Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro-abortion rights violence


 * 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. Although the issue of unreliable sources seems to have been addressed to some degree, the other main concern, original research by synthesis, has not. I'd have expected the "keep" opinions to address this concern in particular by indicating how this topic as a whole is treated by reliable sources, such that we don't have to synthesize it, as it were, out of reports about individual incidents. That the article is mainly a list of incidents is indicative, as it supports the contention of those in favor of deletion that the topic is OR. Because this argument has not been seriously addressed, I have to find a consensus for deletion here, based both on numbers and weight of arguments.  Sandstein  08:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Pro-abortion rights violence
AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Pro-abortion violence
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

So I know this will be a sensitive subject however I am nominating this on the grounds of WP:NUKE as there is no encyclopedic version to roll back to and quite frankly, there is a lot of WP:WEIGHT being thrown around as well as a total dearth of reliable sources. This article relies entirely on bias sources and to break it down even more, we have 35 sources total:
 * 9 sources are LifeNews
 * 1 source is ChristianityToday
 * 1 source is CNS news
 * 1 source is Mlive, a local Michigan news station
 * 1 source is CBN, The Christian Perspective
 * 8 sources are from LifesiteNews
 * 2 sources are from CatholicNews Agency
 * 1 source is People, which details a doctor who winds up taking a baseball bat to a protesters car, not assaulting him as the text implies on the Wikipedia article
 * 1 source is EWTN, Eternal Word Television Network which explains that those who are pro-choice as anti-life
 * 2 sources are liveaction.org, a self-proclaimed pro-life site
 * 1 source is FoxNews
 * 1 source is Students For Life
 * 2 sources are The Record, published by the archdiocese of Perth
 * 1 source is InfoCatolica, a Catholic newspaper
 * 1 source is the National Catholic Register

The remaining two are in Spanish and I am unable to make heads or tails of it but after looking at several of these and what they reference in the article, there appears to be a great exaggeration of what was actually reported in many but more concerning is the very obvious bias and the fact that there is absolutely no source independent of the subject matter in the major media reporting on what this article contains. CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  19:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete this propaganda piece unless more neutral sources can be found and the article itself made more neutral. 331dot (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is a highly biased issue (WP:WEIGHT issues) and per the source list that I checked, theres a lot of material coming from unreliable or biased sources as well. --  Dane talk  21:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete – only three of the sources are unbiased, and a list article like this with only three entries would not be worth having. It would be nice to have an article like this in parallel with Anti-abortion violence, but WP:TNT is definitely necessary here. —  Quasar  G.  21:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)  My opinion has been changed by the significant improvements made. See below. —  Quasar   G.  21:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Do not delete Some of the sources could be easily revised to other credible news organizations covering the same story. In addition, although it is Wikipedia policy for there to be a neutral point of view, it is not necessary for all sources to be "neutral" in the sense that the edits above suggest. Rather, they should be reliable and lack excessive bias that could impede reliability. This is why, for example, NARAL Pro Choice America and the National Abortion Federation are listed as sources on other articles pertaining to abortion, and why Fox News, as well as the Catholic News Agency, are routinely used as sources throughout Wikipedia. Obviously, this article needs work, but I think a decision to delete it would reflect a lack of neutrality. Wikibolivar2009 (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Wikibolivar2009 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.  — Wikibolivar2009 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I'm glad you agree that sources "should be reliable and lack excessive bias". That's not the case with most of the sources you give. It is in the interest of these news outlets to publicize their anti-abortion views by seeking out examples of wrong done to those opposed to abortion that might not make mainstream media.  