Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Whole Genome Sequenced Family


 * 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

First Whole Genome Sequenced Family

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is some sort of weird ugly WP:SYNTH, most likely written by Libby Mitchell, the University of Utah School of Medicine Social Media Coordinator - user:UUHCLibby.

The article is a mix of ZOMG, self-publicity and publicity for the various family members. It is about as far from an encyclopedia article as you'd want to see; more something that you might find in a newspaper or magazine.

I have grave doubts about the notability of whatever the subject matter of the article is; I very much doubt that the claim "First Whole Genome Sequenced Family" is credible ... genome sequencing on family members is surely not that uncommon across the research community, for obvious reasons.

What we seem to be left with is, here are a group of people who have an interesting genetic condition. Someone has done some genetic research on them, and, err, that's it. Having a genetic condition does not make the family itself notable. We do not need to know 'about Debbie Jones'. We don't need to know that she does public speaking about overcoming challenges. We do not need to know the same sort of information about each of the members of the family.

There /might/ be an article to be had here. However this version is so so far away from it as to suggest that the best course of action is to throw this one away and await an uninvolved third-party starting a sane and measured article. Tagishsimon (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete I came across this earlier and found it so bizarre that I watchlisted it because I couldn't think of what should be done with it. At the very least, it's a TNT situation. Natureium (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note This started out as Draft:The First Family Ever to Have Their Entire Genome Sequenced (which is where I first saw it). That was then WP:G7'd after User:Ilmchal12410 blanked the page.  User:Ilmchal12410 in turn started out as User:8f8t but was renamed when I pointed out the promotional aspect of the username.  Some of this is explained in the history of User_talk:Ilmchal12410 before those conversations were removed.  Hopefully this explanation will save people some time doing archeology.  -- RoySmith (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the OP. I am happy to make the changes necessary to make this article more wiki proper. I can provide more proof they were indeed the first family to have their genome mapped as part of their connection to the Utah Genome Project. My intent in posting this was to make people aware that this has happened -- nothing else. UUHCLibby (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should not be used as either a soapbox or a publicity machine. Agricolae (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't see the sustained coverage that would represent notability.  We are long enough afterwards that this should show up in scientific reviews or textbooks were it to be a 'thing', but it looks more like the science story of the week, forgotten the next week.  (If kept, it needs some thought about what is important about the story.  Giving individual sections of one or two sentences for each of the children gives the distinct impression of molehill mountain-building.) Agricolae (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Amplifying this, the refs break down into 1) non-notable local news, 2) science story of the week without any sustained interest, 3) a distribution company bought distribution rights to a documentary about one family member and are sending it straight to video (which doesn't bode well for much added notability coming from that venture). I don't consider this as meeting WP:NOTABILITY, and that is without even factoring in the clear WP:COI and admitted WP:NOTPROMOTION issues. Agricolae (talk) 04:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 02:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 02:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment the two main contributors are connected. Other user's have pointed out Libby's connection, but just would like to note that the other major contributor was previously registered as User:8f8t, an abbreviation for the name of the book mentioned in the article. This is obvious self promotion. I haven't yet delved into whether or not the subjects are notable, but even if they are the article should probably be nuked and started under a more appropriate name. Even after I did a rewrite the content reeks of a press release. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 02:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:PROMO, WP:NOTNEWS. If the event is notable, the article should be on that, and not a mishmash of bios of the people involved. As far as I can tell, there are 2 papers referencing the event, with a respectable number of citations to be sure, but neither the original papers nor the citing papers make substantial comments on the event itself (nor of the specific people involved). Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per OP, but also because who defines what a "family" is? Scientifically, for the reasons of genetics, this makes no sense. A family would be the entire lineage, not just two generations. So why is this notable? Four people related to each other were sequenced via Whole-Genome Sequencing? I don't think that, in and of itself, is notable enough for its own article. At best it should be a footnote in the Whole-Genome Sequencing article, or in the article about Genetic inheritance. It certainly has not met merit of notability to standard wiki levels per independent reliable source-derived citations demonstrating notability. -- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 05:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Needless cross-categorization in addition to lack of depth from independent sources needed for GNG. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2018 (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.