Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euthanasia and the slippery slope


 * 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 Substantial work was done on this by User:Bilby following the last delete comment, essentially doubling the article size. Consensus is that the subject is notable, and that POV problems are not beyond fixing. Suggestions for a change of title should definitely be considered, and future work should attempt to perfect and maintain a neutral tone. Mandsford 21:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Euthanasia and the slippery slope

 * – ( View AfD View log )

POV essay, even the title is POV Corvus cornix  talk  01:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, agree with nom, POV essay, although referenced, not encyclopaedic. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  -- Jezhotwells (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- Jezhotwells (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Merge any valid info in to the Euthanasia article.--Dmol (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep — This is not a POV essay by any means. Critics of euthanasia, of which I am not one, use the slippery slope argument on every occasion possible. Do a search on Medline for "euthanasia and slippery slope" — you'll find many hits, so this is a subject and topic of serious study. The article was hived off from a euthanasia article (non-voluntary euthanasia), where it was starting to dominate the actual topic. TickleMeister (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you really try to claim that the last two sentences are not POV?  Corvus cornix  talk  01:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is going to undergo extensive editing if you give the various editors some time. Does it need to be in final format before creation? TickleMeister (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It would certainly have helped if you'd finished it in your User space before presenting it in article space as a completed article. This discussion runs 7 days.  If you can de-POV it by then, it might be kept.   Corvus cornix  talk  01:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll try. Not sure it is POV at the moment, actually, because it carries an almost equal number of opposing arguments. TickleMeister (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: Before anyone decides to delete this article prematurely, they should make sure they have assessed the heavy weight the topic is given in the world of medical research by accessing Medine with this link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=euthanasia+slippery TickleMeister (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This topic tends to expand over time, as it is an evolving field of law, ethics, medicine and philospiphy, and so trying to merge it with other euthanasia articles is not possible (we've tried). TickleMeister (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Although I am also concerned with paragraphs and sentences added by TickleMesiter, for example that last paragraph mentioned by CorvusCornix, which made it unbalanced and POV. But  that is corrigible. But for sure, TickleMesiter should really try to help to correct it, instead to force an article pro-euthanasia as he seems to do in non-voluntary euthanasia -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete As stated above, the title of this article is itself WP:OR, as if most of the article. I agree that some of this info may be able to be merged into appropriate sections of other euthanasia-related articles, but as this stands, I don't see how this article says anything different than an anti-euthanasia pamphlet. Angryapathy (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The article has a pro-euthanasia conclusion, so you clearly have not even bothered to read it. In addition, the "slippery slope" concept even has its own page in wikipedia, namely slippery slope, and is a well known concept in medicine and ethics. It is thus hardly a POV term. TickleMeister (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This specific subject is not an essay. It was clogging up Non-voluntary euthanasia but is in fact also related to other typisch of euthanasia and the Groningen Protocol. Better put this battlefield in a seperate article then having the editwars in every related article. Eddylandzaat (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a significant debate in the field, and is complex enough that keeping the various issues in one article will work, I think, better than spreading them across multiple ones. It might be possible to keep it in Euthanasia, but at some point I believe that it would need to be split off, due to the amount of material which needs to be covered. (The current Slippery slope article is not viable, as it is not focused on the form of the argument used in ethics, and would not be a suitable target for specific applications of the argument). The POV problem is a bit of an issue, but isn't so much determined by how it is written but by the basic problem caused by having an anti (or, indeed, a pro) euthanasia argument presented on its own - I don't see that as an issue with this article specifically, though, but one that is inherent in spinning off particular aspects of any debate, highlighted in this case by the nature of the empirical form of the argument. Hopefully this can be addressed as the article develops. - Bilby (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The article was created in order to prevent repetition of identical pro/con material in every article touching on euthanasia. It could be folded into the main article, but in the long term it would have to be split off anyway. Xanthoxyl  &lt; 22:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename Sounds like a legitimate entry on a often used argument (although content seems a bit POV at times, but that's not the question at hand). I don't like the title much however: it suggests a slippery slope is always present. I propose to rename to Slippery slope argument in the Euthanasia debate or Slippery slope argument in Euthanasia. L.tak (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2011 (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.