Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of anti-abortion people


 * 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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

List of anti-abortion people
Going from Susan B. Anthony to Ben Stein, this seems like one of those articles that can never hope to name the 4 billion people in the world who fit into the category. These aren't people specifically known for their stance on the question of abortion, but rather instead celebrities, politicians and 'other' who have at some point given an opinion. Sherurcij 01:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete an unsourced list. Durova 01:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete oooh ooh I was waiting for shit like this to delete EscapeArtistsNeverDie 01:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - no context provided, and probably could be defined to include everyone who isn't fervently in favor of abortions being performed (e.g., Bill Clinton, who hoped that the procedure would be rare). BD2412  T 01:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - not a useful list, doesn't cite sources. Catamorphism 02:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Lots of room for improvement. -- JJay 03:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Vague and unsourced. Olorin28 04:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Also per Olorin28's statement regarding vague and unsourced. Who is going to be here? Celebrities? Health-care workers? Ifnord 04:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources. What about people who change their mind? Why do I see no popes on this list? Totally unmaintainable. Chris the speller 04:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and if need be create a category.Gateman1997 04:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There is a category I think. Category:Pro-life celebrities. If there is a List of pro-choice people then this should stay, if not I have no opinion.--T. Anthony 05:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That said if it's deleted would it be okay to make this a redirect to the category? Is that even possible in fact?--T. Anthony 05:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's possible (AFAIK), but generally discouraged. Cross-namespace redirects are generally frowned upon, with the exception of shortcuts to the Wikipedia namespace (e.g. WP:AFD). I'm not sure if we have other exceptions, I certainly could be wrong. Blackcap (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete- this is listcruft. It's not an article. It can never be a decent article because any attempt to improve it would make it gigantic beyond reason. 06:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, unmaintainable shit. Firebug 07:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unencyclopaedic, arbitrary, prone to unverifiability - in short, listcruft. But Firebug said it better :-) Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Refer to arbitration :: since a significant number of commentators say that they have specifically been waiting for a chance to delete this article, this sounds to me (IMHO)like a pre-emptive campaign by the cabal to block discussion of a topic--SockpuppetSamuelson 13:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - only one person has said they were waiting for something like this, and it could easily be meant in a different context. I'm a pro-lifer myself, quite militantly so, but such a 'list' doesn't foster "discussion of a topic" at all, it just sits there making Wikipedia look bad because it's a hopeless attempt.  I would AfD a "List of anti-life people" just as quickly.  (Notice also that the article didn't use the prolife/prochoice positive-sounding terms, but referred to "anti-abortion" which is similar to "anti-choice" shrugs Sherurcij 14:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Isn't anti-abortion the opposite of pro-abortion? Aren't you anti-abortion, or just "pro-life"? -- JJay 15:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think that that matters, here, mate. The debate over abortion and even whether we call it pro-life/choice or anti/pro-abortion often turns discussions into a shitfight. Since we're here first and foremost to build an encyclopedia, it's probably best to avoid that kind of stuff unless necessary, and it isn't, here. Blackcap (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Excuse me, but as the only Keep on an article that is obviously heading for the dustbin, I have the right to ask a question. Lots of diverse reasons are being cited for delete, and someone mentioned the name. Names can be changed. I don't care about the name. But I just can't see the difference between this list and numerous others on the site. -- JJay 19:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that you mean to be talking to me. Yes, of course you have the right to ask questions. Nonetheless, whether or not Sherurcij considers himself to be "pro-life" or "anti-abortion" is totally irrelevant to this article, and is the kind of question that starts flames. Why not stay on topic, and argue the keeping of this article on its merits, rather than starting a discussion that's likely to start a fight and isn't relevant? Blackcap (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I Think we agree. But I'm not going to try and argue against the 16 or so reasons/non-reasons given for deletion- most of which are not relevant. That seems a lost cause. -- JJay 21:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There isn't a similar list for pro-choice or pro-abortion people. Because of that it makes the lists on this issue unbalanced. Also I don't think it's common for there to be lists concerning a position on a single issue. For example List of euthanasia opponents, List of gay-rights activists, List of birth control opponents, etc. I'm pretty sure will all come out red. Somewhat embarrassingly for my case though there is a List of disability rights activists. I am disabled, however I don't entirely agree with the activists, so I'm not sure where I feel there. Still that issue is in least able to be annotated without ticking people off and there is no category for the activists themselves. (There is Category:Rights of the disabled, but it's not specific to people) Still I have not yet voted though and I'm not sure I will. I am Pro-Life/Anti-Abortion/Anti-Choice(terminology is irrelevant to me) but still in this case I'm not sure the list can do more then the categories on this.(There is also Category:Pro-life politicians) Normally I like list, but as mentioned this maybe can't be annotated or sourced without causing a fight so may become worthless. If this gets deleted though I will actively vote to delete any List of pro-abortion people, List of pro-choice people or whatever term is used when it arrives.