Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Designer baby

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Designer baby[edit]

This topic is already covered by Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and Human genetic engineering, which are much more developed. Also, this article could be seen as a POV fork. Bob A (talk) 06:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Redirect to Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. The term is simply a WP:NEO. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The term gets 428,000 Google hits. According to Designer Babies: Ethical Considerations (ActionBioscience): “In 2004 the term “designer baby” made the transition from sci-fi movies and weblogs into the Oxford English Dictionary, where it is defined as “a baby whose genetic makeup has been artificially selected by genetic engineering combined with in vitro fertilization to ensure the presence or absence of particular genes or characteristics.” This coinage was prompted by recent advances in genetics that may make such babies possible.” Therefore, it is not a neologism. The term is notable in its own right because it refers to many controversial issues that are not discussed in the other articles so it deserves it's own article where these issues can be explored. However, I agree the current version of the article needs to be expanded and improved. That being said, if we vote to merge, I would favor reprogenetics (using the test tube baby and in vitro fertilisation as the example of how the merge should be done). --Loremaster (talk) 11:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Reprogenetics. At present the lead of Designer baby says it's a colloquial term "... usually used pejoratively to signal opposition to such use of reprogenetics", which is an older article covering very much the same subject but with somewhat more balance. I'm not entirely decided which should be merged into which, but the term 'reprogenetics' seems less colloquial and at least a bit more neutral. Qwfp (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a term that comes up often and needs its own article. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is neither logical nor helpful to have information on the same topic at two different locations. That is why we have redirects. -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 15:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am certainly not a biologist, but it seems that "designer baby" is a more specific topic than "human genetic engineering". One "holds the promise of curing genetic diseases", the other the promise of walking into a classroom full of clones of Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Redirects are not created by deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with reprogenetics, as that seems to be the scientific term. We should be sure not to lose too much in the merge, since it seems to contain some good sourced information, though it needs a major POV check. -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 15:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, to reprogenetics or to the more general article on human genetic engineering, since the germline section in that article is a little thin. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term by itself as a specific popular meaning and context, somewhat different and more specific than "human genetic ~~information~~engineeering": which can mean a great many things There's quite a literature using this term specifically DGG (talk) 08:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled, nobody has suggested a merge with human genetic information, which isn't an article anyway. Did you mean to discuss a merge with that title? Tim Vickers (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make many any sense since that would be a move rather than a merge. Furthermore, "human genetic information" is too vague a subject while "human trait selection" would be much more specific and relevant but we decided against it on the Talk:Designer baby page. --Loremaster (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant human genetic engineering, and I agree with you that it is much better not to do that. DGG (talk)

Actually, there was no consensus. Bob A (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with reprogenetics, as Designer baby is simply a colloquial way of saying reprogenetics. By merging reprogenetics with designer baby, it'd be a much more neutral topic rather than an having a biased article with regards to 'designer babies'. It's as if the term 'designer baby' is a pejorative. Bloodmerchant (talk) 11:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Reprogenetics" is jargon, "designer baby" is the common English term. At present the content is different. Whether they should be combined is unclear, but could bediscussed on the talk pages. DGG (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All of the suggested merge targets are to more general information. This concept is related to those subjects, but not equivilent to any of them. While it could technically be covered in one of those article, the idea of getting a "perfect baby" through genetic engineering is notable in its own right and deserves its own article. Any POV issues can be solved through editing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "designer baby" means "perfect baby". Bob A (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Huge notability and so there is no case for deletion. The rest is a matter of ordinary content editing. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:54, 24 June 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.