Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 22

@John M Wolfson: I understand the concern about how the page could be used nefariously, e.g. if someone were added to the list who had not had an abortion or who had but didn't want to be outed. Guessing similar concerns apply to the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, List of intersex people, and the many lists of people by medical condition (bulimia, anorexia, ovarian cancer, etc.). How can we go about protecting the page to avoid this?Scribestress (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The LGB list is already semi-protected, though not the Intersex list. From what I understand protection should generally not be preemptive (I don't necessarily agree with that, but that's neither here nor there). An issue IMO is that abortion is not generally

WP:DEFINING and is an operation rather than a condition. Having this list is much like having a "List of celebrities who are circumcised", it usually doesn't matter,^{Not that I care much for circumcision, but that's again neither here nor there} and to the extent that it does it matters in the wrong way (i.e., tabloid stuff). Perhaps the content could be incorporated into any recent social media movement emphasizing the importance of abortions in light of the recent bans, but this title should not redirect to that and should instead be deleted and salted to prevent nefariousness and mishaps. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:DEFINING yet not "tabloid stuff," why isn't having an abortion? I trust you have read through the list of citations on the page (not suggesting you haven't). The news media thinks this is noteworthy. It's being discussed before the Supreme Court. I don't get why it's too trivial (or sensationalist?) for Wikipedia.Scribestress (talk) 03:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

The attorneys signing the brief aren't usually notable enough for Wikipedia, and if they are it's for different things. Youngest birth fathers and mothers are important because that's the cause of their notability within Wikipedia, and the list of underwear models and porn performers are defining because that's their occupation. Abortion is a very commonplace procedure and per

WP:UNDUE weight towards a fairly minor characteristic, (As said earlier in the thread, it wouldn't make a good category.) and it is such undue weight that gives the list a sort of perceived tabloid feel to it. I appreciate your good-faith efforts to salvage this article, but in the end I just don't think it's worthy of Wikipedia. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Appreciate you continuing the conversation. Have you taken a look at the many lists of people by medical condition? I don't see how this is distinct from the List of organ transplant donors and recipients and the List of baseball players who underwent Tommy John surgery. Are those lists not addressed to a "minor characteristic"? Scribestress (talk) 05:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Good intentions, but a
  chatter) 22:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@

Mrschimpf: I see the concern. Perhaps we can pre-empt the issue by requesting protection for the page to avoid this issue. Thanks for your thoughts.Scribestress (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Strong delete Strongest. My God... this is a new low on the quest to turn Wikipedia into tabloid toilet paper.... Next it's gonna be "celebrities who have eaten at In-N-Out Burger", "celebrities who pseudonyms at hotels", and "celebrities who wear glasses as a fashion statement yet otherwise have fine eyesight". I mean who really gives a damn? This is absurd. Stop trying to turn momentary controversies into click bait! Abortion is one of the most common procedures in the world. Millions get it. What makes a celebrity different? Next it's gonna be "celebrities promoting diarrhea-inducing "Flat Tummy Tea". Trillfendi (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Trillfendi: Gentle reminder that Wikipedia policies discourage attacking other editors. Let's also assume we're both acting in good faith. I get that you think this is either unimportant, sensationalist, or both. Time, Fortune, the BBC, and The New York Times think it is news. It is also, apparently, of interest to the U.S. Supreme Court (see Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt.Scribestress (talk) 02:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