This gives the examples undue weight, as is suggested above. If you can replace those with truly unbiased sources from mainstream media, please do so. This is not to say there isn't a role for sources opposed to abortion on Wikipedia, but it's for particular information like statistics, not stories in the guise of news. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, very much agreed. Am working through the sources to replace any overtly campaign-oriented references with stories published by other news organizations (cf. the recent alterations). I do not, however, think it is appropriate to exclude by default any sources that originate from Catholic news agencies, many of which are signed up to national press standards and which, in spite of tending to cover closely news that is relevant to Catholics (e.g. property destruction at a cathedral), tend to be highly reliable. Wikibolivar2009 (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (Not a !vote.) If the story is only covered by Catholic news agencies, I would have to wonder why. If it is covered by other news agencies, we should use those instead to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete, without prejudice - After all the unreliable sources are removed, there will be hardly anything left. Article as it is should be deleted, but with the possibility of recreation later if better sourcing is found.PohranicniStraze (talk) 03:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that the proceeding 4 iVotes are all based on an assertion that sources are not neutral, not on the standards laid out under WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that the above list of sources is substantially different from the original list given by Chrissymad. The list of references is now as follows:

Nevertheless, it remains untrue that Wikipedia is required to have "neutral", rather than simply reliable, sources, as discussed above. Dismissing a source out of hand for being unreliable simply because it takes a right-of-center point of view, or is in Spanish, or is from a Catholic journalistic organization, is problematic and would seem to violate Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. Wikibolivar2009 (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post - six citations
 * Lifenews.com - five citations
 * Catholic News Agency - five citations
 * The New York Times - two citations
 * CNN - two citatinos
 * SFGate, a San Francisco newspaper - two citations
 * The Washington Times - two citations
 * Mother Jones - two citations
 * World News Daily - two citations
 * The Record, an Australian Catholic newspaper - two citations
 * ACI Prensa, a Spanish language Catholic news site - two citations
 * Pro Choice Action Network - one citation
 * The FBI - one citation
 * Mlive.com, a Michigan newspaper - one citation
 * KOB, an NBC affiliate - one citation
 * Independent Journal Review - one citation
 * CBN.com, a Christian news site - one citation
 * Fredericksburg.com, a Virginia newspaper - one citation
 * The Daily Interlake, a Montana newspaper - one citation
 * CNS news - one citation
 * NY Daily News - one citation
 * The Post and Courier, a South Carolina newspaper - one citation
 * The Herald Courier, a Virginia/Tennessee newspaper - one citation
 * The Star Telegram, a Texan newspaper - one citation
 * Stephenville-Empire Tribune, a Texan newspaper - one citation
 * Huffington Post - one citation
 * Reading Eagle, a Pennsylvania newspaper - one citation
 * The Texas Tribune - one citation
 * The Catholic Standard - one citation
 * Hotair.com - one citation
 * Northern Colorado Gazette - one citation
 * Fox News - one citation
 * The College Fix - one citation
 * The Santa Barbara Independent - one citation
 * Mediate, a news site specializing in the media - one citation
 * KXAN, an Austin news site - one citation
 * Channel 9 news, a national Australian TV station - one citation
 * El Mercurio On Line, a Chilean newspaper - one citation
 * Terra Chile, a Chilean news site - one citation
 * InfoCatolica, a Spanish-language Catholic news site - one citation
 * National Catholic Register, an American newspaper - one citation
 * Peru21, a Peruvian news site - one citation
 * The first ref I checked didn't name any instances of "violence committed by individuals and organizations in the name of furthering access to abortion" instead, it covered a threat that Operation Rescue said was left on its answering machine. The saecond ref I checked also only mentioned a threat. The third ref I checked is a web site pretending to be a newspaper (real newspapers always have a way to subscribe to the print edition).


