Pro-abortion violence – No objections to a user draft but consensus in favour of using the deleted article as the basis for that draft is unlikely to form. (
non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (
投稿) 19:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Since the situation in the United States changed as of May 2022, I request userfication of this article content, for the purposes of recovering verifiable material and sources in order to build a policy-compliant article.
Elizium23 (
talk) 15:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Since you are not requesting the overturning of the previous discussion, you should see
WP:Userfication and
WP:RFU. --
JBL (
talk) 18:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Not in scope The world has changed since 2015, and no one is arguing that that seven year old discussion should be normative. I see the title is not create-protected. I have no objection to userification or simply starting on a new draft, realizing that the 2015 article is going to be a pretty poor starting point.
Jclemens (
talk) 22:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)reply
What Jclemens said, and I can confirm that the old article is unlikely to help. As of the last revision, it was, hm, nine sentences long; cited eleven sources, of which six were tagged unreliable; and half of the article and all but one of the untagged sources was split between very brief summaries of
Jim Pouillon and
Theodore Shulman. —
Cryptic 04:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)reply
While I agree that the article is unlikely to be helpful and I'm skeptical that there's potential for a viable article here, as the deleting admin I'm perfectly happy with userfication.
Sam Walton (
talk) 07:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.