Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of human sanctity


 * 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 WP:SNOWBALL as blatant soapboxing; no valid arguments for retention. Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  22:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

History of human sanctity

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article purports to be a history of a topic that does not itself have an article: there is no human sanctity. The apparent purpose of this article is to act as a pro-life soapbox, so it's essentially a POV fork from an article that doesn't even exist. Spotfixer (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Contrary to the bitterly biased view above, the point of the article is to allow for more in-depth development on the historical side of the beginning of human life article, which wont fit there, because that article deals with the contemporary issue. -Zahd (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The article gives about half anti-abortion opinions and about half that would permit abortion in some cases. I don't see how it is a soapbox. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. If the purpose of this article is to deal with the historical aspects of the beginning of human life, it has the wrong title! Not to mention the wrong text... SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 20:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:OR and a complete lack of WP:RS. I don't even understand what the article is trying to talk about much less why it deserves a spot in Wikipedia. D ARTH P ANDA duel 03:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - As per my complaint above. Spotfixer (talk) 03:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I thought it was pro-choice myself, trying to show that different opinions on the topic dated back to ancient times. It would be better if the information was given in an article on the history of abortion and opposition to abortion. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete--as OR, and as a soapbox. BTW, as OR, this really is not so good anyway, to put it mildly: if human history is said to end at Tertullian, it's little wonder that certain discriminatory practices still exist. Drmies (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:SOAP. RayAYang (talk) 05:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as one editor's sermon. Vague, meaningless, pointless. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as pure soapboxing. MuZemike  ( talk ) 08:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - violation of WP:SOAP, as this is an obvious piece of POV pushing for abortion debates. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. FWIW, human history did end at Tertullian; the rest is just idle thrashing around and refusing to face the fact that it's over.  But this does seem to be soapboxing.  We do have an article on history of abortion, for what it's worth. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * History of abortion already seems to contain most of the information in this one, just from a quick glance. Another reason to delete this one. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per all of the above. It's a nice POV touch how he has the word "protected" easter-egged to sacred. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Is nothing "sacred"? -Zahd


 * Keep -Zahd (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Can I get some reasoning as to why this should be kept? I know you're the article creator and all, but you should at least be able to provide some insight as to why you voted keep. D ARTH P ANDA duel 21:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Ditto. I'd be open to persuasion if you would offer your reasoning. Spotfixer (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete not an article. JuJube (talk) 07:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Clearly soapboxing. ukexpat (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Can an admin please snowball close this one as a delete? – ukexpat (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2008 (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.