doesn’t make it worthy of a Wikipedia article. Trillfendi (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment And even worse... The page (of horrible quality may I add. No context. No categories. Just a list of alphabetized names.) was created today out of: a hashtag? This is bad. This is very, very bad. Trillfendi (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- unencyclopedic, tasteless junk Reyk _YO! 13:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WTF?!
  talk) 18:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete--agree that the potential for vandalism is too high to balance out the merits of this particular article. We don't have "list of rapists" or list of rape victim" articles in similar manner.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Epiphyllumlover I see the concern. Another editor suggested addressing the vandalism concern by protecting the page, which as been done with other articles. What do you think about this approach? Scribestress (talk) 02:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just assumed it was already protected due to it being about abortion... but then I checked and there is no talk page. I would encourage you to go about fixing this ASAP, even though I still think in favor of "Delete," it may change other people's minds in your favor. Page protections on Wikipedia are more about preventing edit wars than preventing subtle, slanderous hoaxes from being added. Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia is incomplete, and I expect there are others still waiting to be found. In theory a page like this could possibly be policed for libel if there were more people constantly working on it, but quickly checking the edit history, it seems like it is pretty much just you. Trying not to be creepy, I checked your edit history to see how active you are, and it seems like you were pretty active in 2019, but not in the past. This might be splitting hairs, but what I expect is that in a few years, this article will be dormant and open to abuse. I double checked for other controversial "Lists of people" topics. We have some on mental health, but they are not limited to say, ethnic/national groups. Abortion is one of the topics Wikipedia fights the most about.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Epiphyllumlover Appreciate the advice. I created a talk page. The policy on requesting protection discourages making a request "as a method for continuing an argument from elsewhere." Everyone on this page who has weighed in on the issue seems in favor of the article needing protection, there's no argument. Then again, the "argument from elsewhere" could be whether to outright delete this page. Thoughts? Scribestress (talk) 04:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you violated the "continuing an argument" provision.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ugg. I just had the most horrible thought. Sometimes I think of articles and speculate, what would be another name for that article from the other POV, and would also be a POV fork if created... the non-existent POV-fork counterpart for this article is List of aborted celebrity fetuses.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not great. This reminds me that I moved the page so that it is now called "List of women who have had an abortion." Pretty sure most people are not looking at the page itself, just this AfD page. Can I just change the title at the top of this page to conform to the current title of the page? That would make it accurate, and maybe people would get past the sensationalism issue. Scribestress (talk) 04:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Is there a List of Governors with Vasectomies? List of people with odd numbers of moles on their noses? There are enough useless lists on Wikipedia as it is. Specifically, what use is this list in isolation? This has naught but the appearance of The Scarlet Letter and all the BLP concerns that go with that. Shenme (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny you should mention the Scarlet Letter--I was just thinking of creating List of people with an Alabama "A" on their left butt cheek. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I just compared this list to List of youngest birth mothers. Perhaps you can tell that I favor it because it has more detail. If for some reason this article is not deleted, extra categories could be added as in the List of youngest birth mothers list.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Epiphyllumlover Not a bad idea. I'll have to think about what details could be added (age, maybe?)Scribestress (talk) 04:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Number of abortions, age during abortions, age, size, and weight of fetus, identity of father and his relationship to the mother, age of father, method used to abort, whether there were multiple fetuses or not, location or facility where the abortion was performed, legal aspects (rape, incest, instances of coercion of abortion, whether the abortion was legally performed or not), any medical complications, and whether the mother or father approved of the abortion or later expressed remorse or mixed feelings. I suspect that if the article contained these things some of the medical/legally interested editors would be coming here and voting "keep" and people would be less likely to view this article as tabloid material because it would appear serious.Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bradv I saw that you moved the page back to its old title, which the group finds problematic. What's the deal? Looking for a solution and operating in good faith. Thanks. Scribestress (talk) 06:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Scribestress, moving a page while it is at AfD should not be done, as it changes the question that this discussion is supposed to answer. Wait for the AfD to close first. – bradv🍁 06:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Bradv Interesting. I think the policy says that you can edit a page while it's AfD. No one participating in this discussion advocates keeping "celebrities" in the title, so it was not a controversial move.Scribestress (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Trivia, unencyclopedic and in very poor taste. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This is not just about the
  Silent No More, founded in 2003 in the US (women (and men) who regret their abortions); Manifesto of the 343, a French petition calling for the legalization of abortion, published in a weekly magazine in 1971; ShoutYourAbortion, started in the US in 2015 "for the purpose of “destigmatization, normalization, and putting an end to shame"; You Know Me movement
  , US, 2019. There are other projects in other countries in which women have also made public the fact that they have had an abortion, eg The X-ile Project in Ireland ('Reviewed Work: The X-ile Project', Review by: Katherine Side, The Canadian Journal of Irish Studies, Vol. 40, 2017). There are reliable sources discussing these movements/petitions of women publicly naming themselves as having had an abortion, and many of these sources also name and discuss some of the women.

I also searched within Wikipedia articles for "had an abortion". Among other women who have WP articles of whom it is noted that they had abortions, but who are not already in this list, are Mary Hamilton (lady in waiting) (d. 1719); Els von Eystett (15th C); Susana, Lady Walton (d. 2010); British MP Heidi Allen; Alix Kates Shulman; Suze Rotolo (d. 2011); Christine Keeler (d. 2017); Katharine, Duchess of Kent; Hazel Hawke, wife of a former Australian PM (d. 2013); and many others. In these biographies, the abortions were considered significant enough to be discussed by the sources and to be included in the article, and thus the list can easily be expanded by finding them and adding them.

I think that those editors who consider this topic unencyclopedic or trivial, comparable to stating when notable women had their first pap smear, who has a mole on their nose, etc, are missing a major point (whether deliberately or through ignorance): abortion has been or is illegal in many states/countries/situations. Some women for whom an abortion is a notable fact in their lives were charged with obtaining one (and sometimes named in newspapers etc in relation to the charge and/or sentence), or risked being charged by publicly stating that they had had one. So abortion is/has indeed been

WP:IDONTLIKEIT

.)