 * It really looks like you are cherry picking stories from unreliable sources and reliable sources that don't actually talk about violence committed by individuals and organizations in the name of furthering access to abortion. I am not going to check your overly long list Please post whatever links you have to reliable sources (See WP:RS) that actually talk about Pro-abortion rights violence, as apposed to words, signs, etc. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Guy Macon, you're not wrong that much of the sourcing is partisan and weak, (although do note that Anti-abortion violence has been tagged for its woefully inadequate sourcing since 2010) but I suspect that the culprit here may sometimes be the inexperienced article creator - who may be sourcing with links form some pro-life website. I deliberately took a look at two of the poorly sourced incidents that looked like they might be real, one I will now link: Murder of Jim Pouillon, the other a 2016 arson in Albuquerque that was not well sourced, but it was simple enough to source it to the Albuquerque Journal.  I do think we have to look at the notability of the contents, despite the inexperienced editing and poor sourcing of the article as it stands.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Point well taken, and please note that so far I have neither !voted to retain or delete. I would like to see the article trimmed at the very least to only those sources that actually support the violence claim and see blogs like hotair.com deleted, then I can evaluate the sources that are left. Wikibolivar2009, would you be willing to do that? If we can see that you are working on doing that we can request and extension/relisting of this deletion discussion if you need more time. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, Guy Macon, willing to work on that - agree that hotair.com should probably be removed. Need some more time if that's alright, haven't had much access to internet recently. Apologies for any sloppy sourcing - doing my best to remove any dubious instances e.g. blogs masquerading as news cites and add more citations to existing entries. Wikibolivar2009 (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would add that I agree a refocus to pro-abortion violence as a phenomenon would be better than merely documenting every example of it that can be found. 331dot (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You're both right: article needs a severe trimming. Abortion is one of the few issues where I take an absolutist position: a woman has a right to decide. Period. I see no shades or grey.  Still, I'll try to make time later this week.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User talk:331dot, User:Guy Macon I cleaned it up a little (see my comment below) although I I agree with User:331dot that more focus on pro-abortion violence as a phenomenon would be god, but I really can't fault the article creator for simply copying the format of Anti-abortion violence.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Possible, if... I was really skeptical when I saw this on on the politics-related list, and at first glance it looked like my skepticism was born out by the inadequacies of this article; although some of the incidents in this list are well-validated, although many are not. I knew about many anti-abortion violent incidents, but when I actually looked at Anti-abortion violence, I found a lot of sketchy sourcing there.  That page, however, is validated by a number of blue-linked incidents, including bombings and murders.  No incident on this pate is blue-linked.  However, when I decided to look up an alleged murder of a anti-abortion activist liste don the page, it turned out that Murder of Jim Pouillon is blue-linked.  Overall, my hesitation comes from lack of sourcing for attacks on pro-life activists as a phenomenon, Anti-abortion violence does this and I would require a WP:HEYMANN upgrade to include a similar section.  Ideally, some of the incidents would also need better sourcing.  Although editors should note that User:Wikibolivar2009 comment notwithstanding, a source does not have to be "neutral" to be a WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Among the worst examples of WP:SYNTH that I have encountered. Neutralitytalk 01:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - The issues with the sourcing, synth, etc. are already sufficiently presented above. Similar issues to when it's been proposed to add as a section at e.g. abortion debate, or at the previous AfD, when this was deleted. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 01:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep As promised above, I have now gone through part of the article. I rewrote the lede.  Then I checked all alleged incidents of violence in the United States.    Note that I only vetted the U.S. incidents.  I deleted some after searching and filing to find reliable sources for the allegations (see my edit notes), I  rephrased some, sourced some, blue-linked some.   Summing up, like many editors commenting here, I WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT Article was written as an obvious, POV attempt to "balance" the fact that Anti-abortion violence has taken place on an egregious scale.  Even to excuse such violence by, for example, citing physician Barnett Slepian who was harassed along with his family and his patients for years because he performed abortions, and was murdered by anti-abortion activists as an example of violent attacks on anti-abortion activists because he lost his cool one day and smashed the window of an van carrying protestors to his medical clinic with a baseball bat. (I revised the POV wording on that section.  The Lord alone knows how Slepian kept his temper for so many years under extreme duress, God rest his soul.)  -End of rant.-  However, I voted keep.  Reason is that there is well validated SIGCOV of a handful of incidents of Pro-abortion rights violence in the U.S. (probably in other countries, too, although I did not check the non-U.S. section of the article.  