Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contraception

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 no consensus. The opinions are all across the board on this one. The topic in the abstract, as has been mentioned, clearly meets V and N. The manner in which we choose to discuss it becomes an editing issue. IMHO this is a case that would benefit from further talk page discussion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contraception

This article was created out of a redirect to birth control, and I tried to direct it back, as the terms are synonymous. However, this was contested, so I'm reluctantly bringing it here. The essay now on the page is unsourced, not of ideal tone, and - as far as I can tell - completely redundant to the main article. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 10:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contraception is not synonymous with birth control. It is sometimes used as if it were in ordinary conversation, but there is an important difference even if it is only a technical on. There was no entry in en.wikipedia which differentiated contraception, contragestion, and abortion or abortifacients (even though such a distinction is important to social an political controversies). This information should be on wikipedia somewhere even if this is not where people would choose to have it.OckRaz (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Birth control, no need to merge, material is already in Birth control and this is unreferenced. Has anyone pointed out to the author that the article already exists? Drawn Some (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, they know, as their comment on my talkpage indicates. But they still want their unverifiable essay to be shown :P ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 10:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The remaining information is not duplicated elsewhere. Sources have been provided.OckRaz (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see now, I have been looking at the editor's contributions, this is basically a POV fork to separate contraception from post-conception birth control, lots of articles are being affected. Drawn Some (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Making distinctions between different categories is NPOV. There are no value judgments, or advocacy- only accepted definitions from medical reference works. It is not a 'POV fork'.OckRaz (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it does become POV just after the word "abortifacients" where it says "Those who contend..." The rest of the article has to do with an issue other than birth control. Drawn Some (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to be NPOV and give an overview of 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_pregnancy_controversy', which is related and a SEE ALSO. I'll change it to be neutral if you let me know where the bias is.OckRaz (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the pregnancy controversy doesn't belong in the article on birth control at all. Drawn Some (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took it out. I think that the wording was NPOV, but I think you have a point about it's belonging elsewhere.

Restore redirect. The technical differences between the terms can be discussed in one article. If someone is looking for information generally on birth control and/or contraception, it should be in one article, and the terms have significant overlap when they aren't being used synonymously. -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merely restoring the redirect will delete the content on the page at present. Should the content be added to the original page if there is a redirect? --OckRaz (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it should, since the content isn't supported by reliable sources, and has tone issues IMO. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 13:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do think it should, since the content is supported by reliable sources, and has splendid tone IMO. OckRaz (talk) 15:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a POV fork seeking to redefine terms away from normal usage and towards a usage that favors a particular side on a heated political issue. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there is a difference between colloquial use of a term and technical use is not a reason to omit the technical use. Moreover, many people make such a distinction in ordinary conversation. Quick point about usage: abortion is indisputably a form of birth control, in ordinary conversation abortion is not considered contraception.OckRaz (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is any referenced information in contraceptive article that isn't in birth control, it should be added, but merging doesn't make sense because the article is unreferenced. I have to admit the birth control article could do a better job of explaining some of the nuances in simpler language but it is important to be absolutely WP:NPOV, this is a touchy subject for some. Drawn Some (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The terms have a link to the appropriate medical dictionary page. The definitions for the term along with the source are copied onto the page itself if one doesn't want follow the link. If I just need to change the way its formatted or something, then I'll be happy to do it. The sources are there regardless. It isn't crackpot religious nonsense. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/OckRaz (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "abortion is indisputably a form of birth control" is ludicrously POV. OV. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I misspoke. OckRaz (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - really, really looks like WP:OR, a totally unnecessary creation of a page that unnecessarily complicates the issue. Splitting birth control into pre- versus post-fertilization is unnecessary and is best clarified on the specific birth control method pages. Unless there's a lot of support that clearly and easily indicates this is a distinction made by doctors on a regular basis, it's a bad idea for a page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction is not on the other page! Redirecting without merging will delete the content. Regarding OR, there is nothing original there. It is all sourced from reference works via http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/ I admit it 'looks' or 'appears' ugly on the page. If someone throws out pointers on how I'll try to fix that.OckRaz (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you're looking for is WP:CITE which is pretty ugly itself! Drawn Some (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at WP:CITE. I think I fixed it to go along with those reccomendations. It's less messy at least.OckRaz (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a formatting issue, there are people who love to format references and will do it, it's not necessary for you to agonize over them. Drawn Some (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are several issues, one is what to do with the article, delete or other. Whether or not information is placed in the article on birth control and how much is really beyond Articles for Deletion, that would be a discussion on the talk page for Birth control. Drawn Some (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect to Birth control. I agree that in its present state the material is not all included in the birth control article and it is now referenced. The details of the merger can be worked out on the talk page there. Drawn Some (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it, redirect it, and then protect the redirect- That's assuming there's actual content worth merging. If not, then delete, then redirect and protect. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete (wow, I've never used this statement before) — I have no opinion on keep/merge/redirect, but it's such a significant term that it should definitely be a redirect if it's not a separate article. Nyttend (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect Delete the current content which is a semantic quibble. Anyone interested in reading about contraception does not want to read someone's opinion about the origin of the term with no other content. If editors deem it desirable, a small section on the history of the term could be added to Birth control, but I would personally find that totally unhelpful. The exact word meaning could be discussed on Wiktionary, but WP should reflect the real world where "contraception" means birth control. Johnuniq (talk) 10:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the "real world", the mechanism of action for various forms of preventing or ending a pregnancy are important scientific issues. I see no reason why the differences between "prevents fertilization" and "prevents implantation" and "ends a clinically verifiable pregnancy" should be excluded from Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed, and the Birth control article should cover these points, without needing a separate article. Johnuniq (talk) 08:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added some words to the intro of birth control which I think should address the issue involved in this POV fork, that makes the distinction between methods that affect different stages of the process of fertilization, implantation and fetal development clearer, and introduces the formal terms "contraception" and "contragestion"; and then states that in common use, people use the term "contraception" for both, as well as for chemically induced abortion. Having done so, I suggest that the substantive content of contraception can now be regarded as merged, should be turned back into a redirect to birth control as soon as this AfD expires; and I suggest an early close of this AfD in order to do so ASAP. -- The Anome (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not an etymologist—or a native English speaker, for that matter—but I believe "contraception" and "birth control" are not exactly identical in meaning. Britannica, for example, defines one as "birth control by prevention of conception or impregnation" and the other one as "voluntary limiting of human reproduction, using such means as contraception, sexual abstinence, surgical sterilization, and induced abortion." Drawing from this, I really don't think that simply redirecting one term to another will be an appropriate solution. What about moving the relevant parts of Birth control into Contraception instead?

