Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abortion exceptionalism


 * 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. Kubigula (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Abortion exceptionalism

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Combination of original research with a simple notability problem; ostensible topic is mentioned in passing in a couple of borderline reliable sources, and additional material (the African and Middle Eastern sentence) is synthesized in. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Roscelese is correct. This is simply a phrase occasionally used, but not a discrete topic which has received significant coverage in reliable sources.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  01:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as an Original Essay or a Non-Notable Neologism, your choice. Carrite (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The phrase appears in sources a dozen years old. What exactly is your definition of "neologism" (="new" word)?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Some sources, but it would be much much better if the concept was discussed in context of the legal status of abortion. JFW &#124; T@lk  21:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds more like a merge !vote than a recommendation to delete. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The idea that "abortion is special" (compared to other medical procedures) appears in all sorts of sources, but particularly legal sources.  "Abortion exceptionalism" is the formal name for the concept.  There are comparable concepts for other medical situations, e.g., HIV exceptionalism (HIV infection is so scary that it requires special legal protections; see sources).   addresses abortion exceptionalism.  Additionally, I'd like to know more about what Roscelese believes is a NOR violation in that stub.  The paragraph at the top of page 10 names Rwanda and Kuwait (among others), and I believe that those are generally taken to be African and Middle Eastern countries, respectively.  I'm not sure how it could be "synthesized in", either, given that the paragraph actually uses the exact phrase abortion exceptionalism.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If we accept the idea that abortion exceptionalism is the treatment of abortion in a different way from other medical procedures, rather than any situation involving exceptions and abortion, it is clear that "abortion isn't normally allowed, but it was in a situation of war rape" clearly does not belong. By the way, the phrase in that source is "anti-abortion exceptionalism." The material you recently added has the same problem - an article should be about a topic, and throwing together a bunch of disparate situations involving A) abortion and B) an exception to something just won't do. The material that is actually about the ostensible topic is sparse and brief. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Abortion is legally special during war" is not a materially different subject from "Abortion is legally special during peacetime". The subject of the article is the legal specialness of abortion.  That includes treating it as  legally special in war and peace as well as in places that normally ban and normally permit it.  And you will want to read far more of that book than you apparently have before you make pronouncements about how much of it discusses the oddities of the legal status of abortion.  I'd suggest also running a quoted search on Google books for "abortion is special" and see how many sources spend whole chapters talking about the abortion being an exception to the usual legal and regulatory rules.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But that's not what's going on in the war rape situation in that book. In the USA material we have abortion as legally distinct from other medical procedures, whereas in the WWI France material we have some abortions as distinct from other abortions. (Also, re: Rwanda and Kuwait - what?? The source doesn't even mention abortion in relation to those countries on the page you cite. Other pages, yes, but not in reference to any exceptionalism.) Again, the article should not be a dumping ground for any scenario involving 1) an abortion + 2) an exception. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - yes, there are sources, but I don't see how using a phrase in many diferrent ways adds up to a single article. Bearian (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete There seems to be two uses of the term: one, to indicate an excessively rigorous view of the indications for abortion in contrast to other medical procedures (which would be a logical extension of the way the "exceptionalism" term is used elsewhere) and the less logical use to mean the treatment of abortions for some reasons in some exceptional social situations as much more permissive than usual for that procedure. Until a standard use develops, it would be hard to have an article.  DGG ( talk ) 06:20, 2 February 2012 (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.