Nor did I touch the "Background" section.  I hope other editors will edit both the parts I did not touch and those I did.  I leaned over backwards to e fair since I have a very, very, pro-choice personal POV.   I did, however, see enough well-sourced, significant material to validate this as a notable topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * To have an article on "pro-abortion rights violence" we need significant coverage of the topic "pro-abortion rights violence," not a subject synthesized from multiple incidents of violence by pro-choice, etc. activists. Also, many of the examples are not "pro-abortion rights violence"; they're "violence against anti-abortion activists" or "anti-pro-life-activist-tactics" or just "anti-harassment violence". This is part of the problem of WP:SYNTH. In just the US section you're talking about, there are examples with explicit statements that the violence was in response to a tactic/sign/whatnot, not to the position on abortion; there are examples of crimes that do not involve violence, like vandalism; there are examples of suspected arson.. and these are all under the section heading "Politically-motivated incidents". In some cases, the characterization as "politically motivated" only comes from publications known for having a pro-life agenda (having an agenda doesn't disqualify it as an RS, but when it influences story selection, weighting, and accurate reporting, it does). These are barely examples of what they purport, nevermind justification for a synthesized subject. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 16:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, then, fix it. Deletion is not cleanup, but it's a handy occasion for reducing this article to an acceptable encyclopedia entry.  I freely admit that I leaned over backwards to keep what reliable sourced material I found because I abhor the politics of the pro-life movement and was trying to overcompensate.  What I cannot do in good conscience is to pretend that the topis is not notable, since there have in fact been a handful of well-documented violent attacks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ? I don't know what in my comment above implies cleanup is an issue. The problem is the subject. The material is not reliable sourced. It's synthesis and other subjects altogether. Where are the reliable sources about the subject "pro-abortion rights violence" (about the concept -- not what editors synthesize to be a subject drawn from a collection of individual incidents)? Many of the sources here purport to be about that subject but are clearly not. It seems like you're confusing "pro-abortion rights violence" with "a list of various criminal acts against anti-abortion activists or buildings, violent and nonviolent, regardless of intention, as long as some news outlet mentioned it could be politically-driven". &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 21:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I not only take your point, I made it a few inches up the page in my first comment. Nevertheless, I am troubled by the idea of deleting the several well-sourced instances of violence against pro-life activists, notably including murder and arson, that were as clearly motivated by political animus as other hate crimes and acts of political terrorism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up Pro-abortion rights violence which does make the sort of claim you and I have asked for. Sourced only to one WaPo article and a pro-life org.  I had been hoping for some pro-lifers to bring sources to this section, not least because my keyword searches have all been drowned by the shockingly massive amount of anti-abortion violence and resulting coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, since you mention it, let's go with the murder. There's one example. The murderer said it was not because the victim was anti-abortion, but because of the sign he was holding. The killer had not been tied to pro-choice activists. This is similar to many of the other examples. People object to the tactics of anti-abortion activists far more than to the activists themselves. Objecting to the tactics is not "pro-abortion rights violence". The other section that mentions "murder" is likewise not an example of pro-abortion rights violence. At a forum on abortion rights, someone included a statement about "eliminating" cardinals and other religious figures. Someone took that to mean this person speaking at the event was literally disclosing a "conspiracy" to kill religious officials. Then the Cardinal basically said "They're out to get us", and nothing happened. And, again, even if these were examples of pro-abortion rights violence, they are only that -- examples that we place under our SYNTH umbrella. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC
 * While I was googling in a good-faith effort to source the Background section, I came across this Ramesh Ponnuru essay responding to your assertions about motivation in the Murder of Jim Pouillon.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Responding to the background section. Your "cleaned up" version, as with many other parts of this page, is sourced to obviously unreliable sources for this subject. The entire background section is sourced to Lifenews.com, prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org, and a single, 22-year-old Washington Post article supporting the claim that the FBI is investigating someone saying they received death threats. Quite a long investigation, and someone saying "I got a death threat" 22 years ago is an odd choice on which to rest the background section for an article on pro-abortion rights violence. (BTW I don't mean to imply you don't see a problem with the sourcing -- you clearly said as much just above. I just want to highlight that even after these revisions, it's still hopelessly problematic -- because, again, it's not about clean up). