Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baby scoop era


 * 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  Keep B1atv 14:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC) (Non admin closure)

Baby scoop era

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete POV-pushing neologism masquerading as an encyclopedia article; what's next Back Alley Abortion era for the same period, or the Baby-killing era using the other POV for the post-Roe v. Wade period. WP:NPOV, WP:NOT Carlossuarez46 20:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep.The Baby Scoop Era is a verifiable period in American cultural history during which the newborns of single mothers were taken at birth -- coercively, and sometimes even illegally -- for adoption. These babies were placed into closed adoptions.  The adoption records remain sealed in 48 states to this day. This period of history has been documented in scholarly books such as "Wake Up Little Suzie" and "Beggars And Choosers" both by Rickie Sollinger, and social histories such as  "The Girls Who Went Away"  by Ann Fessler.  It has been the theme of documentary movies such as "Gone To A Good Home" and "Love, War, Adoption" as well as the subject of numerous newspaper and magazine articles.  Bseri 22:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep for now. Seems to be fairly well-established for a neologism (at least on the web) and the article doesn't come across as particularly POV. Cosmo0 22:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Yes, the term "Baby Scoop Era" has recently (i.e. within the past 10 years) been coined. On this basis it could be considered a "neologism" or new term, but the article itself is on the social period that it refers to, what its characteristics are from a socio-historical POV.  It is of interest to historians, sociologists, social work professionals, and women's studies scholars and it has been studied as a unique phenomena by serious researchers. Cedartrees (disclosure:  primary author of article)  — 22:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

**modifying vote per MusicMaker i kan reed 05:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Weak keep Referenced and somewhat common. i kan reed 22:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The keep vote by the original author has made it clear that this was meant as an argument against abortion covered as an article. A re-read of the article with that in mind makes it clear there's no real encyclopedic content involved.  If the article is kept it should be rewritten as a documentation of the neologism(which does, in fact appear to have a reasonably common usage).  In particular, WP:NOT applies strongly. i kan reed 02:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Dubiously referenced, relying mainly on sources from one author. Seems to have at least moderate usage in the lexicon, though.  &mdash;   Music  Maker  5376  02:53, 21 October 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.