Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socialist perspectives on abortion


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. The !vote count is close but keep arguments based on attention received in scholarly publications such that it meets WP:GNG directly refute the claims of a violation of WP:CROSSCAT, as meeting notability guidelines means that the subject is in fact encyclopedic. Arguments for deletion based on the state of the article or the idea that the article would only be valid if socialists had a unified view on abortion have no basis in policy. The suggestion to merge to Abortion under communism on the other hand, is perfectly valid from a policy standpoint: the question of whether the two topics are best presented together or separately has not been exhaustively discussed, but ultimately no editors were swayed for merge beyond the editor who proposed it. signed,Rosguill talk 03:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Socialist perspectives on abortion

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This page is may be culpable of wp:crosscat between Category:socialism and Category:Abortion. Wikipedia articles are not to be "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics", because WP:NOTCATALOG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FatalSubjectivities (talk • contribs) 06:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 19.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 20:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Politics.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tanzania, Tunisia, China, Indonesia, Israel, India, Armenia, Hungary, Bolivia, Brazil, Nicaragua,  and Uruguay.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep seems a perfectly valid topic, well sourced and adequately discussed. We could perfectly have similar articles discussing Jewish, Christian, Muslim and humanist perspectives on abortion. Mccapra (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it is a long article, with many wp:refs. But being an article with many true statements does not mean that the article ought to exist. You are right to say that we could perfectly have articles on Christianity and abortion and Islam and abortion - in fact, as you see, these articles already exist. These articles' existence are justified. (Why? THe reason is that religious groups often focus on abortion, and even view views on abortion as highly important to their religions. Religious groups' views on abortion, generally, is integral to each of them. Hence these articles on Religion and abortion are Not guilty of wp:crossref.) However, it is very difficult to argue that 'socialist' groups' views on abortion is integral to each of their socialism. Therefore, Wikipedia's rejection of wp:crosscat safeguards wikipedia from having articles like 'Direct Democracy and abortion', or 'Realpolitik and abortion'. As such, there are grounds for this article to be deleted, regardless of how true the statements inside them are.
 * You may be worrying, that the well sourced research will be utterly wasted if this page is deleted. You are right to oppose such wastage. However, the research and all the wp:refs will not have to be deleted even if this page is deleted. How so? The reason is that this page addresses the abortion positions of various governments. These governments have their own respective wikipedia pages. Therefore, the material on this page can be distributed to their respective governments' pages, hence need not be lost, even if this page itself is deleted. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for setting out your reasoning but I don’t agree with it. The right to abortion featured prominently in the political programme of Marxist parties in the early 20th century and in most instances the right to abortion was first established when communists took power. It is thus not at all . There is nothing in common between “Socialist perspectives on abortion” as a topic and the ones you suggest - “Realpolitik and abortion” or “Direct democracy and abortion” which I agree are non-topics. Mccapra (talk) 08:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your inputs, however, one may beg to differ on multiple points. 1. Yes, perhaps the may have been  in some parties - but not others, as we may agree of the Russian government (between the October 1917 Revolution and 1920, and for a substantial portion of the earlier half of the 20th century), as this article itself states. 2. Furthermore, any purported correlation between "socialism" (a class of "economic and political theories or movements" or a "social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources" ) and abortion-rights policy does not imply causation. We can agree that economic ideology may be, indeed, one cause of abortion-rights policy; nevertheless, we can also agree that there are many other historical causes. Socialist-leaning governments' abortion-rights policy is contingent on many factors, rather than a logically necessary result of socialism. Therefore, as one reading this article itself would understand, "Socialist parties can have diverging perspectives regarding the importance" of "abortion", rather than a unified priority on the abortion debate  (not to mention a unified upholding of one single answer to the debate)  and in particular, a Marxist group "may deem abortion as a secondary issue"
 * Nevertheless, one may respond to the sentence before, "But this article, at its very core, is not about 'Socialism (itself, per se) and abortion', but about 'Perspectives on abortion by political groups, politicians, and historical figures who are socialist'. Therefore, although 'socialism' and 'abortion' do not have an integral, inherent, innate, essential and necessary connection, Wikipedia is still obliged to host this page." We may largely agree with this claim. But this is precisely why we may agree that this article's intersecting of Category:socialism and Category:Abortion is incidental and trivial, and therefore culpable, at the very heart, of wp:crosscat, which is a specific commission of Cataloguing. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 03:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As stated above, some content is in the process of being cut and paste into different pages