--T. Anthony 08:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that List of disability rights activists are of people who are actually DOING something, not just holding an opinion.--Calton | Talk 07:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well said. We do have plenty of lists like List_of_pacifists and I have a hard time seeing why this list is so different. We also have important lists such as List of computer games featuring ants. Anyway, don't waste a lot of time considering your vote, the fat lady has sung here. -- JJay 08:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making me aware of that. I added a "mergeto" on List of computer games featuring ants. On pacifists I don't know. That's also single issue I guess, and there isn't a List of militarists, but somehow it feels like pacifism is more of an entire life. My life is really not much like Wangari Maathai, she isn't on this list but she did come out against abortion, and there is a great chance anti-abortion people have less in common then pacifists do. Which would risk having a list that's a random group of people with little in common which seems to be something they're moving away from. Although a list of anti-abortion activists would be relevant I think. I'd have to think on the whole thing.--T. Anthony 08:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF, please. Oh, and WP:TINC. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 16:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete lists of people based on views they may or may not have had at one point is bad enough, but this list doesn't even have a single source, citation, or reference anywhere in it. Unverifiable and pointless. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete please. --Bachrach44 15:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unverifiable. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 16:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, interestingly... many pro-choice people say they are anti-abortion... just... the right to choose is more important or some such. They arent't pro-abortion by any means ~_~ --gren グレン 18:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete --Sachabrunel 18:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per all. Blackcap (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Kill with fire. Unsourced, and of little value as a navigation tool due to its hopelessly broad nature. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, wow 4 billion people? I didn't think it was that many, but cool. Croat Canuck 01:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete hopeless POV list for which there is no hope of maintaining accurately.--MONGO 01:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 21:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, start over and then give sources. If you people are so smart, why can't you just figure this out? Wikipedia is not paper! Эйрон Кинни  01:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree and thanks for the support. -- JJay 03:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You may want to reconsider your wording about the above. If you do feel free to delete this comment when you make your change. gren グレン 01:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * So the fact that WP is not paper justifies an article with serious and permanent POV issues starting right from the title? Fascinating. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 09:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * First, nothing is permanent. See How to rename (move) a page. Second, I suppose that Anti-abortion movement and Anti-abortion violence in the United States are objectionable on POV grounds as well. -- JJay 17:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Both those articles have the potential to be POV, and I would certainly support renaming if a better name could be found. But they do document a real and significant movement, in a way that a (hit)list of people does not. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. How consistent.  The preferred response to the CFD attempts on Category:Pro-life celebrities et al was "there's already a list; listify."  Now we finish up by deleting the list.  Also, anyone who claims this is unverifiable isn't paying attention.  Read Kathy Ireland or Kate Mulgrew, for example.  If it's verifiable enough to get into each article, it's verifiable enough for a list or a category. As for my "vote" in this alleged consensus process: Keep. Jdavidb (talk &bull; contribs) 23:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * For the record I'd have voted keep on that category. I strongly believe that categories are the way to handle this kind of thing, not least because individual article authors will see and review the addition of the category.  It also ensures that only those who have a strong and widely-publicised interest will be added. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Zaphod. ;) I was somewhat out of line with that consistency remark, as it's not the same people participating in both discussions.  But it is true that when the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing, we can get those kinds of effects.  I think we'd also see very interesting results in both discussions if we correlated each person's personal view on the political subject with their view on whether or not the category or list is encyclopedic. Jdavidb (talk &bull; contribs) 20:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * In my case you'd probably find I'm less likely to nominate somthing if I support its agenda, but on AfD I will vote to keep stuff I hate and dleet stuff I like based on my best guess at whether it meets the criteria. I think a large proportion of lists are arbitrary, often dangerously misleading (as I believe this one is), and dulfil the same function as categories but less well. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is a useless list. It isn't a list of people who belong to a recognizable group (college alumni, say), have a common intrinsic quality (Italian American, say), or recognized achievement (Nobel Prize winners, say) -- it's an unverified list of people who (may) share a specific OPINION. And it's an opinion singled for noting WHY, exactly? Next up, List of free-trade supporters, List of believers in a conspiracy to assassinate John F. Kennedy, List of people who crack open their boiled eggs on the narrow end, etc. --Calton | Talk 07:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * HOW THE HELL DO YOU PUT ADOLF HITLER IN AN ANTI-ABORTION GROUP!!!?? WHAT KIND OF LIBERAL SICKO DID THIS?!?!''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.215.91.214 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 13 December 2005 (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.