Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In the Womb

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 no consensus‎. There appear to be plausible sources introduced to the discussion at the last minute. Normally I'd re-list so these could be discussed, but listing and AfD discussion for a fourth week generally isn't best practice. Therefore I'd invite the participants to look carefully and objectively at these sources, and if it is felt that enough of these sources are not independent or reliable or in-depth, then another discussion should occur. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the Womb[edit]

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

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

Does not appear to pass notability guidelines. Tagged since 2020. Nothing in a BEFORE. Another editor endorsed the PROD, however, the PROD was removed with the rationale "found sources such as abcnews", but no sources were added to prove this statement. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Health and fitness, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment your BEFORE-fu is lacking. [1] wasn't hard at all to find. Most of the hits I'm getting are from a subsequent show on the same topic. Jclemens (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos for the wiki-fu reference. Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with [2] that's two independent RS'es non-trivially covering this subject. Jclemens (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first source is an interview with the videographers, the second is from the Womb Project Encyclopedia, neither of which is acceptable. The second in particular appears to be a non-RS. I can't find any reviews of the television show. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - The ABCBNews source does not seem to be an interview with the videographers, as Oaktree claims (although I might be wrong about this). My issue with this source is more to do with the significance of its coverage - the source seems more to discuss the process of having triplets and the fact that the particular couple interviewed happened to be on this documentary only really gets a passing mention. I'm not sure whether the Embryo Project Encyclopedia is a reliable source but I can't see any obvious reason to doubt that it is; it appears to be a peer-reviewed encyclopedia with a reliable looking editorial team - but this isn't my area of expertise to again happy to be corrected. I'd say this is an edge case regarding GNG: one reliable source with significant coverage and one reliable source where coverage and independence are unclear; in this case I'm inclined towards delete. WJ94 (talk) 10:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The second source was written by Inbar Maayan who received a grant from National Geographic (who broadcast the documentary) in 2018 ([3]). So not an entirely independent source (although not the strongest connection to the subject either). WJ94 (talk) 10:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of programs broadcast by National Geographic Channel - seems the best compromise. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JClemens, and I found these sources: [4][5][6][7][8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenBootWizard276 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 13 May 2023 (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.