Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parents Via Egg Donation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 DELETE. postdlf (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Parents Via Egg Donation[edit]
- Parents Via Egg Donation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY for WP:CORP, WP:WEBand WP:NOT. previously incarnations were created by the owner Marnad1963 (talk · contribs) as Parents Via Egg Donation Organization and Parents via egg donation which was Deleted as G11; Blatant advertising. Has two links but one is a press releases by the owner and the other is self created blog enty. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement and advertising, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I have attempted to find sources and any reference to this organization outside of the organization itself and was unable to do so. It is an orphan article which is not notable in any way, written by members of the organization itself, and serves no purpose other than advertising the organization. - SudoGhost (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree with the nominator. This article has no business being on Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There is no doubt that this article needs a great deal of improvement. However, the founder was quoted in the name of the organization in THIS ARTICLE IN NEWSWEEK and THIS ARTICLE IN THE NEW YORK TIMES, indicating (to me at least) that this is an organization worthy of encyclopedic coverage. I took the liberty of pulling down two flags from the top of the article, one of which alleges this piece is "Written like an advertisement" — which I don't see at all — and another which alleges it was "Written by someone with close connection to the subject" — which I don't see as particularly relevant. Improve, don't delete. Carrite (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC) link fix: Carrite (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't see the two articles as the kind of significant coverage that would make this organization notable. In addition, I reverted your removal of the tags on the website as I see no basis for removing them, which according to your edit summary, "skews" the debate here. I don't see that. The article still exists until this discussion is closed, and the tags should remain. I don't think that anyone here is influenced by the tags, and both have solid bases for being there.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I Agree with Bbb23 on this matter. Neither articles establsh notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Secondly, A major contributor to this article was the owner, Marna Gatlin whom also created the 2 other articles, has previous blocks for being an "advertising-only account" and has no other edits other than related to promoting Parents Via Egg Donation. Clearly advertising and COI.--Hu12 (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2011 (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.