Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prenatal discrimination

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 No consensus to delete; the best idea I see is to merge with Sex-selective abortion and infanticide to a new article, possibly named Selective abortion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 06:57Z

[edit] Prenatal discrimination

Prenatal discrimination (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A term about prejudice against fetuses. Well, initial flabbergastment aside, there's not much of an article here, and 73 unique Ghits suggests it's not a notable topic anyway. Prod removed by author. JuJube 00:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable neologism. --Strangerer (Talk) 00:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • After the author's comment on my talk page, I did a google search. I had previously based my answer on the lack of sources cited in that article. If the citations are expanded, I change my answer to Delete - WP:WINAD--Strangerer (Talk) 00:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. --Meno25 00:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Don't Delete It isn't particularly notable, but the phrase is used in some online academic papers. So its not a neologism. The stub looks like it could be fleshed out into a decent article. --Spoisp
• Don't Delete It's not a neologism. I know it looks kind of extraneous at the moment but I'll add to it. Besides there isn't a comparable page to and it is a legitimate phrase just not used very often. If nothing else it could just be left as a stub for later development. --jfraatz
• DeleteMerge I'm familiar with some of the discussions on the topic and never heard the term; it is not explanatory anyway. I think it should be merged but not stand alone. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 01:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It is very stubby, but could be fleshed out. —Carolfrog 01:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable neogolism. Leuko 01:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Google scholar shows 24 articles with the term "Prenatal discrimination". Of the dozen or so relevant hits, almost all involve sex-selective abortion procedures. PubMed doesn't show the phrase[1]. I'm leaning towards weak delete as it's not an established term, and the article exists as little more than a definition from a dictionary, which Wikipedia is not. If some encyclopedic content can be added to the page, I'll reconsider. -- Scientizzle 02:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Consider my recommendation now to be Merge with Sex-selective abortion and infanticide into an umbrella article, Selective abortion, based on the comments of myself & others below. -- Scientizzle 16:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep viable stub. John Reaves (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NG. I would reconsider per User:Scientizzle's comments. Ezratrumpet 04:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Change vote to keep, per Djrobgordon below. Ezratrumpet 02:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I got 125 google hits for the phrase. Of those, almost all used the phrase as a descriptor, rather than as the name of a concept. At most, this is a dicdef. None of the keep votes even attempt to counter the arguments for deletion.--Djrobgordon 04:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Change vote to keep, due to sourcing. I'd prefer there was something we could redirect this to, but as another editor pointed out, Sex-selective abortion and infanticide doesn't and shouldn't cover disability as a motive. If someone has a better article to redirect to, maybe I'll change my vote again.--Djrobgordon 02:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - does not appear notable. I can't conceive of any way this could be fleshed out into anything save a dicdef, and those opposed to deletion have not advanced any rationale to that effect. --Haemo 04:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. At most, include a section in the Abortion article about prenatal discrimination. The term is not notable enough by itself. --Nevhood 04:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Sex-selective abortion and infanticide already covers this topic with a much less provocative tone. Krimpet 05:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  Comment This article isn't just about sex selection but also about disability selection. --Richard 07:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Merge into another article would also be feasible. -Yupik 11:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This phrase might merit a mention in Sex-selective abortion but the existence of the latter article makes this one redundant as an article in it's own right, in my view. Jules1975 11:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep/merge There doesn't seem to be much of a reason to delete it, however I do see how it could be viewed as kind of a weak basis for a stub. I think that if it isn't kept it could be merged with another article under a prenatal discrimination subsection. --Rdjohnson
  • Note This user's only edits are to this article and its AfD.--Djrobgordon 02:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and transwiki: Merge the information into another article and transwiki this to Wiktionary. The information would be a reasonable section in another Wikipedia article, and it seems to fit Wiktionary in its current state. Pyrospirit ^{Flames Fire} 16:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Looking through the footnotes, there is only evidence for this terms existence (outside of wikipedia) from the European Blind Union. However, I did not read through the University of Washington paper extensively. If the term is used exactly, I would say that it barely passes "multiple secondary sources" (with a grand total of 2). However, from a brief skim of that article the phrase is not used, and I'm assuming a delete for failure of WP:N-Markeer 17:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Changed to Keep It does seem there is more encyclopedic substance to the article now, which can be built on, and it is no longer merely a definition. There are only three sources at the moment although I googled it and more sources can definitely be added. Also I do not see how it could be merged any longer as the article it would most likely to be merged into ie. (sex-selective abortions) would not contain information on disability related abortions which this article does. It might however be possible to merge sex-selective abortions into this article since that is a subtopic here. --Rdjohnson
• KeepDespite my original feelings I'll have to vote to keep it for the following reasons:
  • It is fleshing out with more encyclopedic content than I originally thought it would, and isn't just a dictionary definition anymore.
  • It isn't used much but it apparently does have legitimate usage among scholarly papers.
  • I don't think it can be merged anymore since it is a distinct topic of its own, even though it is definitely relatable to other topics.--MegaMind
  • Note User's only edits are to this article and its AfD.--Djrobgordon 02:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

