Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abortion and Evangelical Christians


 * 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. I don't find that the case has been made that the subject of the article is unencyclopedic, or impossible of writing in a NPOV manner. However, I do find the POV, lack of sources and essay complaints do have merit and consensus. So this decision is without prejudice in regards to recreating this or a similar article that addresses those concerns. I am leaving the talk page since it contains discussion of the problems with the deleted article. (BTW, I have no stake in the subject here.) —Doug Bell talk 21:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Abortion and Evangelical Christians

 * — (View AfD)

The article cannot be NPOV, as the article's title precludes the presence of points of view other than those of Evangelical Christians. Besides, it only cites the bible, nothing links to it, the title is not only POV but unclear, and the content is unencyclopedic. GertrudeTheTramp 03:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, essay, original research, cannot hope to be NPOV. Per JoshuaZ's edit summary. riana_dzasta 05:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, for all of the above reasons. Nick Graves 05:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete: This is a noteworthy topic, but the existing article is too POV seems to be OR, as well. Topic is covered somewhat under Abortion debate and Pro-life. If there's anything worth salvaging, it might be merged there. Heimstern Läufer 05:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. MER-C 06:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: agree with Heimstern. ShadowHalo 08:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete it can't help being solely POV, as realistically as each church sets itself up as a/the true interpreters of scriptures, every one will have a diffferent POV about this type of issue - so to make it a NPOV article, you'd have to get every independent Evangelical group/church's POV.  SkierRMH, 08:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete we really don't need yet another fork of abortion. Guy (Help!) 10:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - but only after seeing if any sections could be merged to appropriate pages, per Heimstern's suggestion. Quack 688 11:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Kill with hellfire topics covered in this article are probably already in Abortion. Article is NPOV by definition. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete inherently POV.-- danntm T C 23:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is in need of major work; however, it is a decent attempt to spin-off parts of the abortion and religion page, which is very large. Perhaps it should be split into two, one part being evangelical views on abortion, the other being say "the Bible and abortion" or something like that. Considering how the religion and abortion page is quite long, I believe the spin-off attempt is legitimate. I don't see why the page would be inherently POV; sure, it is describing a POV, but it can be neutral in describing said POV. Ngchen 03:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I could see that being viable if there was a section or article of comparable length and quality that treated the views of godless heathens on Abortion. —A Godless Heathen (talk/contribs) 03:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think (although I'm not sure) that there is already a page or pages on atheist views on abortion. FWIW, there are both pro-choice and pro-life atheist groups. If you feel that the articles there are inadequate, perhaps you can be bold and add to them.Ngchen 14:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I wouldn't mind seeing individual pro-choice and pro-life articles, if the original article's grown too big to hold them. But if you go down that path, I wouldn't use terms like "Christian" and "athiest" when defining the articles. Perhaps have a pro-life article, which mentiones active pro-life groups, and lists all the reasons they put forward for their case, including the Christian angle. Same idea for the pro-choice page. Quack 688 17:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Those already exist: Pro-choice and Pro-life. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Summarize and merge as appropriate with abortion and religion page. If that article has become "too large," begin to pare down that page (rather than proliferate pages for each denomination's particular view). Encyclopedias are supposed to give summary treatment of their subject matter; they are not monographs. External links can direct to more locations providing more extensive treatment. Pop Secret 20:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I just checked the [abortion and religion] page, and that page is 33 kb long as of right now. Although it is true that encyclopedias are supposed to summarize the topics covered, a look at that page would reveal that the coverage is cursory for almost every religion. Hence, attempting to pare that article down would be a fruitless task. I know that oftentimes related topics have a bit of overlap between articles, with notes along the lines of "for a more detailed look at something, please see this or that other article."Ngchen 22:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per GertrudeTheTramp. Others are suggesting merge, but there's actually nothing I see here to be merged, it's just "evangelicals believe... evangelicals believe...' without any further substance. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 23:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * keep I continue to vote against deleting articles about things that I sincerely dislike, and if there's anything i sincerely dislike it's the views of evangelical christians on abortion (& on one other subject). Therefore I am aware of my possible bias, and I think we do much better to keep rather than give he i,mpression of our own non neutral stance.DGG 04:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you think the article can ever be NPOV with a title like that? I would also ask, is there any well-cited content here that could conceivably be merged elsewhere? If not, that's something of an indication that the content doesn't belong in this article either. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 06:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No offense DGG, but right there you seem to tell everyone that you simply aren't going to follow procedure and create a factual, unbiased encyclopedia with us. So why should you even be allowed to continue editing, and why should anybody here trust you? And I do apologize if I'm sounding confrontational. I don't mean it that way. Tragic romance 08:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is not really an article about a clearly definable entity, like a car, titanium, neuroscience, Iran, or embarrassment. Tragic romance 08:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly a WP:N subject but needs to be cleaned up with proper RS not just the Bible. RaveenS 23:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Reads like an essay, original research, unencylopaedic. Merge what can be salvaged to Religion and abortion, and, perhaps create a spin-off, Abortion and Christianity, if the "Christianity" sub-section becomes too large. Unless we're going to have balanced, well-researched sub-sub-articles for every single Christian denomination (Abortion and Methodists, Abortion and Episcopals, Abortion and Roman Catholics), this POV fork isn't justified. -Severa (!!!) 03:58, 12 December 2006 (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.