Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human life begins at conception
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged into some other abortion page - SimonP 23:45, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Article is a slogan, non-encyclopedic, and can be deleted as POV in accordance with Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents DanP 00:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep; article is not a slogan, it is about a slogan and the meaning of the slogan. It is encyclopedic. → JarlaxleArtemis 00:50, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge into Pro-choice or wherever. mikka (t) 01:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as JarlaxleArtemis, but clean up
- The above vote was by me CAPS LOCK 01:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Merge as a subchapter of Pro-life. Alternately, at least change the title to Slogan: Human life begins at conception. (I see that alternate title is already a redirect.) 23skidoo 01:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Merge this and A woman's right to choose into an article on Abortion debate slogans. -- BD2412 talk 02:37, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
- Keep. If you click on the category "Political slogans" you'll find that there are already 35 slogans that are categorized. In that context, I would keep both this slogan and A woman's right to choose as separate articles, although BD2412's suggestion to merge them (and presumably leave the current articles as redirects) is not a bad second choice. DS1953 02:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Merge per what BD2412 said -CunningLinguist 02:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Don't Merge Redirect to suggested arty on Abortion controversy slogans, or keep as is. (Otherwise searches won't find it; search engine scans titles, as those of us working historical battle revisions can easily demonstrate.) As an arty is professional, and presents both sides. Fabartus 05:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as is, especially if we keep A woman's right to choose as is. Nateji77 05:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with Pro-life will provide context. Sjakkalle 07:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with Abortion. Jamyskis 10:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Political slogan which is widespread enough to be notable.--Scimitar 14:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)- Keep — notable political/religious viewpoint/slogan. — RJH 16:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Revolución 16:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: Are you folks imagining things? The article is inherently POV, and the title is a declarative statement. We would not have an article called History Is Bunk or Religion is the opiate of the masses or Pretending to extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit is a horrid thing. The article simply cannot be kept under this title. A merge would be ok, but, let's face it, this vote is showing so many socks, so many people not paying attention to the policy, that I'm not in favor of anything that preserves this title as a redirect, as it will soon be recreated in all its gory. Geogre 18:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Et tu, Geogre? I hate the phrase "this article is inherently POV". Hate hate hate hate hate it. To see you use it is the last straw, really. You know what articles are inherently POV? None. Individual words can be POV, sure. "Horrible" cannot be used in any neutral context unless attributed. Individual phrases can be POV, absolutely. List of celebrities who suck would, if it lived up to its title, make for a POV article, so the title can reasonably be called POV. Heck, I'd give you that an article with that title would probably get POV content as well. But articles can be moved trivially, and are cleaned up in the POV department as a matter of standard operating procedure. The word inherently implies a finality that seems completely at odds with the wiki nature.
In general, merging a slogan article with the article that provides its context is certainly preferable to keeping it separate, as that invites misunderstanding. Technically, we should put quotes around phrases used as titles; I suppose we do not because it makes linking rather unintuitive, and makes for awkward titles. But rallying the delete votes with the appeal to fear that what has a POV title now must be eradicated lest it spawns more POV, going so far as to imply even a redirect will be beyond our capacities to manage: now that is what I call defeatist.
Oh, and opiate of the masses, eh? I give you, sir, opium of the people, which is admittedly not a declarative statement, a horrible excuse for an article, and not meant to bolster my argument—but just for completeness. JRM · Talk 23:46, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
- Et tu, Geogre? I hate the phrase "this article is inherently POV". Hate hate hate hate hate it. To see you use it is the last straw, really. You know what articles are inherently POV? None. Individual words can be POV, sure. "Horrible" cannot be used in any neutral context unless attributed. Individual phrases can be POV, absolutely. List of celebrities who suck would, if it lived up to its title, make for a POV article, so the title can reasonably be called POV. Heck, I'd give you that an article with that title would probably get POV content as well. But articles can be moved trivially, and are cleaned up in the POV department as a matter of standard operating procedure. The word inherently implies a finality that seems completely at odds with the wiki nature.
- Et me, JRM. Let's put it this way: this title is a statement. It is a sentence, not a clipping, and not a slogan. It is a sentence frequently uttered by the Roman Catholic Church in its campaign against birth control and by the anti-abortion legality people in their arguments against allowing anyone to choose what they would not. It is not, though, a slogan that is a descriptor, like "pro-life" or "pro-choice." Including this title is to bear a POV statement, not a topic. That's why it has to go. The title itself is an expression of POV, and a highly controversial one. As for whether I think someone, somewhere might RC patrol only this article and never miss when it has been reverted to a proselytizing matter, I do not think that we should have to do so simply to avoid the agony of a move, merge, or deletion. Geogre 14:45, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- And I do not oppose a move or merge at all. The status as separate article isn't sacrosanct to me. A deletion is another matter, especially on grounds of what we should or should not be required to do. We aren't required to do anything; that's why it's a wiki. This sort of "minimal threshold" argument for what criteria articles should meet in order to not be judged "too burdensome to bear" will never leave the realm of personal opinion. And while I respect yours, I'm equally adamant in not applying such criteria. As far as I'm concerned, the responsibility the collective of Wikipedia editors can bear has not reached its maximum by far. JRM · Talk 16:05, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
- Et me, JRM. Let's put it this way: this title is a statement. It is a sentence, not a clipping, and not a slogan. It is a sentence frequently uttered by the Roman Catholic Church in its campaign against birth control and by the anti-abortion legality people in their arguments against allowing anyone to choose what they would not. It is not, though, a slogan that is a descriptor, like "pro-life" or "pro-choice." Including this title is to bear a POV statement, not a topic. That's why it has to go. The title itself is an expression of POV, and a highly controversial one. As for whether I think someone, somewhere might RC patrol only this article and never miss when it has been reverted to a proselytizing matter, I do not think that we should have to do so simply to avoid the agony of a move, merge, or deletion. Geogre 14:45, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete!. Extremely POV!!! RickK 19:07, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete drini ☎ 20:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't see a lot of socks here, but I have re-evaluated my decision, and agree that the title makes the article inherently POV. However I find the Extremely POV! statement by RickK interesting, given that he didn't see fit to put a similar statement on the article below, and the contents of either article are, respectfully, not terribly POV in either case. I also would like some verification of the sockpuppet charge, as I don't see any sockpuppets, and sockpuppets generally pop up to serve the purposes of radical users who have some personal affinity for the article. I don't see any of that here. --Scimitar 20:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Article title will lead to an inherently POV article. --Carnildo 21:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with Pro-life. carmeld1 22:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Merge. as suggested above. M412k 22:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Merge. — Phil Welch 23:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect, as per my long but I hope coherent rant above. JRM · Talk 23:46, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a notable political slogan, and the article has criticism in it. There is no POV. See [Better dead than red]].-LtNOWIS 03:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Morality and legality of abortion or Pro-life. It's already stated in both. --Idont Havaname 07:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep — Jesse's Girl | Please talk! 11:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with pro-life. No reason why the slogan deserves a separate article. Kaibabsquirrel 04:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with Abortion debate slogans ~~~~ 16:55, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.