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/66704/birth-control

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/135259/contraception — Rankiri (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: see the intro text in birth control, which now makes this distinction clear. -- The Anome (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After taking a closer look at Birth Control, I think that the somewhat disorganized article would definitely benefit from the split. Those overly detailed descriptions of techniques and links to innumerable contraceptive methods would seem more in place on the page specifically dedicated to the subject. That is, if a consensus on the notable distinction between the terms is reached. — Rankiri (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My objection to the original structure (where Contraception was just a redirect to the Birth Control article) is that the two aren't synomynous. If Birth Control was written in sections, with one of those sections being Contraception, and the Contraception redirect pointed to that section of the article, that would be fine. The problem here is that a Contraception redirect that simply points to the Birth Control article carries with it the implicit assertion that the two are relevant similar. And they are not. As Wikipedia becomes more and more the first place people look for information, a confluence like that runs the risk of destroying information and ultimately making the two terms synonymous in modern usage, and that's not something Wikipedia should be doing. If Contraception doesn't get its own article, the Birth Control needs an extensive rewrite. --Llewdor (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: see the intro text in birth control, which now makes this distinction clear. -- The Anome (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have extensively rewritten this article. There are abundant sources. My original reason for wanting a new page was to have an explanation of the arguably neutral technical terminology which avoids the ideological conflict over the status of contragestion as either contraception or abortion, and to introduce (what I believe) is very useful terminology in discussing both birth control and ethical/philosophical issues which are related.--OckRaz 21:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- DELETE. If Contragestion gets its own article, then Contraception and Abortion should, as well. The new introduction to the Birth Control article I think neatly describes all three, thus eliminating the need for separate articles. My complaints with the redirect have now been addressed. --Llewdor (talk) 23:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Abortion already has a whole bunch of articles. I'm all for having more for contraception and/or contragestion as well if that's what people'd like.OckRaz 04:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OckRaz (talk • contribs)
Speedy Keep The nominator tells us clearly that he wants to make this a redirect and is just coming here to help win his edit war. The topic clearly has massive notability and so deletion is utterly inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You do realise that assuming bad faith on the part of the nominator is optional, right? ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 08:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination states, "..I tried to direct it back, as the terms are synonymous. However, this was contested, so I'm reluctantly bringing it here.". This is not a proper basis for an AFD. Please see WP:DR which does not include AFD as an option. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'm continuing this on usertalkpages. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 10:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a completely proper way to use AFDs. When coming to a conclusion on whether articles should be removed or not AFDs are the way to establish consensus. It doesn't need to be listed a WP:DR because most people are able to use some common sense and figure things out instead of going out of their way to deny the obvious. DreamGuy (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any common sense here. It seems quite obvious that we should have a reference to Contraception in this encyclopedia and it seems that the nominator thinks so too. The point at issue is what this link should point to but that is not a matter for AFD as this is a content dispute. The nomination seems to have been made as a form of forum shopping - an inappropriate alternative to discussion on a relevant talk page. Per our policy , deletion is a last resort for hopeless cases, not the first place to go when you have any kind of dispute. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect the redirect as above. The lede now reads: "Contragestion ... is either the biological process of the preventing of the implantation of an embryo into the uterine lining, etc..." so apparently the article itself doesn't even know what it is trying to talk about since Contragestion redirects to ... Birth control lol. Also, it is inappropriate and importunate to squawk for speedy keep after other editors have raised grounds for deletion. Eusebeus (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote above that I was hoping to move the contents of the page to 'contragestion' as opposed to 'contraception' inasmuch as it has now been rewritten to introduce that concept (which is likely unfamiliar to most) to the reader. (I also thought that that might be a way to lessen the acrimony regarding how one defines 'contraception' and whether it is neutral or not.) There's an explanation of the origin of the term and it's alleged value in addition. That is why I changed the lede to a definition of contragestion. (I was assuming that if it were moved there that the redirect to birth control would disappear.)OckRaz (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Let me try a more substantiated approach. I see absolutely nothing in the subject itself that can possibly fail WP:N, WP:V or WP:OR. It is a notable and quite verifiable subject that, in my view, undoubtedly merits an article of its own. Yes, it is one of techniques used in Birth Control, but what of it? We don't redirect Texas to the United States simply because it happens to be one of its states, do we? Some claim the terms are synonymous — they are clearly not. Some say the content of the discussed article represents a non-neutral point of view. Again, this has nothing absolutely to do with Birth Control. The quality of the content can easily be improved and the article can easily be tagged with the appropriate templates. The rest of the arguments seem to be largely irrelevant to the question of deletion and should probably be discussed on the appropriate talk pages. Here are some relevant links:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/wftwarch.pl?091407

