Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sperm Bank of California


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The Sperm Bank of California

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The references do not offer substantial coverage of the subject--they are about the general problems involved, and only mention this particular organization.  DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn--see below   DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:BEFORE:
 * "[D]onor identification release... when the man donates sperm, he agrees that when his offspring turn 18, they can ... get contact information. The Sperm Bank of California in Berkeley was the first to offer this option, in 1983... [It] was considered at the forefront of its field when it offered identity release 20 years ago." The New York Times, May 21, 2002
 * "Until now, DI adult experiences with open-identity donation remain relatively unexplored, because few programs worldwide have offspring old enough to obtain their donor's identifying information (14). In addition to the US program (The Sperm Bank of California, first offspring born 1983), the oldest programs are in Sweden (1985), Austria (1992), Victoria state, Australia (1998), and New Zealand (1990s)." Fertility and Sterility February 2017. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.10.023
 * There are many more. I have added 2 additional RS to the article. If need be, I can add additional. --- Coffee  and crumbs  10:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment This article and two more related was deleted in Spanish Wikipedia and one argument by the -now blocked- creator against the deletion was precisely the existence of this article. Best, ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I was blocked in the Spanish Wikipedia because I strongly protested the decision to speedily delete all articles about sperm banks for being "promotional" and "of no encyclopedic relevance" although in the Spanish project the only declared criteria for relevance are that there are multiple reliable sources with in-depth coverage and that are independent of the subject, which is clearly the case for this one and the two biggest others. I hate it if people take decisions purely based on their own preferences, do not listen at all to reasoning of others, stick to refuted claims (like there is no in depth coverage when they have been shown multiple sources and just a quick search should have quickly solved the issue) and then act in a condescending way. If you have any criteria by which this is not a relevant topic, please let me know. I could for example imagine that for a firm the number of employees, turnover or founding date could usually be necessary. In my opinion, if there is such media coverage over an extended time spam that already shows relevance. Crotopaxi (talk) 01:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment the contributor makes a good case for the inclusion of a combination article about the companies taking this approach to the field. But it's not enough to justify a separate article for any of them.  DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you think is missing for individual articles about companies? There is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject for each of them. Crotopaxi (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. on the basis of the sources found by,  . This does seem to have been the first sperm bank to allow donor identification, not just in the US,  but in the world,   This was not mentioned in the version I saw when I nominated it,  I think that's sufficient importance,  and  sufficient substantial coverage to show it from  reliable peer-reviewed sources.  .  I admit I did not look properly because I assumed from the scanty rather routine article  that nothing would be there to be found.  I can't withdraw the afd because there was another delete !vote, but that was before the sources were added.   DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 7 September 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.