 * / FatalSubjectivities (talk) 09:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I had not realized there were simultaneous deletion discussions for both Abortion under communism and Socialist perspectives on abortion. I am sympathetic to the desire to reduce duplication, but it seems to me the better approach would be to discuss how to merge these two articles, not to delete both of them. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We all can agree that reducing duplication is good. However, that is not the primary reason for the deletion discussion in the first place. The primary reason is that the Wikipedia ought not be made to hold pages with wp:crosscat, and that WP:NOTCATALOG. May I ask why do you suggest that the better approach would be to discuss how to merge these two articles? FatalSubjectivities (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The communist countries (as in the "Abortion under communism" article) arise in the Marxist tradition. Marxism is part of the broader intellectual tradition of socialism (a subset, sometimes referred to as "scientific socialism" in contrast to "utopian" socialism). There is necessarily conceptual overlap in the two articles as a result. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A merger will reduce duplication indeed, but will not solve other problems, as stated above. Hence, deletion of a resultant article may still be the sensible choice. Hence, there may be little need for a merger, since a merger will not eliminate the need for deletion. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 04:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A merger will reduce duplication indeed, but will not solve other problems, as stated above. Hence, deletion of a resultant article may still be the sensible choice. Hence, there may be little need for a merger, since a merger will not eliminate the need for deletion. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 04:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete - Communism is a subset of socialism and abortion was a major feature in some communist countries. See Articles for deletion/Abortion under communism -- I !voted to keep that article . However, with this article, if we subtract those communist countries from the more general pool of socialist countries, what's left is an unfocused grab bag of different non-marxist communist countries with no particular connection between socialism and their abortion policies. As the nominator, FatalSubjectivities, has noted, this remaining information can be merged into those countries' individual articles. -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: after reviewing the individual articles on abortion in China and in Russia, I subsequently changed my !vote to delete at Articles for deletion/Abortion under communism. The individual articles were just so much stronger. -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: I think this discussion and the related AFD could benefit from more consideration if one or both of the articles should be kept, merged or deleted. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Other than political ideologies that incorporates eugenics or religious doctrines into themselves, most political ideologies don't have a fix stand on abortion. While there are many research papers into the history of abortion in Socialist countries, there does not seem to be much focus in making a connection between the Socialist ideology as a whole and the practice of abortion. Honestly this article look really out of place in the "Issues" part of the Abortion Template. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete - way too general a topic to have any practical hope of being a useful page without WP:OR or being a bad university essay or being incredibly biased. There are many different socialist political parties and even if one only considers the parties which have been in government they have a very wide variety of views on almost everything. JMWt (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. If you do not like to read blunt opinions, stop right here. This is a lousy article. The quality is quite shocking. So much so that there is no need to research if the topic could be notable. The problem is beyond cleanup from which I do not shy away. Whether the topic could be notable or not, this article should be deleted. gidonb (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Rationale in this case is WP:TNT. There may of course be a root-cause story here that could invalidate the topic. However, since TNT applies, deeper diving is not strictly necessary. gidonb (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment some of the delete voting seems to be based on the opinion that perspectives on abortion are not integral to socialism in the same way as they are to specific religions. Socialism doesn’t take a dogmatic view on abortion but free access to healthcare and family planning absolutely was one of the central planks of the socialist movement in Europe and the USA. The writings of activists such as Margaret Sanger, Alexandra Kollontai and Klara Zetkin make their positions on abortion clear. The KPD campaigned actively against Germany’s anti-abortion laws. It is not correct to suggest that the socialist movement didn’t have a coherent body of thought, sustained campaigns and extensive writing about abortion over many decades. Mccapra (talk) 07:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, as you have rightfully understood, although "clear" positions on abortion existed in the socialism-aligned "movement" in Europe and the USA, "Socialism" itself, on the other hand, "doesn’t take a dogmatic view on abortion". FatalSubjectivities (talk) 10:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t see why the lack of single-minded zealotry implies that the well-documented perspectives of the socialist movement aren’t a valid article subject. Mccapra (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * its not really about validity, IMO. It is about the practicality of writing said article without bias. Which, in my view, is impossible due to the massive breadth of the subject JMWt (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge this seems well researched and interesting. However often the citations needed verification and the text made to follow the citations better: I checked the sentence They also advised minority women to have abortions, as they wanted women to have a minimum of two children in a heterosexual white family and found that this specifically refers to a Czech policy on Roma pregnancies, while the sentence applies it indiscriminantly to "the socialist state." That is sloppy. So I think it is better to merge this page with Abortion_under_communism (which is also AfD but should be kept) which has essentially the same topic.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * friendly note to those who support a merger of Socialist perspectives on abortion into Abortion under communism or the other way round : Any merger in general will reduce duplication indeed, but will not solve other problems such as those which have been stated above. Hence, the resultant article is likely to still lack a reason to exist. As such, there may be little need to merge, since merger will not eliminate the need for deletion. But still, I am willing to listen to - and even accept - any rejections of my concerns. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 08:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * my Additional clarification: User:Rhododendrites has pointed out on another page, the issue of WP:SYNTH may result in thinking something along the lines of, "A is a socialist country, and B is a socialist country, and C too, D too, etc ... and they all have laws about abortion (and yes, indeed, there are reliable sources documenting these laws in each of those countries), so Wikipedia servers are obliged to accede to our desire for these to be collected in an article, as though these are one big topic". This mentality unfortunately  may also be culpable of WP:OR.
