Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abortion survivor

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion survivor

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

ALL of the content is Original Research WP:OR. This term is suitable for a dictionary, NOT an encyclopedia article. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 23:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge into Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. -- Valjean (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The content is not original research, as even a modicum of looking for sources on the subject finds supporting material. It's just a totally absurd structure and scope for an article, with a name conjured by a Wikipedia editor out of thin air, based upon no actual expert writings on the subject but rather upon some wacky headlinese, and a parochial U.S.-centric bias. The actual concept in U.S.-centric sources is live birth. This is the name used in Ackerman and Strong's A Casebook of Medical Ethics (1983, ISBN 9780195039177), for example. It's the name used in the "Legal issues in neonatal-perinatal medicine" chapter of Fanaroff and Martin's Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine E-Book: Diseases of the Fetus and Infant (2010, Elsevier, ISBN 9780323081115) The concept in U.K.-centric sources (although it has the same name in countries such as Australia) is the legal notion of child destruction.
Both are low quality, but already existing, articles. If you want to see how bad our latter article really is, contrast it with John Keown's 22-page treatment of the subject in the "The scope of the offence of child destruction" chapter of xyr The Law and Ethics of Medicine (OUP, 2012, ISBN 9780199589555) or Kristin Savell's treatment (of it, the born-alive rule, wardship, and other subjects) in xyr "The mother of the legal person" chapter of Visible Women: Essays on Feminist Legal Theory and Political Philosophy (2002, Hart, ISBN 9781841131955). Our article on live birth (human) can similarly be contrasted with Faranoff and Martin, which explains for starters that there were state law legal frameworks for what constitutes a live birth as well. Helen M. Alvaré's "Abortion, Sexual Markets, and the Law" chapter of Persons, Moral Worth, and Embryos: A Critical Analysis of Pro-Choice Arguments (Springer, 2011, ISBN 9789400716025) even quotes the law of Maine which actually has "live birth" in the statute.
That the existing articles on the actual subjects are piss-poor is no reason to start a new separate article with a clickbait name taken from a BBC News headline, however.
Uncle G (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article is seriously flawed for many reasons, most blatantly the USA-centric nature of how it's written. CT55555 (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I think this article is about a newly created phrase WP:NEO and I think it is pushing a point of view WP:NOTADVOCATE and most importantly WP:NOTSOAPBOX CT55555 (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment User:Avatar317 you are not getting much input here, and that may be because the AfD doesn't appear on any thematic AfD notification pages. Maybe some social science and health AfD lists would be appropriate. Sorry, I'd do that myself, but I don't know how. CT55555 (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2022 (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.