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, Lifenews.com is an organ of the Human Life International (I looked it up because I hadn't heard of either gorup, but, then, I don't follow this issue.) They are a partisan political activism outfit flogging the idea that "Pro-abortion rights violence" is a significant thing. We do cite the opinions of political activist organizations on controversial topics.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added a reliable source to the Background section. Also cleaned up the non-US section, removing some stuff, tagging for better citations. I think that I have largely cured the POV language problem and have removed that tag also.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete This article suffers most from WP:SYNTHESIS and should be deleted on that basis. It is also a non-neutral presentation, despite the revision of the "Background" section. The POV problem seems not to lie not just in the language used, but in the choice of topic.  Lists, such as this one which pick only one side of an equation, are inherently POV.  Lists unsupported by multiple sources that discuss the topic, not just the individual list entries, are, like this one WP:OR. --Bejnar (talk) 03:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The difficulty with that argument is that it applies equally to Anti-abortion violence.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't had time to respond in full (sorry) but applying that logic is silly in an AfD. I'd welcome anyone to AfD another article that demonstrates as many issues as this one, I'll even vote delete if that's the case. But what is being discussed here is Pro-abortion rights violence and not Anti-abortion violence. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  19:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's also just false. anti-abortion violence may contain some similar sources, but it has sources about anti-abortion violence and does not simply synthesize a bunch of individual incidents, some of which have evidence for political basis and some don't (though to be clear, it wouldn't matter if they all did, because it's still synthesis 101). &mdash;  Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 22:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: Clearly this article suffers from intrinsic bias, undue weight, and pervasive poor sourcing. It is not salvageable in it's current form. The topic may indeed be notable, but the article needs to be re-written from scratch if it is. Waggie (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Partisan nature of reliable sourcing is something that WP:DUE anticipates; WP:YESPOV is relevant. Just because, for example, Catholic News has an opinion on abortion does not make it unreliable.  Most of the above deletion arguments seem to hinge on this misreading of policy.  Note that this area remains under discretionary sanctions.  I think  makes a valid point: how much of the argumentation here is based on editors' own strong feelings about abortion?  As the drafting arbitrator for the 2011 case, I can say that the argumentation here seems pretty mild by comparison to what I had to wade through there, but there are echoes of the partisan arguing couched in terms of Wikipedia policies which that case examined. The fact is that there is both pro- and anti-abortion violence throughout the world.  Maybe the right thing to do is to put it all into one big article and lay out the relevant incidents in one article that shows the relative preponderance as covered in RS'es.  Regardless, this is verifiable content on a notable topic, and so the burden on those seeking to delete this from here becomes, "If not in this article, where should this information best be presented in encyclopedic fashion?" Jclemens (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * When a source's bias affects its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, the bias is relevant. Sure, we can cite biased sources for their opinion or for things that they're a reliable source about, but when coverage of a subject (not individual instances synthesized into a subject) only exists on sites with a known POV on the subject, and is totally ignored by mainstream reliable sources, that matters (WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:PROFRINGE). Ultimately, the POV of the sources is not the only issue. It's not even the biggest issue. The biggest issue is the dearth of sources about the subject of the article (again, not just examples we've synthesized into a subject) in mainstream reliable sources (the kind that are plentiful for anti-abortion violence). &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 22:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If you're asserting that ALL of the sources are so hopelessly unbalanced that there's not even two or three who could qualify as RS to meet the GNG, that'd be a valid argument, but I don't think you can get there from here based on the sourcing. Likewise, the conflation of Catholic perspectives on news with FRINGE does nothing to help your cause: Opposition to abortion is not FRINGE.  It may be a vocal minority, but it's never been FRINGE. Jclemens (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Appreciate that it's necessary for there to be mainstream media attention to the topic - if you'll look through the sources you'll see that there has been considerable attention given to the matter in the mainstream media, with attention peaking in 2009 around the death of Jim Pouillon. Will go through and add some more of the attention from around this time. Wikibolivar2009 (talk) 02:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  08:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a notable topic outside tabloid and fake-news publications, which we're supposed to be opposing not pandering to. Individual incidents are reported, but are not notable per WP:NOTNEWS (similarly, lots of rappers have been murdered but anti-rapper violence is not a notable topic). WP:FRINGE probably applies, which says that unless mainstream media discusses a fringe topic, it's not notable just because it has some coverage in fringe media. