Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Pratt Family Association

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 merge. Already done a week and a half ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Pratt Family Association[edit]

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

The association is not notable - the sources include the associations own pages, and an LDS article only affirming that the organization exists. And a broken link as well. There is zero actual notability for this "association" Collect (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note that Jared Pratt is the father of 19th-century scientist Orson Pratt, who founded the family association and also was a famous Mormon theologian; another of Jared's sons, Parley P. Pratt, is considered the "apostle paul" of Mormonism.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With over 32,000 known Pratt descendants - it would seem that this "tree source" family association has no value other than to show Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman, Sr. are among 5,000 to 10,000 fourth cousins. And the article sources show the exceeding non-notability of the Association. Mentions in any major works? Nope. Newspapers? Nope. Note that "notability" on Wikipedia requires non-trivial mentions in outside reliable sources, which this "family association" does not meet. Collect (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A claim the organization has not been mentioned in newspapers would appear to be a bit donald trump.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google notes for the main source:
- Of the 10 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 4 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2012-03-06, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2012-02-18. Collect (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Conspiracy theories don't really belong in AfDs.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - - [Appended later]: Huh? One should avoid filling up a discussion page with screaming font concerning a temporary Web glitch, it might be assumed: Jared.Pratt-Family.org homepage.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I did not make a conspiracy theory - I stated what Google states after giving a bold "Malware Warning" for the site. I would also note that "prweb.com" is not a WP:RS either, and the adding of clearly non-RS sources does not make the association notable. Cheers - and please WP:NPA. Collect (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Aside - (This is not the article's talkpage, however I will respond): PRWeb, of course, hosts companies' press releases on the web and, per wp:SELFPUBLISHED, companies' press releases are considered reliable about such indiv. companies themselves.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        prweb.com is not a WP:RS That much is exceedingly clear. Collect (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        wp:RS: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. ..."
        IAC, the Grows's company's press release is from a company intimately knowledgeable about schorarly/professional genealogical research and buttresses a completely non-controversial assertion with regard to the Grow family of academics' involvement with the Pratt family assoc., as ultimately sourced in the article to reporting by journalist Peggy Fletcher Stack.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. The family tree should be removed from the article – this is about the organization, not the family. Category:Family associations shows only a handful of articles like this one. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I collapsed the chart to its bottom-banner "navbox" state.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This family organization--one of the oldest continuously existing, as formally constituted, of its kind--enjoys sufficient source material for contributors to verify its existence and expand its coverage on WP.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This content (such as it is) should be included in the Orson Pratt article. On it's own it doesn't meet notability guidelines. Capitalismojo (talk) 11:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: HSG added "merge discussion" templates to the association page for a merge to Pratt family, and also on the Pratt family page - directing people to this page for a "merger" discussion. And later comments based on that new notice should be weighed accordingly. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge as suggested , to Pratt family. A rather obvious way to go, I'd think. BTW, my view is that PR based sources are reliable enough for routine uncontroversial facts, but not to establish that something is notable . DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively, to the Pratt family article. The organization exists, but the sources presented do not persuade me that it is sufficiently notable for an independent article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 20:16, 25 March 2012 (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.