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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-abortion by country[edit]

Anti-abortion by country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

The contents of this article are already covered in both Anti-abortion movements and Abortion law, and in various "Abortion in COUNTRY/CONTINENT" articles. I've recommended mergers for both pages, reviewed content and cites in detail, and modified the article significantly. By WP:GNG on the topic "Anti-abortion by country", I suggest to delete or move to the draftspace. Sections use WP:SYNTHESIS to suggest citations about various religions, abortion access, and legality imply general public opinion. This content is in clear violation of WP:OR & WP:NPOV, violations which would be further motivated by the article topic. Few to no citations where the primary topic is "anti-abortion" for each country suggest the topic is not notable.

Edit: I would also argue delete under WP:NOPAGE. Framing an article on the topic of abortion in an article which only covers the anti side of the issue makes it impossible to include important context even with the right RS, and trivially easy to spin RS to suggest strong anti-abortion sentiments based on fringe opinions (there's just no opportunity to define the popular opinion). SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 14:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Against - Siliconred has made no effort to even engage on this page and make the changes he thinks are right to it. He has not even attempted to make a single edit to the text on the page to change what he thinks should be different. It is absurd to nominate for deletion without actually making any real attempt to change what he thinks is problematic. AFD is not Cleanup.

If the issue is that the content can be placed in other articles, then that is a merger discussion not an AFD discussion. This user already created a merger discussion for this article less than 24 hours ago. Reesorville (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my comment, I suggest moving to draftspace, and AfD is, to my understanding, a valid path for this recommendation. If others recommend a different path towards moving to draftspace I am happy to remove this AfD notice and propose elsewhere. I will start making edits in the meantime. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 15:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

on the right hand column of this page, there is a link that says 'introduction to deletion'. On that page, it says the following:

"When not to use the deletion process Articles that are in bad shape – these can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing."

I don't have any issues with the edits you have made thus far. You don't need to worry about an edit war from me; you're welcome to contribute and make changes where you see fit. Reesorville (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Even with my changes so far, the article content is clearly already covered in other articles. I don't see a reason to keep the article. The article title, "Anti-abortion by country", is misleading for the article content, which really is "Abortion by country". Suggesting the article topic is "Anti-abortion" implies cherry-picking quotes from the citations, often which are about abortion access in these countries -- content which is already covered in other articles, as I've tagged. It's just not clear that the citations demonstrate clear WP:N of the specific "Anti-abortion by country" topic in a way which does not already exist on Wikipedia. It's redundant at best, and encouraging WP:POVPUSHING via the article title at worst. I still recommend delete or move to draftspace. My issues with the article stem from more than just quality. Per WP:GNG, we need significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article — i.e. citations that specifically, and as the primary subject, describe anti-abortion sentiments for each country. The citations do not do this; rather, they discuss abortion law and abortion access in various countries, not anti-abortion in various countries. The only information on that topic is contrived via WP:SYNTHESIS to suggest that popular belief is driven by common religions in each country. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 16:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'clearly covered in other articles' - this is a merger discussion, not an AFD discussion. You already created a merger thread on the other page where this can be continued. It makes no sense to move to draftspace if you want this content covered in other articles and not having an independent article; moving to draftspace means that the topic at some future point can still have an article about this topic. Reesorville (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to the idea of moving this article to Abortion by country but this topic is already a redirect to Abortion law -- and I support this redirect as opposed to making two conflicting articles on similar topics, again still keeping me in the delete camp, but open to possible compromise. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 17:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Either delete or else merge after major cutting and rewriting.

The article badly distorts public attitudes toward abortion in various countries. The article's title basically gives any editor who wants to promote an anti-abortion POV a blank check to do that, because they can comb through sources taking only the parts that talk about opposition to abortion. As an example, let's take the very first country listed, the Democratic Republic of Congo. The subsection characterizes cultural attitudes toward abortion as being entirely negative, citing two sources (which both describe the same study and say essentially the same thing, so they should be considered one source). The gist of what the authors say is that, after in-depth focused interviews, it turned out that the people they studied had a lot of sympathy toward women who get abortions and held "nuanced" views about abortion under many circumstances (such as an abusive or unfaithful husband). So the impression given in the article's subsection on the DRC of hardened public opposition to abortion is the opposite of the point the authors are trying to make.

