Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooks Surname DNA Project


 * 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. While the deletion of an article you created can be discouraging, WP:N is an official guideline. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Brooks Surname DNA Project

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a non-notable DNA project. FamilyTreeDNA currently has 7,347 such surname projects. These projects are administrated by "unpaid volunteers who have an interest in the history and genealogy of a particular haplogroup, lineage, geographic region, or surname". Anyone can create a surname project. The creator of the article is User:Nigelbrooks; the adminstrator of the surname project is "Nigel Brooks". The only published thing I could find about the project on Google and GoogleBooks was by a publisher (Ceed Publishing) pushing Wikipedia articles.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The Article has been written in an unbiased way and would welcome a 3rd party analysis added to it - you would have hoped people with the intellect of Brianann MacAmhlaidh and expertise on DNA would help with this rather than trying to get all FTDNA Surname Projects removed from Wikipedia - I question if Brianann MacAmhlaidh has a 3rd party reason for attacking such pages when they do not constitute their own personal views - I have read many Wiki articles where this user has attacked an article when they do not represent this users views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigelbrooks (talk • contribs) 12:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based upon reliable third-part sources. If the subject of an article isn't given significant coverage by independent sources, it's not considered notable. A FamilyTreeDNA project isn't notable in itself; and it's project webpage, administrator, and affiliate webpages aren't independent sources. Wikipedia isn't the place to publicise or advertise a particular subject, but a place to display a summary of what reliable sources have to say about the subject.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 13:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Eminently non-notable. Sorry, Nigel. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

It is certainly not written for publicity and great pains went into making sure any external links to research and websites by the original creator of the page were not included. - This is very discouraging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.1.82 (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't appear to have have received significant independent coverage. --Michig (talk) 07:33, 6 April 2013 (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.