 * In sum, as said before, abortion and socialism are not adequately connected or related for Wikipedia to be obliged to host it. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep, I think that this article is useful and provides a good overview on socialist stances on abortion. I also think that Abortion under Communism should be merged into this article. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I meant the article, Abortion under communism. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep as per GoldenBootWizard276's decision. CastJared (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see a single policy that can be used to justify deletion. The rationale of WP:Crosscat does not hold up as this does seem like a very specific topic that has seen research done on it as the sources indicate. While work is needed, I agree with others that this article is actually in fairly good shape. This shouldn't be merged with Abortion under communism as it's two different strands of a ideology. Meanderingbartender (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we can agree that that is beside the point. wp:crosscat, primarily, is not about the details of the article, the details' trustworthiness, and the research that has backed the details. Crosscat is about the heart of the article (exemplified by its title). We may agree that the lack of wp:notability renders this article crosscat.
 * "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list"
 * Hence, References that prop up the page's continued existence cannot be individual socialist-aligned countries' abortion policy, but rather, about socialism and abortion as a whole. Indeed, "this does seem like a very specific topic". However, that may be precisely the issue:
 * "Lists that are too specific are also a problem. The 'list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana' will be of little interest to anyone other than the creator of the list."
 * "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article"
 * Therefore, we may accept the fact this page is indeed a crosscat. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 07:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Forgot to add; Since we have accepted that this article is not about "socialism" per se and abortion, this article is an eg of Stand-alone lists.
 * FatalSubjectivities (talk) 07:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Aforementioned Crosscat argument is valid and strong. Besides that I would like to add that there arent any citations dedicated on the topic. It might not meet GNC, and the whole article reminds me original research- because the overall narrative is not to be found in any of the referenced works. Cinadon36 21:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep The quality of this AfD isn't very good - the crosscat concerns don't imply when there are reliable secondary sources which discuss the issue - particularly academic ones like this article, and given it's an issue discussed by a specific political ideology, it's a perfectly valid article to have on the encyclopaedia. Notability is almost always only about whether it's covered by secondary sources, and then reconsider if NOT applies - but in this case it easily passes GNG, and I don't see any part of NOT which applies. Also, there are a couple !votes above that need to be reminded that deletion is not cleanup. SportingFlyer  T · C  17:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Why does this article pass:
 * all of GNG
 * all of NOT
 * wp:scholarship for secondary sourcing - neither biased for or against socialism, neither for or against abortion-friendly legislation, to be wp:reliable - propping up the article's sustained existence? FatalSubjectivities (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There's plenty of comparative scholarly literature demonstrating the topic's notability. That's it. GNG is not a very high hurdle. I've never seen WP:SCHOLARSHIP quoted before at AfD, either. SportingFlyer  T · C  13:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm afraid that's kind of begging the question rather than answering it. Also, the GNG page itself demands fulfilmnet of the WP:RS standards, of which wp:scholarship is a significant one. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's easy - scholarly sources such as   (et cetera) clearly mean the topic has been discussed by reliable secondary sources. The NOTs that have been thrown around are completely incorrect - NOTCATALOG doesn't fit at all. SportingFlyer  T · C  17:29, 13 June 2023 (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.