Similarly, the section on Vietnam cherry-picks sources to give the impression of broad public opposition to abortion in Vietnam. The sources I'm most familiar with say the opposite. For example, T. Gammeltoft's book Haunting Images: A Cultural Account of Selective Reproduction in Vietnam describes almost universal support for aborting a defective fetus. Genetic birth defects have been a huge problem in Vietnam due to U.S. chemical warfare (such as Agent Orange) in the 1960s and 1970s. The genetic effects have persisted for several generations, and caring for the severely disabled victims of genetic deformities is a major burden for families and the state. In Vietnam there's virtually no opposition to abortion of a fetus that would be born deformed. NightHeron (talk) 23:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree entirely w above argument. I have made significant cuts at this point in an attempt to align the content with existing citations and add new citations but despite this the issue boils down to the article topic incentivizing cherry-picking from sources to demonstrate that some anti-abortion sentiment exists somewhere in the country for each section, which is meaningless WP:UNDUE in the context of an encyclopedia. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 00:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is just about listing anti-abortion ideologies/sentiment in different parts of the world. if it is POV-pushing, what is the POV that it is pushing? That it exists? I think an encyclopedia exists so that a person is able to find that kind of information.

Wiki ought to have an article that can cover anti-abortion opposition generally, and not simply just things called 'movements' in RS. Unless you can give an adequate reason for why that shouldn't exist, this Afd has no case in it. Afd is not cleanup, if you think that there are issues with sources or particular facts you are free to attempt to edit those things and work through the normal editing process. The Afd discussion is discussing whether wiki should have an article on this topic at all. Reesorville (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If perhaps I could provide something here, because there seems to be ignorance here about wiki's deletion policy. If a topic should not exist on wiki, because it is not notable, it is covered elsewhere, it can't be made so it has a neutral point of view or some other reason that means this topic shouldn't exist in an encyclopedia, then there is a case for an Afd to be made. An example of a POV problem with an article, would be if someone, for example made an article where the topic itself is an opinion that is trying to push a POV; for example, if someone created an article called: 'Logical flaws in Republican Party platform', even if we can find RS that has material on this, there probably isn't way of reconciling this topic with NPOV and Afd is then warranted.

If a topic is something that ought to exist, but you disagree with the way that the page is being written at present or think that there are claims on the page that you believe are problematic, then you need to go through the normal editing process, working through consensus with other users and work out those problems. Afd is only supposed to be used if the topic of the article is problematic in itself and there is no way of reconciling those issues except through deletion.

These arguments about issues with POV appear with different sections of the article content appear to be the latter, not the former. What you need to demonstrate here to delete is why an article... any article... that is trying to cover this specific topic (anti-abortion globally) is not supposed to exist on wiki. You need to show why what you see as POV issues cannot actually be resolved through the normal editing process; simply just claiming that what you see as POV issues exist in the text is an irrelevant argument from that perspective.

I can't see a logical reason why an article can't exist on wiki that touches on this subject and be neutral. Simply just describing the ways that opposition to abortion exists around the world is not advancing any POV in itself other than asserting its existence, which is exactly what an encyclopedia exists to show. Reesorville (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Support for abortion legality redirects to Abortion rights movements. There should not be a separate article on country-by-country support for abortion rights for the same reason that the article Anti-abortion by country should be deleted or merged. The same reason would apply, for example, to an article Support for capital punishment by country that went from country to country looking for evidence of broad support for capital punishment. Cataloguing evidence of support and statements in support of a certain POV without proportional attention to the opposing viewpoint is in violation of WP:NPOV, which is a core policy. NightHeron (talk) 11:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But what I'm perhaps not following here is why couldn't you couldn't just put opposing viewpoints or (more likely) criticism of the topic on this page? If that is the issue, it seems you could simply solve that by editing.

The reason why this needs a separate article from anti-abortion movements is because the consensus on that page is that we can't include anything anti-abortion that isn't defined as a 'movement', whereas there is highly significant anti-abortion material that then can't be added. If we could change the consensus on that page to allow things not defined as 'movements' but make it into opposition to abortion generally, I would be in favour of a merger; otherwise I think there needs to be page that shows this as topic as a whole.Reesorville (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait for other editors to comment. Like it or not, there are legitimate arguments for deletion of this article — at this point you are repeating yourself. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 12:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support delete of this page as a non-English speaking country's native.

