Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fetal rights


 * 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 19:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Fetal rights
Article is original research. Factual content is skeletal and unsourced. The remainder is an unencyclopedic essay. Severa (!!!) 04:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP verfiable sources, vague interpretation of "original research". content is under-nourished, can be developed. Somerset219 04:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP Sources are included, just need cleanup and development. -- Imoeng 04:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - it just needs work. - Richardcavell 05:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep notable concept at the heart of the abortion debate and various legal cases. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs work but the concept seems useful. --MichaelMaggs 08:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete As far as legal rights go, this would have to be country specific, and Wikipedia does not only serve the USA. As far as ethical rights go, I agree about it being an unencyclopaedic essay.  Byrgenwulf 09:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Move part, delete rest - first part of the article could be a stub for something along the lines of Laws asserting fetal rights in the US. Second part is POV. SB_Johnny  | talk 10:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Fetal protection would be a better location, I think, being a pre-existing stub article. -Severa (!!!) 17:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * An article on this topic (with, of course, the spelling corrected) would undoubtedly be useful. However, it would need to be a) far, far less biased towards the USA; b) more general &mdash; discussing the concept and its remifications rather than the current, almost list-like format we see now.  The article needs improvement &mdash; a lot of improvement (gosh, isn't it easy to say that sitting here with no intention of actually editing it yourself) &mdash; but not deletion.  fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the spelling is American English, and now I have looked at the Fetus article is actually the spelling preferred by the English-speaking medical community regardless of dialect. Jll 17:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Most articles I've read preserve the Latinate spelling over the pseudo-Greek "foetus" for etymological reasons. Refer to Talk:American_and_British_English_spelling_differences. -Severa (!!!) 17:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I agree that Wikipedia needs an article on Fetal Rights, but not this one. It is so POV in its perspective that a big "cleanup" tag is not enough - it would be easier start again. Jll 16:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep while I agree that the article could and should be improved, the subject should be covered at Wikipedia. We need one or more experts in the subject (I am not one) to work on this. Tagging as needing expert input would be preferable to delete. Gwernol 21:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete the article is little more than a series of forks from various other controversies. WP needs a Rights of the fetus article, but this is not the kernel of it.  It is missing the most fundamental piece: there is no coverage of how the laws of various countries treat whether a fetus is a person, just a few examples without discussion of whether these examples are the norm or the outliers. Best as I can discern from a quick snoop over the internet, which is always caveat lector: in some jurisdictions, a fetus is treated as a person for inheritance if its dad dies, it shares with the already born children; it's not a person for driving in a high-occupancy vehicle lane; it's a person if the mother is killed; it's not a person if the mother aborts it if abortion is legal; it's not counted in a census and is therefore not "represented" in the Anglo-American governmental sense; it is a person for tax purposes (so it pays the same death duties as the living siblings if dad dies leaving an estate); etc....This is the stuff we need in this sort of an article. Carlossuarez46 21:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP The article is sourced, some of the article is underdeveloped and it would be good to add in sections concerning fetal rights in law in other countries besides the US, also Wikipedia doesn't have another page on fetal rights and the article on fetal protection only deals with one aspect of fetal rightsJfraatz 21:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge. Evidently, I did not give sufficient explanation in my original post. The fact of the matter is that there were no clear, accessible sources listed in the article before User:Goldom amended a formatting error. The numbered citations were deadlinks and the "External links" section was assumed to be just that — an external links section — not a "Reference" or "Source" list. Users above have expressed NPOV concerns despite Jfraatz's insistence that all such issues have been resolved. WP:NPOV is a founding tenant of Wikipedia, and an especially important rule among controversial, hot-button articles, so it is unacceptable to let non-neutral, emotively-charged terms like "unborn child" or "fetal person" slide "for the sake of the argument" as Jfraatz has suggested. It is my belief that the current version of Fetal rights is too brief to warrant a seperate article; it should be merged to fetal protection, abortion debate, or person. -Severa  (!!!) 23:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've decided to help build this article, so, I'm changing my vote to merge to Fetal protection. -Severa (!!!) 05:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Carlossuarez46. *drew 00:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep But keep it NPOV by avoiding reference to "fetal persons." Doesn't belong in the abortion article. Right wing politicians and some religious persons want to give fetuses increasing rights, so it is an important national issue.Edison 04:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. --Hyphen5 06:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, alas. Per all the above. Metamagician3000 11:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete & Rewrite  This article is horribly POV, instead of exploring the topic and debate its instead making a point for fetal rights. It mentions one easily dismissable objection and then does away with that objection and continues to push for fetal rights. Even the listing of laws are all things that support fetal rights, and nothing opposing the notion. Either a big POV tag needs to be slapped on this article and it needs to be rewritten or its needs a fresh start. -- zero faults   ' '' 12:00, 31 July 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.