I agree that the name of the article should not include the word 'celebrities' - I think just 'women' would be appropriate (and following

WP:LISTPEOPLE, "A person is typically included in a list of people only if all the following requirements are met: The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement. The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources".) RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

The articles you mentioned generally have relevance to the person having an abortion. Your standard BLP does not, just by virtue of having had an abortion. Also wrt legality, pot is illegal in many places, but we don't have an article about People who got high or People who once smoked pot. Giving an abortion more weight just because someone had one is an extreme violation of NPOV for the same reason including a tweet from Celine Dion saying "I smoked pot in college once" would be irrelevant and contradictory to the purpose of Wikipedia. (And I hope this doesn't need to be said, I was just giving an example, I don't know or care if CD ever smoked pot.) tl;dr we don't need every factoid about someone who is notable just because it's verifiable.Praxidicae (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Scribestress (talk) 16:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Silent No More movement, the Irish project, or the other women you named. I'll add them in. Scribestress (talk) 16:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, Praxidicae, we do have List of United States politicians who have acknowledged cannabis use and List of British politicians who have acknowledged cannabis use. Reywas92^Talk 19:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you read biographers and journalists who talk about political figures who have been well known to have scandalous political lives, they sometimes state that "they don't find the affairs interesting" with the exception of affairs that may have changed them politically. The "not interesting" votes are coming from people who lack prurient interest, or are virtue-signaling that they lack such interest, but maybe are still struggling with it. In our modern day, the women who have the most to lose by vandalism are those who are either pro-life/anti-abortion, or whose supporters tend to be religious or conservative. People worried about vandalism either are people who 1. worry about Wikipedia's reputation 2. have dealt with hoaxes in the past and/or 3. are concerned about preventing scandal to the sort of women I mentioned above. There may be some overlap between not liking the content and being concerned about scandal, but not liking it doesn't make the concerns irrational or illegitimate. As I suggested above, the article could be improved so that the non-prurient interest types find it interesting. However, the editors who are worried about vandalism probably will not be brought around. But this isn't necessary to win a delete fight like this.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-encyclopaedic trivia and a potential time sink for editors and admins alike trying to keep BLP violations out of it. Sometimes, an article is just a bad idea and this is one of those. Neiltonks (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Went ahead and reorganized content, added tables. Removed references to tweets and instagram. Added in the information about the individual's abortion that I could find, but doesn't have the level of detail that Epiphyllumlover suggests although a column for legal aspects would be fairly easy to add. 9H48F (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reorg looks great. Since legality is tied in with what makes this list encyclopedic and the procedure itself defining for some, I'll go ahead and add in a column for it.Scribestress (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per several comments above. This is a non-defining characteristic. Listing people who happened to have had a medical procedure is beyond banal and entirely not worth noting as a distinct list. In some, rare, cases I could see mentioning it in an article, but there's no way an arbitrary medical procedure bears building a list around.--Jayron32 04:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment 9H48F, thank you for reorganising this list into tables. (Do you still maintain your Delete !vote, even after reorganising it and adding lots of information?) I have added some of the names I linked to in my !vote above, and will continue adding more. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, changed above. 9H48F (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not sure we're being encouraged to talk about (or avoid talking about) celebrities or about abortions here. So presumably both. And either way, facts are more useful in a mission to inform than inherited mantras, and if a celeb comes out and says she's had an abortion, that's a potentially powerful fact. (Even if she's lying ....) Abortion has been a live political issue for decades and - maybe slightly oddly - it still - or again - is. We (almost) all have opinions on abortion, and some of us have very strong views. The passions unleashed above bear testimony to that. It's also intriguing that so many "celebrities" feel moved to speak about their own personal experiences of what you might have thought a private matter between those directly involved. And the way the laws criminalising abortion, and interpretations of them have flipped back and forth over the last hundred years or so in our different countries makes it hard to argue that people aren't interested. I guess you can argue that we shouldn't really be that interested in celebrities in the first place, on the ground that it only encourages them. But clearly we are interested in celebs. They even elected a movie actor as president of the United States a few years back, and some folks seem to think he didn't do such a terrible job. And celebrity's one of the things that keeps the media and several other bits of the economy ticking over, like it or not. Charles01 (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Famous people get ample coverage for talking about this. It easily passes the general notability guidelines. Everything on the list is referenced. The list should only be those who have spoken about their abortions, otherwise its an invasion of privacy and should not be on this list. Dream Focus 18:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am continuing to add names to the list that I have found by searching Wikipedia articles for "had an abortion" - ie, biographies where the fact of a woman having an abortion is significant enough to her life story that sources have discussed it and it has been included in the article. I am nowhere near finished going through the search results. (There are also plenty of articles about fictional characters who have had abortions - it would be easy to create another list for them.)