It's hard to not cherry-pick "Opinion" from an already small amount of English sources.I don't think this is an article to makes us natives interest to join. When I look at Japan, which is my country, There are only two English sources,⁣and one is a certain Guardian reporter. (I know he is reliable as a long time resident of Japan. He happens to be reliable in Japan's case.I'm not sure about other countries.)Paperworkorange (talk) 09:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noting also that Opposition to abortion legality is also a redirect to Anti-abortion movements. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 17:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• delete As a distant second I suppose draftifying it would be acceptable but as a concept I think "anti-abortion by country" is a tough fit for a neutral encyclopedia. Protonk (talk) 02:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For some more color: I think this is substantively a content fork of our articles on anti-abortion movements and abortion law. Perhaps it could be merged or redirected (There are already two merger discussions open regarding it) but it is just as easy to delete it as it is an orphan and "anti-abortion by country" is not really a likely search term or (as I noted above) a string of words denoting a good subject for an encyclopedia. Protonk (talk) 02:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Some of these points were already brought up in the talk page discussions on the anti-abortion movements article, but it is worth repeating here for those who haven't read it. The reason why this article was created was because the anti-abortion movements article doesn't allow for any material on the topic that isn't called a 'movement' and anti-abortion law doesn't deal with anything except the laws. However, the topic of anti-abortion in general, beyond just 'movements' and 'laws' is notable and contains lots of material that doesn't fit the scope of either article. In case there is any doubt whether RS exists that talks about the topic in general outside of the narrow scope of 'popular movements', here is a sample that I put on that discussion: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12345323/, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21972672/, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34557809/, https://www.asianews.it/news-en/Abortion-is-illegal-and-wrong-for-Indonesian-Muslim-leaders-as-well-32597.html, https://religioncheck.com/is-abortion-haram-in-islam/, https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-says-will-reduce-number-abortions-non-medical-purposes-2021-09-27/. If this article is deleted and nothing else changes, the end result is that there is nowhere to put this content except on the individual country/topic pages that talk about the situation of abortion in each country/specific category, because we don't otherwise have an article that talks about opposition to abortion as a general topic anywhere in wikipedia. To repeat, I am in favour of a merge as well with anti-abortion movements if the article's scope could be less narrowly defined.Reesorville (talk) 11:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't usually want to be involved in discussion arguments, but I cannot overlook how you are cherry-picking non-Christian countries' information.Or ,making English page about opinion results hard to not cherry-pick opinions.

  Here on one of your source, "asianews.it" writes on "about us" page

  "AsiaNews is a news agency promoted by the PIME missionaries, the Pontifical Institute for Foreign Missions." (Underline by me)

  Basically, the website is writing about Asian from Christian viewpoints. I hope you notice this is very offensive for people of other religion. Or irreligion like over 60 % of people here in Japan.Paperworkorange (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As other editors say, ⁣to create this page is violation of WP:NPOV, resulted from WP:SBEXT Paperworkorange (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the individual country articles or "Abortion law" article would be great places to put the information from your pubmed citations, for example, though perhaps not "Anti-abortion movements". Three broad cites is hardly sufficient for an article whose topic proposes detailing this sentiment for every country. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 12:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Asianews is not a deprecated source on wikipedia and it is used as RS on other pages; being a Christian source doesn't make it automatically disqualified.