"What's the difference between contraception and birth control? Sometimes they are synonymous, but contraception names the deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation; birth control refers to the "control of the number of children born, especially by preventing or lessening the frequency of conception.""

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/135259/contraception

"Contraception: on human physiology, birth control through the deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation."

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/66704/birth-control

"Birth control: voluntary limiting of human reproduction, using such means as contraception, sexual abstinence, surgical sterilization, and induced abortion."

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/contraception

Contraception: the use of contraceptives.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/birthcontrol

Birth control: the prevention of unwanted pregnancies, especially through the use of contraception.

http://books.google.com/books?q=Contraception

10,802 book results on "contraception".

http://books.google.com/books?q=%22birth+control%22

12,663 book results on "birth control". — Rankiri (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To birth control. And ban the author. And whoever tagged this article with rescue. Hipocrite (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Redirect, don't ban the author, I am sure this was a good-faith attempt, in spite of the POV-OR article which resulted. DO attempt to give a clue to whoever tagged for rescue. I used to have a great deal of respect for the article rescue folks, back then they tried to focus on worthy articles. Now their activity seems more and more WP:POINT-Y. One puppy's opinion, your mileage may vary. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this content fork. After that, a redirect to Birth control, since this is a commonly used term that is a clear subset of the issues to be considered at "Birth control."Bali ultimate (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First of all, some argue that birth control is synonymous with contraception and that any position which disagrees is advocating a POV. That argument is itself merely advocating a POV. Secondly, contraception is a subset of birth control, but so are the following: Emergency contraception; Male contraception; Female contraception; Barrier contraception; Hormonal contraception; Vas-occlusive contraception; Progestagen only contraception; Heat-based contraception, and these aren't redirected. OckRaz (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all those other terms are exclusively subsets. No one is going to use the term "male contraception" to mean "birth control" where the terms "contraception" and "birth control" are used interchangeably in many instances. The point is, one article should be able to handle the topic. We can discuss the various definitions of the terms. It seems what you are suggesting is either we have two articles that have significant amount of overlap (redundancy) or that we spin out a large chunk of the "birth control" article into the "contraception" article, thus re-enforcing the POV. If both topics are discussed in the same place, we aren't forcing a POV. We have the option to discuss the various POVs all together, without forking it out. The fact of the matter is this isn't black and white. Someone searching for the term "contraception" could reasonably be wanting to find the information located in the "birth control" article. -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since my earlier objections went unanswered, I'll ask you directly: when you talk about "re-enforcing the POV", what exactly are you talking about? Encyclopaedia Britannica, Merriam–Webster, the Compact Oxford English Dictionary—all seem to establish a notable degree of distinction between the terms. I see multiple redirect proposals, yet I fail to see a single reasonably cogent argument that can address my earlier protests. Am I missing something crucial here? —Rankiri (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I too am rather puzzled by the objections and talk of POV. The distinction is between the means and the end. The term's usage, as recorded by the OED, indicates that this distinction is of some historical significance and so we should accurately cover this rather than blurring the matter. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect if necessary for GFDL compliance. There is at present no need to spin out a political football when we already have a unified treatment of the topic. There is especially no need for an extended discussion on the different forms of birth control except in Birth control. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, clearly notable topic. Granite thump (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect this blatant POV fork. DreamGuy (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of references, and it clearly list why it is different from other types of birth control. There is enough information to warrant its own article. Dream Focus 10:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment > whoever has to wade through all this and close the AfD, you have my sympathy! ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 10:38, 29 May 2009 (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.