Scribestress, are you aware that you can also !vote, by placing Keep or Delete or whatever as the first word in a comment, in bold (either use the B key in the editing toolbar, or place three inverted commas at each side of the word)? I think it would be quite clear to a closing editor that you support keeping this article, but it doesn't hurt to make your position clear - and including references to supporting Wikipedia policies helps too. RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't understand why there has been all this focus on
  WP:NOTABILITY are met. Thincat (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete It looks to me that
  WP:BLPCAT which arguably prevents "lists ... (referring to living persons within any Wikipedia page) that ... suggest that any living person has a poor reputation". Because of time or jurisdiction some of these people may have been breaking the law and so there could arise the more general suggestion of a poor reputation. No, I don't find this too convincing but it is the best I can think up. Thincat (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Solidly sourced list women sharing a noteworthy element of their life history. PamD 23:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Whilst I personally think it doesn't merit a Wikipedia entry, obviously there are those who strongly support keeping it. It has been brought up above about possible future BLP and vandalism issues. I have seen previous AfDs where editors have passionately fought to keep an article, then done nothing to maintain it. I would suggest if the article is kept, then it is without prejudice to renomination if the article is not maintained. --John B123 (talk) 08:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Undecided - This is a difficult one, for sure, so I'll share my thoughts and will probably come back as the discussion continues. First of all, how is half of this page dedicated to a guideline that's only about categories in the Wikipedia sense (WP:DEFINING)? A list article doesn't have to be based on a defining characteristic. More to my own opinion, though: My initial reaction to this was in line with the delete !voters: "no, obviously no." There's clearly huge potential for BLP problems here. Also how do you set an inclusion criteria based on "celebrities"? Thinking about it more, however, I'm coming to some of the same notions that RebeccaGreen articulated above. Most importantly, that there have been several movements involving women coming forward and making a point about wanting it known that they had an abortion. There's no BLP issue at all there. My sense is that if kept, the inclusion criteria should involve, in some way, a restriction to just these women, and not literally every notable woman who someone has said had an abortion at one time or another. ...But then if we do that, maybe we might as well include them in the various articles like You Know Me movement rather than have a stand-alone list. Tough one indeed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename as List of women who have had an abortion. My initial reaction to the idea of such a list was one of scepticism, concerned perhaps about some sort of "abortion shaming" agenda somewhere in the background. And the use of "celebrities" in the title rather than "women" may have contributed to my concerns. Having read the debate and the article, and seeing how many notable women have come forward to self-identify, such a list could contribute to the destigmatization and normalisation of what has been something of a taboo subject for far too long. Edwardx (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment One further thought. List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people (also still too often a subject of shame in much of the world) has survived since 2001, with no deletion discussion, so any BLP and privacy issues about the women on this abortion list should be far from insurmountable. Edwardx (talk) 01:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - Oh, this is like
  WP:NOT. If it's important to mention about the individual, then include it and source it in their Wikipedia article. Given the political divide in the United States right now, this could easily be viewed as a political hit list, a check to blacklist, a list for political purposes at rallies. Lists can be useful, but they can also be a handy print off at rallies targeting public individuals. This list is not encyclopedic. Either direction, this list has an agenda for existing.— Maile (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep First, I am not in any doubt that this is a notable topic, and the list seems well-documented.

In response to all those who assert that BLP requires deletion, I suggest BLP cuts both ways. Claiming that BLP requires deletion to protect privacy actually achieve the opposite when individuals chose to sacrifice their privacy because of strong personal beliefs.

Are there women who had abortions, later regretted it, and subsequently went public to offer their example, their regret, as a cautionary tale to those considering having an abortion? I am pretty sure there have been some. Any individual who is already notable, who has offered their abortion as a cautionary tale, also merits an entry in this list.

The wikipedia is not supposed to be used for advocacy. I don't believe it is being used for advocacy. It seems that most of the women named on this list voluntarily chose to make public that they had an abortion.

BLP has special provisions to protect the privacy of previously unknown people, who got unwanted coverage, by accident. However, none of the women on this list is a previously unknown person. So, the protections we offer to previously unknown people don't apply here. Geo Swan (talk) 03:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Geo Swan, yes, there are some women included in the list who talk about having an abortion to discourage other women from having one, or to campaign for more restrictive abortion laws, eg Jennifer O'Neill, Alveda King and Molly White. There are others who have said they regretted having an abortion, though they may not actively campaign against it, such as Sharon Osbourne and Jennifer Roback Morse. I have included those 5 in the list, with whatever position is stated in their WP article or their sources. If there are other notable women who have spoken about regrets or against abortion, having had one, they should certainly be included. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete:
  WP:BLPDELETE).

