Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Self-induced abortion

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP Note: the nominee withdrew the nomination. Normally this is not the reason for closing the discussion, but I believe this case is pretty much evident, so no reason to be strictly formal. mikka (t) 18:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Self-induced abortion
Original Research: A google search for "self induced abortion" returns 3650 hits A google search for "induced abortion" and "spontaneus abortion" return 109,000 and 164,000 hits respectivly  Tznkai 14:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Nomination withdrawn--Tznkai 15:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete: Original research (coining neologism). I believe most of this article has been stated in various places on wikipedia, but if not, a merge is in order.--Tznkai 14:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) see below
 * Keep. I'm absolutely stunned to find this on vfd, a day after I created it. 3,600+ Google hits shows that this is hardly a neologism, or original research (I've cited at least a half-dozen sources, including references to scientific studies using the term). This topic was not thoroughly covered anywhere else in Wikipedia, so far as I could find, and the abortion article is certainly long enough to justify a separate article on this related but distinct topic. -- BD2412 talk 14:45, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
 * I obviously havn't gone through all 3000+ hits, but the majority that I saw had the world "self" tacked on as alliteration, not as a seperate term. compare to say, "assisted suicide" (684k hits) vs suicide. The two are sigificnatly diffrent enough because of the host of moral and legal complications, while I don't think self induced versus induced abortion is (yet). My point is that "self-induced suicide" is not a term used on its own, just the world self tacked on as an adjective.--Tznkai 15:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It is hardly an alliteration if it describes a circumstance that is distinct from an "induced abortion". An induced abortion is any abortion intentionally induced by anyone. A self-induced abortion is not merely a medical term, but a sociological concept, motivated (as the literature shows) by factors distinct from those responsible for people seeking abortions from doctors. -- BD2412 talk 15:13, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
 * Let me try another analogy to get my point across. If you get it, but disagree, thats fine. There are cars. There are also sports cars. There are also red sports cars. Red sports cars are distinct both from cars and sports cars, but not enough to be its own term. Also, I've never heard the term used in medicine before, and couldn't find anything to lead me to believe otherwise. If it is a sociological concept and you can show me some textbooks, I'll drop my contention for VfD however.--Tznkai 16:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, look at the Ghana study cited within: "To obtain information on induced abortion, for example, interviewers asked women whether they had ever terminated an unwanted pregnancy, and if so, whether they had had a self-induced abortion or what type of facility they had visited to obtain an abortion." Clearly this is a distinct use. Per you analogy argument, a better analogy would be between race-cars and home-made race cars (a sub-category which I think would merit an article). -- BD2412 talk 17:02, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
 * Well, I see we're both on the same page just of diffrent opinions, I am just not convinced that this term is as widley used as you are. Again, please show me the term used in a textbook, and I'll drop my contention.--Tznkai 18:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I'm not in a position to go looking up textbooks, so we'll just have to leave it at the sources available on the internet for now. I suppose you can go tell Gabriela Flores that the activity for which she's being prosecuted and may go to jail is not a real concept, so she's free to go. Or tell that to the Mississippi legislature, which passed a law that classifies self-induced abortions as deaths which affect the public interest, and requires physicians to report them to the local medical examiner. The statute describes "death caused by criminal abortion, including self-induced abortion, or abortion related to or by sexual abuse." -- BD2412  talk 18:57, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
 * Theres no need to get snippy or make inflamitory statements. I have been as civil as possible during this entire VfD.--Tznkai 20:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * True, you have been civil and presented a logical case. I apologize for the snippiness. However, I rest on my contention that the sources cited in the article (and many additional similar references that can be found on Google) provide more than enough proof of the notability and pedigree of the topic to justify an article without using textbooks for support. -- BD2412 talk 20:23, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
 * As a point of intrest, that bill died in commitee. My major problem here is I want to be convinced that the term we're using is right. in the adhd article, we've been having problems with chemical imbalance theory which had a similar number of hits. Unlike in that case however, sorting out the bias of sites is very difficult, so I went with a gut feeling and put it on VfD. I still have reservations, but I can see I am going against consensus here. I'm going to wait a day for addtional comment, then I will remove the VfD.--Tznkai 20:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Not to be nitpicky, but it was a proposed amendment to an existing statute that died in committee. The requirement that "self-induced abortions" be reported to the medical examiner is very much the law in Mississippi today, as it has been since 1972. The National Library of Medicine's PubMed search engine returns 16 journal article discussing the topic, from 1954-2000. -- BD2412 talk 21:32, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)


 * Keep, I can find instances of the phrase being used by governments, activists on both sides of the abortion issue, news media, etc. Article is detailed enough to warrant its own page. Eliot 14:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. DS1953 15:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Obvious Keep. I think our VfD nomination process isn't very instructive if people are reading the instructions and still nominating articles like this!  -- Un focused 15:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Note There was a vandalism vote that was removed here. See history if intrested--Tznkai 20:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable and described phenomenon .mikka (t) 16:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * keep obviously. Dunc|&#9786; 17:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Well written article, not to mention very notable issue. Blackcats 19:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep While this topic is worthy of mention, I'm not sure that it needs its own article. However, because it's brand new and well written, I think we should keep it around for a while and see where it goes.  --Xcali 20:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable, well-written, not a neologism -CunningLinguist 20:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * keep this too it is a good article no reason to erase it Yuckfoo 21:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well written article on notable topic. Capitalistroadster 01:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well written and notable. Frankchn 02:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Independently notable practice, often distinguished in abortion laws/abortion debate. Xoloz 04:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep notable topic. JamesBurns 05:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - No Reason to remove. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:03, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn--Tznkai 15:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page . }