Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roe effect

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 keep. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 16:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roe_effect

Not a real effect, promoted by single journalists, blatantly POV

See variety of comments in favour of deletion of very similar "NRA Effect" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NRA_effect

• Keep. This unsigned and improperly submitted VFD (I had to put it on the log, as VFDer could not be bothered to follow procedure) is obviously political retaliation for the successful VFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NRA effect. Note that User:Grizzlebees has only posted on this subject (Special:Contributions/Grizzlebees); user's first (surviving) edit was to add a link to the NRA effect, an article she created about a spurious effect with no discussion at all on the Web by that name that I could find. The Roe effect has been extensively discussed, with statistics, by Mr. Taranto, and has been used by others. Whether you agree with an article's topic or not isn't the issue; the issue is whether the article's topic exists as an issue to discuss. The Roe effect does; the NRA effect does not. A2Kafir 20:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems like a valid article to me. It's an established theory and that's what counts. Devotchka 20:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - it appears to be a pet theory of a single journalist, per nom. I find the thesis not particularly credible, since only a tiny minority of women have terminations anyway, and people become more conservative with age; children of conservative parents are often very liberal as a reaction against those parents. Not that credibility is a criterion, but a hobby horse of one journalist / commentator with no evidential basis is decidely unencyclopaedic. - Just zis Guy, you know? 21:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • How can you have 40 million abortions or so since 1972 and conclude that it's a "tiny minority"? But that's not really the issue here; the issue is that is the article's subject of significant use? Seems to be: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] The point is, it's out there being discussed. It's not just made up on the spot, as NRA effect was. A2Kafir 22:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - concept seems to be widely discussed. The article does not go into all aspects of the Roe Effect though - some of them may be considered pro-Democrat or pro-pro choice. Adding these to article Bwithh 02:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, if kept, the article needs to be cleaned up. There are so many problems with this hypothesis that it's hard to know where to begin. It's very similar to the "NRA effect", except more widely known. -- Kjkolb 03:02, 29 October 2005 (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.