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 of the debate was delete. No Guru 03:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Childless Mother

[edit]

Seems long advertising promotion for a book. No evidence provided that the book is especially notable or cited by a Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Created by same editor who set up an apparantly spam article also nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Www.PregnancyJourneysAfterLoss.com David Ruben Talk 01:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the editor of said book and host of said website. Not enough attention is paid to the hundreds of thousands of women around the globe who consider themselves mothers but who are childless due to miscarriage and stillbirth. The book is in review with notables in the field of pregnancy loss through PLIDA, A Place to Remember, The Centering Corporation and has been endorsed by leaders in the field of pregnancy loss and pregnancy after loss. I don't consider the topic of being a childless mother SPAM, and I would venture any mother who held her stillborn child in her arms wouldn't either. - Amy L. Abbey, editor
That's a red herring and you know it - appealing to people's sense of pity has nothing to do with the notability of an article. If you feel it is notable, write an article, don't just copy and paste a section of the book. Tokakeke 01:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These edits are mostly spam. What really irks me is that you're aware of the existence of those articles, and you claim to care about the issues surrounding them; yet all your edits are self-promotion. That is not what we need around here. Melchoir 02:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an article from the book Journeys: Stories of Pregnancy After Loss. This article has not been printed elsewhere. I am not the owner or an employee of WovenWord Press. This book is NOT self-published. This article was drafted to enlighten individuals about the existence of childless mothers. Childless mothers exist. Are any of you childless mothers or fathers? Have you experienced this? It is a completely non-validating experience. Our stories have nothing to do with pity. Why don't you read it and decide for yourself? Childless Mother, the phrase, I defined in Wikitionary. My intent was not to SPAM, it was to raise awareness. Everyone starts somewhere, perhaps I picked the wrong place although I thought this was part of Wikipedia's mission. Amy L. Abbey
So revising this into an article more of an encyclopaedic format would be acceptable, is that what the consensus is? Are there any women here commenting on this? I don't want to be adversarial, my goal is to increase awareness about the every-growing cohort of childless mothers (not childless women by choice) Elovesme99
In terms of article style, that is closer (vs just quoting), but one has to cite a reliable external source. As an editor, that source can not include ones own work. So if subject is covered by a notable book or newspaper article, then the topic gains notability and there are sources to cite as giving the views that are then sumarised in the encyclopaedia. As well as the situation needing to be described elsewhere, so does the specific term 'childless mother' (vs 'bereaved parents' which I agree is not quite what you are referring to). Slightly off-topic, but indicating the need to cite a source for usage, are there not 'Childless Fathers' too, so unless the term is specifically defined and in common use would 'Childless parents' be an alternative heading ? David Ruben Talk 15:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does a book get to be notable by Wiki definition? Childless mothers and childless fathers have different experiences. As a mother, I can only write from a woman's perspective. Childless mother, the phrase comes up sporadically on Internet-searches, and is very recently being used. Elovesme99

That may be so, but you're inferring the term is notable, not the book. If the term is your main intent to write about, explain :it on Wiktionary. It should not even be on Wikipedia unless the term has some notability that isn't just it simply being a
term. As for the book, there are specific guidelines on when a book merits its own article. "Nonetheless there is no dictum against :any book that is reasonably spread or otherwise well-known or remarkable. Ask yourself if several libraries or bookshops, or a :no-subscription website have a copy of the book, so that other wikipedians can easily consult the book, or at least have access to :on-line or press-published reviews of the book." Also, see :WP:NINAD. Tokakeke 22:41, 21 April 2006 (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.
More