  That is to say, while deletion is still a last resort, when there is an argument that it is needed and other measure will not suffice, the burden of proof under existing policy shifts to those who want an article to achieve consensus to create it. Notability doesn't matter one iota

  In this case, we have an article that is all but certain for all other technical measures to fail. It's creation and subsequent sourcing to Tweets is a BLP violation by an autoconfirmed user. Anyone will be able to tell you that we have plenty of 500-900 edit accounts that have no clue how the BLP policy works. The only option under current policy is for an administrator to delete this article and for creation to be disallowed pending affirmative consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  It seems those who want to delete this article are anti-abortion. You shouldn't let your personal feelings influence you in this. Anyone can check references to make certain the person spoke about it. There is no reason why anyone would add someone's name who hadn't had one, and if someone did vandalize the article it could easily be reverted just like any other article. The information about their abortion is already in their main articles also. Dream Focus 05:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Dream Focus, It seems those who want to delete this article are anti-abortion. This is a completely inappropriate comment. Please retract it. – bradv🍁 05:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Read the first sentence of what the editor I replied to just said. Read through all the other comments people have made. It seems to be that some of those who wish to delete this are doing it for personal bias. Dream Focus 05:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Dream Focus, you never addressed your objectional statement. You said It seems those who want to delete this article are anti-abortion. Now you say It seems to be that some of those who wish to delete this are doing it for personal bias. You labelled me in your first statement, and didn't exactly unlabel me in your second statement. And I'm most upset because you wrongly labelled me to begin with. Which shows your statement came from emotion/suspicion and not from a supposed insight into people's biases. You should retract it.

The whole topic is poisonous and must be most carefully approached. I'm against exploitation (of anyone by anyone) and which this list cannot escape. Shenme (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I never mentioned you. I still believe some are against abortion and that their reason for deletion, while others may have other concerns, or at least claim to. There is no way to prove it one way or the other. Dream Focus 23:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You and I have never interacted but I think you need to sit down and stop casting aspersions because your insinuation that delete voters are anti choice is absurd and offensive. Praxidicae (talk) 01:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Dream Focus, I think you misread what I wrote. I do not think I have once revealed my personal views on abortion on Wikipedia, and I do not ever plan to. My first sentence was referencing the very real ethical issues of Google indexing this and having a list of D-list celebrities who most people will likely have forgotten in 10 years have the fact that they had an abortion show up as the second Google search result. The ethics of abortion has nothing to do with this. The ethics of Wikipedia and how it interacts with the subjects we cover because of the existence of Google very much does. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Simon and Schuster, etc. There is ONE source which is a tweet. As for BLP violations - nearly half of the women are dead. And as another editor has already explained, the WP articles about these women already include their abortions (or if the articles are stubs, their names are already in the articles about the public statement they signed about having an abortion). In other words, this information is already on Wikipedia. (As for D-list celebrities - I have no idea who is D-list, Z-list or anything else. Do they have an article on Wikipedia? Yes? Then they're notable. The use of the word 'celebrity' was unfortunate, and the creator agrees, but it can't be changed during the AfD.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Yes, I did. Both under the new and old versions this is how it originally looked. You did good work cleaning it up, but when it isn’t under intense scrutiny it is all but guaranteed to return to that state for many entries. This is a walking BLP nightmare. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for pointing this out! Wow, my hats off to those who expanded the article!

    So, Tony, do you think we should ping everyone who voiced a delete opinion prior to the expansion, to see if they still hold a delete opinion? Geo Swan (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • TonyBallioni, in your first comment you asserted "...this page is basically an invitation for libel..." I asked you to explain this. Am I missing something?
  • In 2005, when I was a newbie, who had never seen an AFD before an apparently widely admired contributor s said something like "The wikipedia shouldn't provide any coverage of Guantanamo, because it is an inherently biased topic, which will only serve as a platform for POV America-bashing."

    I gave this comment some thought, and asked her if there really could be "inherently biased topic".

    Neither the topics of Guantanamo, or abortion, or flat-earth, or anti-vaxxers, is inherently biased. Any topic, that has valid references, can be covered here, using a neutral voice, if good faith contributors work together to follow our policies and guidelines, that tell us how to write from a neutral point of view.

    Neither you, TonyBallioni, or anyone else, has pointed to a single sentence in this article that lapsed from neutrality. Even if a vandal swooped in, and added an unreferenced claim that Jane Doe, or the Queen of England, had said they had an abortion, our normal vandal fighting robots and quality control volunteers would had excised that claim.

  • I am going to repeat myself, TonyBallioni, can you name a single other well referenced new article that was deleted because it MIGHT be vandalized? Geo Swan (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I’m aware of several. We typically don’t publicize them for the reasons that they involve privacy issues, just like this one, so I won’t be listing them because that would defeat the entire point of having them deleted. And no, you shouldn’t engage in a disruptive mass ping. The BLP policy and the deletion policy are 100% clear on what the outcome should be here. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Rodhe

he formed a team of a dozen trusted administrators to police that article. The justification for this action was that Wales was convinced Rodhe's life was at stake, and that his life would be even more at risk if his kidnappers saw his capture was the subject of news coverage, that the NYTimes convinced him that every major news organization had already agreed to a blackout on reporting Rodhe's capture.

This is what I think of when I think of the WMF clandestinely taking unaccountable action. It had the justification that those involved honestly believed someone's life was at risk.