    So, don't bite the newbie. It's probably a good faith first try. --Richard 07:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The article has been significantly expanded and sources provided. I feel the presence of multiple sources (including academic papers) lays to rest the question of the concept's notability. -- Black Falcon 21:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The first ref just uses the words as a descriptor not a defined term per se so is not a reference for the term as such, just a discussion which would be a more proper ref off abortion or disability or something else. It has clearly been put in to justify having this article. The whole topic can and should be discussed under the other topics already listed such as aobrtion on the basis of sex or disability. I'll have a look at the other refs now... cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 21:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Similarly refs 2 and 3 .....cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 22:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see sources such as [2] and [3], which explicitly discuss the issue in the context of "discrimination". The sex selective abortion article moreover does not discuss disabilities. I would support a merge of this into another article, but that would require it to survive deletion first. -- Black Falcon 22:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I still think it's grasping at straws a bit but I do agree on the merge, as tehre's a little extra to add on the topic which is clearly integral to the other discussions - in fact I'll vote that above if possible. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 06:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Perhaps a more appropriate solution would be to combine this article and sex selective abortion into a selective abortion article that can deal with all the issues? -- Scientizzle 05:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with sex selection Wl219 07:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • What would you suggest doing with the material about disability-motivated abortions?--Djrobgordon 07:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Topic is notable even if the title is a neologism. Consider moving the article to selective abortion per User:Scientizzle. --Richard 07:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and move to somewhere people can actually find it. --Dookama 12:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• I think it should probably be linked to the see also sections of related topics.--Spoisp
• Comment Since this article encompasses sex-selective abortion we could just merge it under this article under a specific sex-selective abortion sub-heading instead of creating a whole new article for it. That way we could also expand the article in ways that might not necessarily involve selective abortion per se but perhaps involve prenatal discrimination in other areas like opposition for healthcare rights for pregnant mothers and their offspring or economic discrimination against pregnant mothers with fetuses. I don't know if that's relevant but I just thought I'd toss it up there as a possibility.--Spoisp
• Another possibility: prenatal discrimination and selective abortion might also work as a merge page if we do decide to merge it. --Spoisp
• Comment Possibly I don't know if selective abortion should necessarily be in the title then though if that kind of material is added. On the other hand I think you definitely have a point about creating a sex-selective abortion subheading although I think a selective abortion subheading would be good as a title or part of a title for the first part of the article. I also thought it might be a good idea to include material regarding attacks on pregnant women motivated by reasons for attempting to end the pregnancy based on the spouses or grandparents economic or social motivations not to permit a delivery. I do definitely think that including the information in the sex-selective abortion article in this article would be a good idea whether or not we decide to merge it. --jfraatz
• Comment - The article brings together two kinds of selective abortion, sex and anti-disability selectivity. Both are notable, but they need to be linked to articles on the individual subjects (using the 'main' template, or some other). Selective abortion might be a better title. Peterkingiron 00:23, 5 March 2007 (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.