Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concerned United Birthparents

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. Recent work to the article has now left it in a viable state, per WP:HEY. (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned United Birthparents

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

No evidence of notability. The article contains no independent sources, and searching has failed to produce any substantial coverage in independent sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I undeleted this as a contested PROD at the request of new user CUB.Curator (talk · contribs), and then stubbed it because the remaining content was too closely modelled on the organization's Facebook page. I have explained to the user that the issue is notability and advised them, in view of obvious COI, not to edit the article directly but to add any independent references they can provide to the article talk page. JohnCD (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. A7 Caffeyw (talk) 07:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG. THIS is actually lifted from Christine Adamec and William Pierce, The Encyclopedia of Adoption, 2nd Edition, published by Facts On File, Inc.,2000, for example, which is rock-solid. The argument of A7 is specious. Carrite (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And THIS is from the Adoption History Project at the University of Oregon, which is the work of Ellen Herman, associate professor of history. Carrite (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The CUB organization also receives coverage in Jayne Askin, Search: A Handbook for Adoptees and Birthparents. (ABC-CLIO, 1998). CUB appears to be one of two leading national groups advocating for birthparents' rights. Carrite (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The history of CUB also receives extensive coverage in Rickie Solinger, Beggars and Choosers: How the Politics of Choice Shapes Adoption, Abortion, and Welfare in the United States. Hill and Wang, 2001. See pp. 107-120 and passim. Carrite (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've done some work on the piece (which was started way back in 2006, by the way, not as a recent bit of promotion by a single purpose editor). The A7 complaint should melt away now. Not a perfect piece, needs to be sourced more precisely (page numbers) and expanded, but it's on the right track now, presumably. Carrite (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is NOT a promo for the founder nor organization's web presence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjaffe10 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 25 August 2013
Comment - members of the organization are working on their giant learning curve of wiki-tech issues. Outside sources recognize the organization including a comment from Dan Rather Reports Facebook HERE and Harvard Library HERE More outside source references coming. This reference is in WIKIBjaffe10 (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2013 (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.