So, are you a trusted senior WMF staff member, or member of the WMF board? Are you a past or present member of the ARB committee? If not could you please expand on why you think these other deletions should be kept withheld from those of us weighing in here?

You wrote above "The BLP policy and the deletion policy are 100% clear on what the outcome should be here." If that was really true then it would be a trivial matter for you to quickly link to and summarize the relevant passages. Why haven't you tried to do so?

I see you linked to

WP:BLPDELETE

- as if that justified a delete opinion today - ignoring that the 2nd paragraph of that section says

"Page deletion is normally a last resort... and "...deletion is appropriate when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to an earlier version of an acceptable standard..."

It seems to me you are telling us we should skip all the collaborative discussions, on Talk:List_of_celebrities_who_have_had_an_abortion, where good faith discussions of which RS were of value, which wording was neutral, and go right to the position where we decided that good faith contributors failed to produce a truly neutral version? Aren't you telling us we should jump right to this decision in the face of the very respectable efforts to produce a well referenced neutrally written version, today? Geo Swan (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming a use of the BLP policy "protects" individuals, when its use really damages them

Some of our contributors make extensive use of the clauses in the BLP policy, intended to protect individuals in a way that actually damages them. I first encountered this phenomenon in the case of

Wow! This BLP claim was extremely insulting to Mrs A. Unlike all the other people on the list, who weren't actual sex offenders, for any reasonable definition of sex offender, Mrs A sacrificed her right to privacy, went public as an advocate for reforming Georgia's sex offender laws, and used the details of her case, and how it affected her as an argument for reform. She'd been doing so for a decade, and had appeared on national TV and in international news magazines.

Why were people claiming BLP required "protecting" Mrs A by deleting her article? I'm sorry, but I am afraid I couldn't help concluding that some of those claims of protection were a smokescreen. I am afraid some contributors wanted to continue to see Mrs A suffer in silence under the old law, not because they thought she was a genuine sex offender, but because they thought she was a sinner, for encouraging sex prior to marraige.

Is something similar happening here?

Are people who want to silence those who advocate a women's right to an abortion, using specious claims that they are protecting the privacy of the women on this list as a way to covertly push an anti-abortion POV?

When someone chooses to sacrifice their privacy, to make a point, using BLP's privacy provisions to keep them from making their point is highly disrespectful and, I believe, a violation of NPOV.

If all of the women on this list voluntarily made public the information that they had an abortion I think it is highly specious of us to try to protect them from themselves. Geo Swan (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Abortion is still a procedure that carries considerable stigma in religious areas such as the American Bible Belt, because a large number of people equate it to murdering a baby, and the doctors who perform it and women who have it done as murderers. As long as this attitude exists, there is a potential for discrimination against the women, precisely why this topic is so controversial. This differentiates it from other medical procedures like the aforementioned kidney transplant, which fewer people would argue against, or be horrified by, if it was needed. People do not face the same judgment for the latter but certainly are discriminated against for the former. I don’t believe that every woman in this list voluntarily made the information available, (do you think all of the dead women or their families would’ve been comfortable with them being in this list?) and some who did had absolutely no intention of doing so prior to the current climate in the US due to abortion laws changing. I know that part of this argument is that the public revelation of women’s abortions to remove the stigma from them is what some feel is the whole point of having a list like this, but I do not see how it positively contributes to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia outside of being an activist campaign, I see it more as a fighting point for editors and vandals, as well as - for lack of a better way to express my thoughts - the same kind of derision as slut-shaming. I have no problem with the information being put into individual women’s articles as they choose to reveal it, I just feel that a collective list could be more damaging than positive; I can easily see the collection of names becoming part of Christian online magazines or extremist websites which could be used as a blacklist or even cause physical harm to the people on the list, or possibly affect employment. I also agree with ToniBallioni’s various points. For the record, I’ll state that I’m a pro-choice non-denominational Christian, so please don’t make assumptions or accusations about anyone’s vote. LovelyLillith (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • LovelyLillith, several other people have voiced essentially the same argument that you did, that BLP requires deletion, to "protect"' these women from the wikipedia reprinting that they said they had abortions. But aren't those BLP provisions intended to protect previously unknown people, who had potentially damaging information published about them, through some kind of accident, or reasonable equivalent? First, all of the women on this list were notable enough to already have standalone wikipedia articles; second, they did not openly acknowledge they had an abortion by accident. I'll bet every one of them, with the exception of Billie Jean King, gave this a lot of thought, and they all decided that their higher interest lay in openly acknowledging that they had an abortion.

    Are you really arguing that these women need to be protected against themselves, against their own considered decision?