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * CNN, Mother Jones, El Mercurio, Washington Post, Catholic News Agency, Salt Lake Tribune, Albuquerque Journal, Daily Princetonian..... Yup. a lineup of "tabloid and fake-news publications." allright.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue is WP:SYNTHESIS and the lack of articles to significantly support the topic, not lack of WP:RS that verify individual incidents. --Bejnar (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the best solution to that would be to reduce the "Background" section to the brief statement of the position of Human Life International, and the single, well-sourced sentence: "Anti-abortion political commentator Ramesh Ponnuru describes "pro-abortion rights violence" as "not very common at all."  This would make it clear to a reader coming to this page that this is a very minor phenomenon.  Minor, but real.  Then perhaps editors here and at anti-abortion violence cold work out mutiallyy agreed standards about what qualifies as an act of violence.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As a phenomenon it's not particularly common but it's received sustained attention from the mainstream media, particularly in the U.S. and Hispanic countries. The sources discussing it in this piece are not "fringe" publications. Wikibolivar2009 (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 *  Weak Keep – I swayed towards delete at first (see above) due to a significant issue with unreliable sources and undue weight. However, after improvements made by and, I have combed through the sources and believe that the article is now well-sourced enough to warrant keeping. There are still some issues; I have tagged any events which are covered by only (semi-reliable) local news with , and any questionable sources with . Fourteen events remain without these tags, a number which I believe just about proves this to be a notable topic. Hence, keep. —  Quasar   G.  21:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - POV junk drawer. Carrite (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment could you be a little more specific? What exactly is the problem? Thanks —  Quasar   G.  06:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Running a Google search for DENTIST + MURDERER generates over 411,000 hits, including a rich mine of "reliable sources" that could be cut-and-pasted to create an article which really socks it to those nasty, murdering dentists. I mean, really, screw those guys — I'll show the world!!! A POV crusade could be waged to demonstrate that the only good dentist is a dead dentist, because they all must be murdering scum. The problem is that "Dentist Murder" is not a thing, it would be an artificial creation by somebody who doesn't like dentists, created out of thin air, and used to make Wikipedia into a politicized battle axe to advance a POV agenda. The same here. WP:COATRACK is the official term... Carrite (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete . Comment (slightly leaning to "delete"). Whole page reads like WP:SOAP. My very best wishes (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Which bits? Wikibolivar2009 (talk) 04:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, the entire concept of "Pro-abortion rights violence" is WP:OR based on poor quality sources. How do we know it? Let's make a Google books search . What did we find? Nothing. Of course, one should also make this search, and it does finds some refs. Let's follow them, and they tell such problem exists, but I do not see this to be described as a notable general subject. Compare this with a similar search for "anti-abortion violence", and you will see 10 times more sourcing in books. Can this page be fixed, or the subject is "inherently POV"? As written it seems to be the latter. My very best wishes (talk) 13:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I think it goes without saying that violence from this end of the political spectrum is significantly less notable, because it happens less. "Pro-abortion violence" and "pro-choice violence" on Google books get around a tenth of what you get from looking for "anti-abortion violence" and "pro-life violence". (Although I don't think it would be correct to re-title this page either pro-abortion violence or pro-choice violence.) Anti-abortion violence, though, receives a lot of significant coverage from reliable sources, and I'd think that even a tenth of that attention from reliable sources (e.g. WaPo, CNN, National Review) should be enough to qualify another topic, esp. given the political attention given to certain incidents (e.g. Harlan Drake, some incidents at prominent universities). It could be made more obvious that this is considered a relatively minor phenomenon in the background section, compared to anti-abortion violence. I don't think, though, that a phenomenon being relatively less common means it doesn't meet the requirements for notability. Wikibolivar2009 (talk) 08:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a false equivalency used to justify an artificial construct. Carrite (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep after the recent edits. Looking at the history, the article has become significantly better sourced and meets WP:RS. - GretLomborg (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, the rewrite has addressed a lot of the bias issues with the sources, but does not and cannot address the fact that this is a huge pile of WP:SYNTH. A grab-bag of unrelated incidents across different countries does not a cohesive topic make.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 14:20, 17 June 2017 (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.