Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Onselling of sperm

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Onselling of sperm

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I don't see why this should be its own article. This article is too UK-specific and mostly unsourced and should be deleted as it stands. QueenofBithynia (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Sexuality and gender, Medicine, and United Kingdom. Skynxnex (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a topic that's afforded any coverage in reliable, secondary sources. I considered merging as an alternative to deletion, but there's already a brief treatment given to the topic at Sperm donation#Onselling, and even that is probably overlong. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. No reliable secondary sources are cited either within the article or in the Onselling section of the Sperm donation page. Unclear from basic Internet/Wikipedia Library searches that the term "onselling of sperm" has much currency to begin with; even the lone source cited within the article (London Sperm Bank) does NOT use the term. There is even a Sperm donation laws by country page which this page points to, where this topic could be covered. Even if "onselling" seems like it *should* be discussed separately from "donation", we can't justify having a standalone page until there is SIGCOV on the topic. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Firefangledfeathers has the right rationale here. Lightburst (talk) 00:28, 9 October 2022 (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.