    Note: RebeccaGreen noted here that some women openly acknowledged they had an abortion so they could encourage other women to not follow their example. Geo Swan (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Swan, yes, I'm ABSOLUTELY erring on the side of do no harm in this case. I have yet to see an argument from you outside of essentially "because they outed themselves for the good of pro-choice" or to "speak their truth", or WHY it makes Wikipedia better, or WHY it is NOT SUFFICIENT to have the information on the women's pages and/or the various movements. Being against this list does not empower me with the ability to "protect them against themselves", because the information is out there, just scattered. If the women want to say they have abortions, more power to them - but I also believe "As Wikipedia has a wider international readership than most individual newspapers, and since Wikipedia articles tend to be permanent, it is important to use sensitivity and good judgment in determining whether a piece of information should be recorded for posterity." The list may do great things to end stigma, it may grow cobwebs, or it may provide harmful consequences, but I cannot vote to keep something that has the potential for extremist (or just misogynistic) abuse to living women. LovelyLillith (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LovelyLillith I've been giving a lot of thought to your comments, which I take to be 100% in good faith and out of care for women who could potentially be harmed. It's an important perspective. W/r/t the need for sensitivity and good judgment, which of course should influence our actions here, I will gently point out not the paternalism of your argument (which I think you see) but instead the flipside to the potential for extremist and/or misogynistic abuse. Question: why do the women who have publicized their abortions do it, in spite of the vitriol (and possibly worse) they are sure to get? It's not just about trying to change (or keep) laws. And it's not just about speaking their truth. Sometimes it's also about letting other women who had abortions, for whatever reason (voluntary or involuntary), know they are not alone. Hearing that -- especially from someone famous, respected, or otherwise holding a position of status -- can be powerful. What I'm saying is, it can be deeply sensitive, at great personal cost. Respecting that choice by compiling their stories into a list (or at least not denigrating it by deleting the list) strikes me as showing very good judgment. Scribestress (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scribestress There are MANY books (even shown in the list as references), marches, activist groups, news articles, social media, fundraisers, support groups and so much more that reflect how many women feel and that they are not alone. Wikipedia is not about being a soapbox, nor has it been demonstrated HOW does this IMPROVE WIKIPEDIA ITSELF. My "paternalism" is not usurping anything from these women - they didn't participate in the various movements with the aim of being defined on a Wikipedia list, and not having the list is not taking anything away from their positions or oppressing them or their voices. The list didn't exist a week ago, were the women's voices any less persuasive or active? If so, Wikipedia lists have far more power than I was aware of. LovelyLillith (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PURPOSE) -- something I think we are all on board with. Scribestress (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Scribestress Fair enough, we are all here to try to build a better encyclopedia - we simply disagree on how that can be done, in this case. LovelyLillith (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant to the most recent turn in the discussion, I've drafted some additional language for the intro to provide the context that women have deliberately spoken about their abortions for different reasons. It's on the talk page. Similarly, it would be helpful to more fully address whether to limit the list to only women who have spoken publicly about their abortions. Now open for discussion on the talk page. Scribestress (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge

Imagine this list was given for educational purposes to women and men, boys and girls, to learn about how many women in the public eye they know have had abortions (for whatever reason), to teach abortion isn't that uncommon, and that we all 'know a woman who had an abortion'. In such a situation it could be used to erase stigma, as an educational tool for safe sex, but as well as a tool to demonise these women, depending on the context the list is used in and by whom. Lists of information on individuals can be used for good and bad, and depending on your idea on abortion in this case, you can decide for yourself what is good and bad. However, this comes down to choice again: these women (as far as I can tell) spoke out about their abortion, and they have that right. Deciding for them their words cannot be repeated for whatever reason (for example to protect them), in a list that combines all their voices, while they spoke the words themselves, seems to diminish their independent voices and choices, and doesn't acknowledge the pattern of social change and influence all these women have had on recent social movements, such as the

I would like to bring

• Delete. Right up down there with List of celebrities with face lifts, List of celebrities with nose jobs and List of celebrities with boob jobs. Because enquiring minds want to know, right? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The time when such a list would have been acceptable is the 1950s, when abortions were notably scandalous. Not now. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarityfiend, it would be hilarious, if this wasn't a serious discussion, how your position is 180 degrees opposed to some of the other delete opinions voiced here. You didn't read LovelyLilith's delete opinion, that immediately preceded yours, did you? She argued the opposite of you, that abortion is MORE scandalous now, than it was in the past. She argued that we had some kind of moral responsibility to protect women who openly acknowledged having abortions during a time when it was less scandalous, who never foresaw how dangerous their positions would be. So, do your 180 degree positions cancel out one another? Geo Swan (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:CIVIL about it instead of trying to pit people against each other. LovelyLillith (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Also,

