Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retroactive 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 delete. Sr13 05:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Retroactive abortion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
A combination of Original research, soap-boxery, and neologism that is a fairly obvious POV-fork. Throw in bad-writing, tendentious argument, and other vices too many too mention, and this article really doesn't belong. Bucketsofg 16:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nom. Bucketsofg 16:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I stubbed the article to remove some of the unacceptable, unsourced and libelous content. Currently it is no more than a dicdef. Since it is a real term I am not sure it should be deleted. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:DICT. Should go in the Wiktionary. -- Hot Dog Wolf Bark! 21:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Should go in the Urban Dictionary perhaps, but as an unnotable non-universal term, has no place in either WP or WK. Groupthink 21:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:DICT. It's a common enough phrase, but it's a dicdef. The definition given doesn't even match what "retroactive abortion" means - it's usually applied towards adults, whether just annoying or truly criminal. I have never once heard it used in relation to a child, not once, ever. --Charlene 21:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete poor quality dicdef, unless some evidence is produced that something could be made of this. Oliver Keenan 22:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Oliver has this one right, this one isn't even well written. Maybe submit to Wiktionary. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete (G3) and salt Obviously unencyclopedic, thus fitting the definition of pure vandalism. Should be salted as well. Blueboy96 13:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the second such !vote from you I've seen. Are you trying to prove a WP:POINT? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete but no salt. This term could be wiki-linked to later in it's life from things other than the AfD and might deserve a redirect or something then (perhaps to abortion). --omtay38 19:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom, WP:HOAX, and above discussions. Bearian 22:52, 13 July 2007 (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.