Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forced adoption in the UK


 * 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. The article really looks a lot better than it did when the AfD began. It is no longer a "POV rant". Perhaps a merge is still advisable. -- Y not? 20:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Forced adoption in the UK

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Without citations, the bulk of this article can only be treated as original research. If it can't be supported by reliable sources, it should be deleted. The Anome (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Possibly rework into an article on ... whatever British legislation it is that's based on the U.S. Adoption and Safe Families Act, which has led to similar complaints in the U.S. (there was actually a 60 Minutes segment about this). But it'll have to be someone else, since I'm blocking the creator for their username. Daniel Case (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've no idea what the previous comment is about (why does Daniel assume that British legislation is "based on" American legislation?) but this article is simply a POV rant from start to finish. Obviously there is child protection legislation which sometimes results in children being removed permanently from their parents. All countries have such legislation, and in all cases there will be disputes: claims that social workers have intervened inappropriately in some cases; claims that they haven't intervened quickly enough in others. This should be dealt with in articles about the relevant legislation, or on child protection practices. Even the title of this article is sensationalistic. It's presumably derived from Forced adoption in Australia which deals with historical practices that came to be controversial mainly because of their racial aspect (forcing Aboriginal mothers to give up children). The content of this article seems to have no connection to any comparable debates. Paul B (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * additional comment. The title is inherently problematic. There is no such thing as "forced adoption". What there is, is removal of children from parents. They then enter the social care system. If it is determined that the parents will not be able to look after them, then adoptive parents will be sought. But "forced adoption" is a misnomer. It's quite different from the days when teenage mothers were simply told to give up their babies for adoption, which is what the article on Australia describes. Paul B (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep if solid sources can be found. The article is rather nebulous right now.-- Auric    talk  17:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete; seems to be a POV rant. Every time I look at a source in the article, it's been misused in some way, and I'd be amazed if those sources were a fair selection of what's out there. It might conceivably be possible to write a neutral article on this, but we'd have to start from scratch. bobrayner (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unencyclopaedic, NPOV-violating original research. What we need is a properly-sourced article on Adoption in the UK, which can then provide a neutral summary of the issue in a broader context. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment; the creator of the article,, won't be able to comment here, as they're indefinitely blocked. However, I imagine they can still edit their talkpage if anybody wants to ask questions there. bobrayner (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Newuser2111 has appeared in his/her stead (there is no block evasion because the block was because of a problem with the original username). Paul B (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. jonkerz ♠talk 18:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep; Criticisms of the article in its current form are valid but to suggest deletion is wholly inappropriate. Forced adoption does take place in the UK. This has been reported on in many reputable newspapers and websites, members of parliament and respected journalists have spoke on the issue, using the phrase 'forced adoption' so the argument about deleting the page seems extreme. Further more to deny that forced adoption is real is to be blind to reality, Martin Narey, Chief Executive Officer of Barnardo's, has himself used this phrase to describe the practice that the article relates to. Newuser2111 (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Additional comment Request that neutrality and citations needed flags are removed from page. What sections are in dispute. Please provide specific instances of what needs citing since there is not a single 'citation needed' flag in the article. Also state exactly what points are considered not to be neutral. It is not good enough to make claims that the article needs citing or is not neutral. Provide specific instances or remove the flags. Newuser2111 (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Clear POV problems, but it does seem that the news stories behind the piece might meet the GNG threshold. Not sure what the title would be, but I wouldn't dismiss that possible outcome. Carrite (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Any article on 'forced adoption' that made even a pretence at adhering to WP:NPOV policy would explain why the adoptions were taking place - best done in the context of a broader article on UK adoption policy. To read the article as it stands, you'd get the impression that the courts were doing it out of spite, rather than in what they see as the best interests of the child. Maybe they get it wrong sometimes. Hell, maybe they get it wrong often (though I'd like to see actual evidence for this, rather than the melodramatic hype in the article), but ignoring the broader context entirely is simply unacceptable. You can't make a neutral article based on a premise that isn't neutral. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I believe this is original research and synthesis, sprinkled with some serious POV (the original author's chosen username is 'Statekidnap'). The term forced adoption does not seem to be used as the central concept in most of the given references I checked - instead the issue seems to be a wider recognized problem with the UKs adoption system. If there were a series of influential articles or books or other material that referred to the issue this way then fine, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. If there were an article called "Adoption in the UK" then maybe that would be a merge target, but no such article exists - although there are a couple of per-nation articles: Template:Adopt. I don't doubt that this material merits some coverage, but not here, not in this wholly negative format, and not from a person who is obviously biased (with no prejudice as to what their motivation is) about the issue. Instead of truly documenting the issue, this is ended up as a case of WP:WORTHYCAUSE. § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article is incoherent, inappropriate, and unsalvageable, per the frog and the grumpy guy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Create wider article, then merge I like Andy's solution, involving the creation of an NPOV Adoption in the United Kingdom article, which can then provide a neutral summary of the issue as part of a wider treatment of the subject in a broader context. -- The Anome (talk) 09:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

