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 move to Abolitionism (bioethics). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abolitionist Society[edit]

Abolitionist Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

References provided are either self-published or do not mention this organization, Google turns up little on it. Appears to fail WP:N and WP:ORG. Seraphimblade 16:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC) Withdraw nomination, please see below. Seraphimblade 17:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment With due respect to the admirable goals of this organization, nothing in the article asserts notability (potential speedy per A7). I did get a lot of hits on google, but it is mired in a lot of confusing subjects with a similar name (such as anti-slavery organizations dating to the US Civil War). Tarinth 17:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment That was what I meant with the above comment-tons of ghits, but little about this organization. Should've been clearer though, thanks for pointing that out. Seraphimblade 17:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Notability is demonstrated by the uniqueness, critical value, and utility of this article. Google hits is a rather inaccurate method of determining whether or not something is notable. For example : there are many hits for editor-reviewed articles of Britney Spears - yet the value of this information for purposes of improving humanity's knowledge base is limited. Also, BLTC Research is a sister site of the Abolitionist Society, as well as Hedweb, and David Pearce is it's cofounder.67.189.71.183 18:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without prejudice The creator of the article referenced [1], where "abolitionism", "abolitionist" and "the abolitionist project" is mentioned. The article may cover a legitimate subject, however, it conflicts with the Abolition Society of the 18th Century, and the understanding of the use of Abolitionist without referring a researcher to the possibility of that definition. The title "Abolitionist Society" differs from the lead definition, "abolitionism". The article should be, at least, rewritten and the title changed by renaming or adding a qualifier.

• Comment there are many definitions for a single term. Abolitionism is a philosophy - too late to change the name of it or the Abolitionist Society, just have to do with making messy looking addendums to let people know that there are multiple pages for the same term.67.189.71.183 18:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename since there's a disambiguation problem here; the article isn't solely about the Society, and there is already an abolitionism article. As for deletion, I've no strong opinion either way, but tend towards a weak keep if it's a "real" philosophy. – Kieran T ^(talk) 18:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there is only one 'Abolitionist Society' in existance today - which also happens to rank #1 in google search the rest use qualifiers like "Pennsylvania Abolitionist Society". the abolitionism page does not cover the Abolitionist Society or the meaning of Abolitionism that it promotes. how do you determine if it's a 'real' philosophy?

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25/67.189.71.183 18:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Response As I said, the article in its present form isn't solely about the Society, nor even very much about it, but rather it appears as an attempt to define the philosophy. The problem comes with renaming it to the more appropriate "abolitionism". An alternative would be to make it clearly about the society, but then I'd expect it to do less well in the current deletion debate. As for whether it's "real", I mean to say if it's not a neologism (see WP:NEO), and I don't attempt to answer that question either way ;) – Kieran T ^(talk) 18:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Response Good for you as moderator I guess... ;) The perception of attempt is irrelevant. Relative 'newness' to determine whether or not it is a real philosophy - How much time is your criteria for when something becomes a neologism? Clearly there is unique utility - though the content needs to be improved - why not spend your time there instead? You don't have to have a page with a singular utility for information.67.189.71.183 19:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Response It's not "my" determination, it's a Wikipedia guideline. Please refer to WP:NEO. I'm not a "moderator" by the way. Incidentally, since you're modifying your comments as you go along, I'm going to stop responding now, for fear of appearing later to have been replying to things which I wasn't. Good luck with the debate. – Kieran T ^(talk) 19:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Response Just make your points and you have nothing to fear - use quotations. Also, expect others to correct grammatical errors... The WP:NEO guideline is not clear - and it's purpose is to ensure accuracy. When you enter your thoughts here - you become a moderator, attempting to moderate this article - with a degree of accountability and vested interest in your role. What is your motivation here? To preserve accuracy of information?67.189.71.183 19:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "Generally speaking, neologisms should be avoided in articles because they may not be well understood, may not be clearly definable, and may even have different meanings to different people." - from the WP:NEO article. So we are trying to promote clarity of information - however, these issues are easily resolved with the articles content or by making additions to its content.67.189.71.183 19:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are many articles with titles that have competing meanings. This doesn't require the occlusion of information - just better means of clarification. Quality as opposed to cultural acceptance is the issue here.67.189.71.183 19:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to abolitionism (bioethics) and rewrite accordingly. Presently the article is promotional, not explicatory. --Dhartung | Talk 21:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect to Pennsylvania Abolition Society or Abolitionism. --Bachrach44 19:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move and Redirect to abolitionism (bioethics) and clean this up. The information is interesting, but needs to be written in NPOV. Davidpdx 01:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw nom for deletion but advocate move to Abolitionism (bioethics) as discussed above, article is significantly improved and referenced but is about the philosophy rather than an organization. Seraphimblade 17:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I redirected it to Abolitionism(bioethics). I removed the tag, thanks Seraphimblade, and I'll link to this page on the Talk page.Gloriamarie

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.