed on possible new names. But I guess one or the other of those is the next step. Perhaps good to wait until this AfD is eventually closed and we can then move on. Any rename should definitely go to a formal RM eventually, unfortunately. Andrewa (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: The article is currently flagged with a Notability Template. Per removing this tag, when this AfD closes that tag should IMO be removed, unless there is ongoing discussion of a merge. (Or if the article is deleted this is of course a moot point.) Andrewa (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

  And so far the silence at Talk:Pregnancy of unnamed 10-year old Ohio girl in 2022#Merge proposals is deafening. The only response has been negative. Andrewa (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

  • I would note that the article has been substantially expanded since the start of this discussion, including expansion with new developments not reported in sources until after this discussion had begun. !Votes before those developments and the consequent expansion should be weighed lightly. BD2412 T 16:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

    I observe the extensions made to the article, and while not superfluous, generally are quotes or stances taken by various individuals. I am not sure this is necessarily what would be sufficient to reasonably consider this a noteworthy encyclopedic topic (at least, at this time). On the note of this as a topic, I remain uncomfortable at the fact we are feuding over whether we keep or not, a page dedicated to a very traumatic incident experienced by a young child, for which the best offered in the article is largely others' opinions. I cannot concur with the idea that we keep this (I guess this is perhaps also a heart over head matter) and would still rather we didn't, but I respect consensus and that I have conceded a merged redirect may be the lesser worse option.

    To Andrewa, i'd say that it's perhaps not appropriate to discuss a merge matter separately while there is an open AfD (which is not an RfD, and thank you for correcting that earlier). I would also appreciate to BD2412 that my (and others') opinions not be regarded as something to be "weighted lightly"; although I know generally what you meant by that, it's for the respective editors to decide if they wish to reconsider their !vote or not as to how much weight they carry.

    A rename is surely necessary and longer term, if it doesn't end the way I have !voted or similar, i'd suggest the focus could rather be on the impact of the legal judgement and incidents this then spawned or significantly affected, as opposed to the focus being on the incident(s) themselves. I don't think that's an unreasonable position to take. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

    • The launch of a criminal investigation by the Attorney General of Indiana is more than a stance, as is, I think, the survey showing a sharp uptick of OB/GYN residents planning to leave the state in the wake of the controversy. Those are continuing impacts. BD2412 T 18:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• Note to closing administrator - The article was expanded significantly since this AFD began. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• Delete Failed WP:NOTNEWS. It seems most attention is derived from/due the completely unrelated Supreme Court case, not due to its own merits. The Banner talk 12:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

• Delete and merge per Bungle. Most the article is made up of the reactions of people to this event. Half of the "Investigation" section, which is being used here as support for a keep, is not directly related to it and serves only as background. It's also mostly quotations. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 16:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
• Keep, meets GNG. Having background is good. Containing quotes isn't a deletion reason. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, given the big changes in the article by BD2412 since it was originally nominated for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

• Keep - articles significant improvement and sourcing demonstrates it is appropriate for inclusion. Just not seeing the violation of WP:NOTNEWS here. I think the subject is significant enough to warrant a stand alone article. MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
• Keep this made national news for quite a while. Sources are more than enough. We do really really need to keep names out of it. Given some issues with that, an edit warning or something on the article might be wise. Hobit (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
• Keep - Seems like an easy keep. (a) there are tons of sources in a wide range of publications, (b) coverage has persisted from June through to the present, with multiple chapters in the story (the initial story, the right calling it a hoax, stories about proving it's not a hoax, the investigation, etc.), (c) there's every indication it will continue to be in the news as a major story about abortion at a time when abortion is a major news topic, (d) there's no obvious merge target, even if it weren't independently notable (which it seems to be). So pick one: GNG, EVENT, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge to Abortion in Ohio – There is plenty of verifiable information on reactions to the incident, but scant verifiable info on the incident itself. That smells of WP:NOTNEWS; what's really going on is that the incident is only a proxy for the larger US abortion debate. I'm also not seeing evidence of lasting coverage, despite Rhododendrites' assertion. There's this, which is a letter (and shouldn't be used in this article). Googling "Ohio ten year old abortion" only gives results more than a month ago. The suspect's name gives coverage three weeks ago, though. I suspect the suspect will be convicted, some reports on that, and then it goes dark. US media goes too fast, unfortunately.... Ovinus (talk) 07:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
  • @Ovinus: Why merge to Abortion in Ohio? The abortion was performed in Indiana by a doctor licensed in that state, and the investigation has been launched by the Indiana Attorney General. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Yeah, unfortunately there's no obvious redirect target. That's a fair reason to keep rather than redirect. My rationale is that the notability derives from Ohio's new prohibition of abortion, rather than Indiana's continued permission. In any case, if the article ends up getting kept, it will need some cleanup. I'll remove the NEVENT tag for now, though, as consensus seems to be in favor of keeping. Ovinus (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
      • Assessment of consensus is of course the responsibility of the closer, but we can help them. One way of doing this would be to either reconsider your merge !vote, or to propose a specific merge at the informal discussion at Talk:Pregnancy of unnamed 10-year old Ohio girl in 2022#Merge proposals. Just a suggestion. You will note that so far, there is no specific merge proposal there, which the closer will probably also consider. So you are far from being the only one who wants a merge but can't say where to. Andrewa (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
• Keep: clearly an event with long-lasting impact. WP:NOTNEWS is for articles where the subject received attention for a day, and then was forgotten. This is obviously not that. —VersaceSpace 🌃 18:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
• Keep It's article about the event, not the child, so BLP1E doesn't apply. I don't think NOTNEWS applies either, per above. Lasting coverage meeting GNG. No obvious redirect target either.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with VersaceSpace Pawnkingthree the article qualify to be kept.Princek2019 (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
• Keep very widely reported, and sufficiently distinct from the candidates for merge, perhaps. Chumpih ^t 20:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

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.