  RS doesn't have to exclusively about a topic in order to be used for that topic. For example, if I have a book about the first world war, and it has a few paragraphs in it about General Haig, I can quote that part of the book for the article on General Haig... this isn't a form 'cherry-picking'. The issue with portions of sources about larger topics is when there is a question about whether the topic is 'notable' or if it is giving an unfair representation regarding the topic. The former problem can be solved by finding sources that are exclusively about that topic (which are easily found for this topic) and the latter problem is solved by people going through the editing process first and attempting to solve what are seen as POV issues, and not by deletion until it is apparent those issues can't be solved. Reesorville (talk) 12:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  For us non-English speakers, who are often misrepresented or wrongly connected to western culture, then hard to convince western the articles are not true because of lack of English article,have hard time convince editors ⁣they are wrong because of lack of English sources ,this is in creation of POV issues.Paperworkorange (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You don't need to use English sources for English wikipedia. You can reference Japanese sources (or sources in any language, as long as they reliable) to use when writing articles on English wikipedia. This is true for all pages, including this page. If you think that the little bit mentioned on Japan on this page is POV or inaccurate and you have Japanese sources that can correct it, you are welcome to edit it and attempt to make the corrections. The same is true for every page on wikipedia. Reesorville (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  True with English wikipedia.Yes.But you have never battled with a bunch of English-speaking editors who push their POV.That's why I don't want to join here.in addition from I don't see any reason to create this page.All countries have "Main article" link.I cannot see satisfying content without clicking "Main article". I cannot see any reason of creation or existence of this page, which likely ends up another western POV pushing. Paperworkorange (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, there are not many anti-abortion arguments in Japan.Paperworkorange (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There are much more important articles for us non-English speakers to fix. I will not join here to fix but I fear the existence of article will be needless bothering for especially non-English speaking non-Christian.Who need this article? (I will stop tonight)Paperworkorange (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a good reason we don't have an article on opposition to abortion rights be country, as distinct from abortion rights movements, anti-abortion movements, and abortion law. It would become (and already is in this case) a grab bag of references and claims about abortion generally--in this case about opposition to it generally. in contrast to, for example, a section on an article for a country (or an article on sentiment about abortion in a country), this would in an invitation for editors without the cultural context to write about abortion across hundreds of countries around the globe. In contrast to articles on abortion law, abortion rights movements, or anti-abortion movements, it would be an invitation to write about whatever content can be found on the internet regarding anti-abortion sentiment outside of the contexts of law, medicine, or political action. Neither of those conditions serve the reader and I don't see how, through editing, this article becomes something which doesn't have both of those problems (and again, it seems to have been constructed to produce them). Protonk (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you explain why you think that 'anti-abortion movement' as an article is fundamentally different on this point of 'inviting editors' to write without context? Reesorville (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a definable subject--so a reader would expect to see information about a movement or a group an editor could choose to include or exclude information such that it is relevant to a particular group in a country or countries. Conversely "anti-abortion" by country could include anything that has to do with what an editor construes about opposition to abortion. Protonk (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Is this what you mean?: anti-abortion as a general topic would allow for any opposition to abortion to be mentioned regardless of the ideology, reasoning or context of the opposition? Whereas anti-abortion movements are things that you can tie with particular ideologies, reasonings or contexts?

  if that understanding above is right, then I still don't see what the problem is. If you think that showing the different ways that opposition exists needs greater context, that can be done by adding such context to the text of the article. Furthermore, in fact, I think you are perhaps identifying exactly what the problem with 'anti-abortion movements' is, which led me to make this article: the reasons that people who oppose liberalizing abortion around the world are not uniform; why people, organizations or governments in one place resist attempts to make the procedure more accessible or attempt to make it more restricted can be totally different than what exists in another place. If one looks at 'anti-abortion movements' article, one may get the impression that opposition to abortion globally is just a question of the pro-life movement that exists mainly in western countries, which is absolutely not the case.

  If someone wanted to come to wikipedia to research abortion and they wanted to know why people oppose its liberalization, how does the encyclopedia serve this by redirecting a search for 'opposition to abortion legality' to an article that only covers an ideological movement that affects only one portion of the world? Reesorville (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What I mean is being demonstrated in this thread and on the three talk pages in question. The problem with having a content fork is that it becomes a place for citations looking for a home. If there is information that can't be added to e.g. anti-abortion movements because it doesn't relate to movements, that doesn't mean that what we need is something very close to anti-abortion movements in order to find a home for that information. It means we need to find an encyclopedic subject where it makes sense to add the info. so for example if we've got some article about how people in Pakistan feel about abortion the answer is to find an article on Pakistan (or even abortion politics in Pakistan) in order to give it due weight. The answer is not to create a third cross-country list because the piece of info doesn't fit in the first two. I mentioned this offhand in my vote but it should be a tell that the title is not descriptive at all. "Anti-abortion by country" is...anti-abortion what? Sentiment? Politics? History? Actions? It isn't clear to me what a reader should expect from the page or what an editor should choose as inclusion criteria when inevitably content disputes arise. Contrast this with the two extant cross-country articles we have. Protonk (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would say it was referring to all of those (sentiment, politics, history, action, ideology, etc.), but I'm not really opposed to a different name for the article if that would help define the topic better. I also disagree and I don't think it is more helpful to require users to need to look up the individual page for each country if they want to learn about opposition to legalized abortion, and the fact that those pages exist don't give good reason for why this content can't have its own summary page. Reesorville (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The summary page(s) already exists. They are Abortion law and Reproductive rights. Both include country-by-country descriptions of the topics in discussion here. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 14:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nominator. This article would constitute unnecessary forking of content already covered elsewhere, were it not largely unsourced and/or synthesis which doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the nominator is correct. Bruxton (talk) 02:51, 9 September 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.