What? There are countless articles that use the term Forced Adoption to describe the practice, many linked to from the page, there are also books that use the term. There's even a book called 'Forced Adoption' that covers the topic raised. What are you talking about? Do some real research! If you think the article is biased then make changes. It seems like there is a concerted effort to censor the topic. It is no good just saying it is biased, make specific allegations not just generalisations. What aspect of the page do you think is biased? The allegations here are baseless and biased. You are free to edit the page if you think it should be written in a different way, provide a justification of the practice is you like. Maybe a section on the history of forced adoption in the UK should be added. It should include the fact that in the 1970s tens of thousands of children were forcible removed from their mothers in the UK because they were born out of wedlock. Deleting the page is extreme. Rework the article. Newuser2111 (talk) 09:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep/merge The nomination starts by saying "Without citations" but the article has many citations and they include reasonable sources such as the BBC. The nomination was made about 1 hour after the article was started and so it doesn't seem that sufficient time has been allowed for its development.  The worst case is that we'd merge into some larger article about the taking of children into care which regularly generates lots of coverage in the UK.  See foster care in the United Kingdom for another article in this area. Warden (talk) 11:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge The nomination was premature, made when the article was less than 90 minutes old. It is now 3 times the size in bytes it was then, and with far more refs, and only into its 2nd day. Hold off and revisit. Many of the critical points here (eg by Paul B above) make sense, but since we seem to have hardly any coverage of this area it seems unhelpful to descend on a new article and tear it to pieces.Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep/chop/merge: The article positively has serious POV issues, and it isn't just a question of "what section", it's just that through-and-through it's written to accuse the UK government of child theft for whatever nefarious purposes, including "financial incentive". The paltry bits about the government's stance are rather token and almost push it even more POV since they're portrayed as defensive/apologetic (I removed the highly phrasing "the government insists"). Is there some useful content about criticism of adoption practices in the UK? Certainly. Is there a term "forced adoption" in some use? Sure. However, what we have here is a situation where the derogatory/accusational term has its own article, but the broader concept does not. There should be an Adoption in the United Kingdom, it should have a section on criticism which should be a pared-down version of the current with a careful eye towards showing both sides of the argument. If we're not having a greater article anytime soon, this page should be moved into a sandbox until the broader UK adoption page is created. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think there is a problem merging this with the (as yet non-existent) Adoption in the United Kingdom. The article isn't really about "adoption". It about the forced removal of children from their biological parents. It's the removal that's the main thrust of the article. If it is to be merged, it should surely be to an article on UK social servives' child protection interventions, if one exists. Paul B (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, adoption is a red herring here. Johnbod (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Editors have knocked out most of the soapbox stuff so WP:TNT isn't needed. -- Neil N   talk to me  17:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep/chop/merge as per MatthewVanitas: there is well-sourced material here that should be kept on Wikipedia in some format, but this article under this title poses various challenges to WP:NPOV. Re-titling to something more neutral is perhaps the best approach, but what that terms should be, I'm uncertain about. Bondegezou (talk) 09:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Once you remove the POV, there's not much left. Many sources are to articles by Christopher Booker, a columnist with an axe to grind; especially in this context, I don't consider him a RS.  Mini  apolis  19:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete -- This is a highly POV article. The UK has a well-established procedure for child-safeguarding, which involves children at risk being taken into the care of the local authority.  What happens to them is overseen by the court.  The court has power to vest parental responsibilities in the local authority and to free children for adoption.  This is inevitably only in cases where the parents oppose that course of action.  It is inevitable that such parents will feel that their children have been stolen from them, but this will only follow a finding by the court that the parent cannot bring up the child properly.  The process is a long one (perhaps too long for the child's good), but should provide enough time for the parent to reform her(/him)self to have the child back.  Nevertheless, it is likely that there will occasionally be bad decisions by the courts, though not often enough to warrant this article.  I cannot accept that such a POV article could be merged into something on adoption.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2013 (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.