WP:NOTCENSORED says "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." Some of the arguments made here use words like 'scandalous', 'toilet paper', 'we don't need to know this', which suggest that editors using such arguments find the content objectionable. That is not a valid reason to delete it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Another list relating to health conditions and women's health. Sourced and encyclopedic. Dimadick (talk) 10:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep - While the topic of having an abortion was solely tabloid material many years ago, today it is a pivotal political topic (i.e. encyclopedic) and many women are candidly talking about their abortions and how they affected their lives. I would be more inclined to delete if it weren't solidly sourced, but I think as long as we enforce vigorous high-quality sourcing, there should be few
  BLP concerns. Kaldari (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment If anything, just leave that information on their respective pages. But this "list" obviously wasn’t created for encyclopedic purposes. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for destigmatization. Trillfendi (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • obvious this article "...wasn’t created for encyclopedic purposes." Well, if it is "obvious" it should be a completely trivial matter for you to find passages which weren't written from a neutral point of view. RebeccaGreen, 9H48F and Scribestress did a phenomenal job fleshing this article out, and writing it using a policy compliant neutral voice.

    Trillfendi, I challenge you, I challenge anyone who claims there is a political agenda behind the contributors to this article, to quote a a couple of passages you think you can claim lapses from a neutral point of view. Geo Swan (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

    ]

I said what I said based on the condition it was when I saw it, not what others have tried to do to it in the meantime. But since legality is always going to be a factor, hence these ridiculous, draconian laws; the question is can it ever really be neutral (yet...wasn’t Scribestress canvassing people about this?) Trillfendi (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete I've read through the article and it is interesting reading. But this seems like private information and it shouldn't be compiled and offered through Wikipedia in such a nice and tidy package. I know abortion is a legal procedure but this is a very personal and private choice. It is one thing if a woman has come out about her own experience, written about it and taken a position on this divisive issue. But I think with some of these deceased "celebrities", this information is obtained through biographers and, personally, this seems invasive to me. I know BLP doesn't apply to the no longer living. But in Category:Lists of people by medical condition we don't have lists of celebrities who died of AIDS or lists of people by immigration status. Personally, I think we also should delete List of HIV-positive people which also seems like private health information. But I know I might not be in the majority here and my objections are primarily that it seems like an invasion into privacy (for those who haven't come out in press). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, this is exactly one of my concerns as well, which I didn’t mention previously due to the fact that the rules are different for the deceased, and Wikipedia regularly publishes “uncomfortable” information anyway. Case in point - Maurine Whipple. Out of curiosity, I tried to find mentions of her abortion, and found only two, almost as an aside, from two biographers. While it is true that I didn’t do an exhaustive search, I did give it a try to see if I could find much else about it and could not. BLP rules state that information should be commonly known amongst RS before being added, but I don’t think two mentions would count if she was alive. As her writing audience was the Church of Latter-Day Saints, I seriously doubt this was something she would have wanted to be listed as a defining characteristic - but privacy concerns for the dead are ignored here. Just something to think about. LovelyLillith (talk) 12:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Consensus appears to lean towards deletion. I did see Yagasi's comments, but they didn't convince anyone and most of them aren't addressing the deletion rationale provided. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Zinigrad

Michael Zinigrad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a

• PROF#1 ("The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources"): Zinigrad has a
  often overestimates citation rates, no paper has more than 87 cites, and with 800 citations in total and an h-index of 14 we are well below what we generally take as meeting this criterion, especially in a high density field as materials science. (Also note that the Web of Science
  , as mentioned on the article's talk page, gives much lower citation counts and an h-index of only 5). Hence: Fails PROF#1.
• PROF#2 ("highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level") can be claimed to be met by two honorary degrees from the
  South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University, not a major institution to say the least. However, there was agreement here that these honorary degrees are too doubtful to meet PROF#2. There are also some a few memberships of the editorial boards
  of a few (non-notable) journals, but even if those journals were notable, there is a longstanding consensus that such memberships do not confer notability. There is also an (unsourced) "Outstanding Scientists Award 2014" bestowed by the Israeli Ministry of Immigration and Absorption (from the page of this photo on Commons), but this does not appear to be the kind of prestigious award mention in this criterion. Hence: Fails PROF#2.
• PROF#3 ("is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association ... or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor") does not appear to be claimed. Hence: Fails PROF#3.
• PROF#4 ("The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions") does nott appear to be claimed either. Hence: Fails PROF#4.
• PROF#5 ("The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon"): Nope. Hence: Fails PROF#5.
• PROF#6 ("The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society"): Zinigrad has been dean (which does not confer automatic notability) and currently is Rector of Ariel University. The latter, however, is not the "highest-level", because at Ariel that is the president. Hence: Fails PROF#6.
• PROF#7 ("The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity"): no such claims are made nor is there any evidence in this direction apparent. Hence: Fails PROF#7.
• PROF#8 ("The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area"): Again, no claim in this direction is made, nor is there any evidence in this direction apparent. Hence: Fails PROF#8.
• PROF#9 ("The person is in a field of literature (e.g., writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC"): is not applicable here. Hence: Fails PROF#9.

Finally, there is the possibility that a person, while failing PROF, meets