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 of the debate was Move to Post-abortion syndrome. Rx StrangeLove 05:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This supposed syndrome doesn't need its own article, let abortion debate handle it. Google check[1] hits 258 Tznkai 00:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, also this is virtually a POV split, as the "syndrome" is poorly documented, to say the least. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • changing to Move as the article is clearly going to be kept, and the move will get rid of this title, which is at least part of the objectionability. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article is a good start. -- JJay 01:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Abortion debate is pretty large, and this controversy certainly seems to exist. The article is even written with a fairly neutral POV, which is rarer than it should be on this kind of thing. I think it should be kept. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote to move per Blackcats. Seems more NPOV. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems like if JAMA deems it worth writing about, even if only to shoot it down, it's notable. That article seems to have incited at least four response papers in JAMA, too. I get about as many journal articles using post-abortion syndrome instead, but PAS looks far and away the preferred term in the general public according to this google search at 55,700 results. — Laura Scudder ☎ 02:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposed move sounds good. — Laura Scudder ☎ 22:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The topic is about the medicine of abortion and as such, in my opinion, removed somewhat from the abortion debate. Also, I think people looking for info on abortion trauma syndrome probably aren't so much interested in the debate. The objectives of the article (as I see them) are:

1. define the term,
2. present the view of the mainstream medical establishment on the issue and
3. place it in the context of the larger debate about abortion.

My bias: I started the article. Nephron 03:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems consenus is to move. I don't have a strong objection to that. What I will say is -- there is a reason I choose abortion trauma syndrome: Stotland uses the term and he explains why it was constructed; the words abortion trauma syndrome were choosen because it sounds like it is similar to PTSD, which is what a few want people to believe. In other words, the name of the article (like the issue) has a POV; the disorder was made-up to put fear into women that are considering an abortion. Nephron 15:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, albeit reluctantly. The title, alone, reeks of neologism. However, axing it would be likely to spawn an exponential retinue of synonymously-titled articles: post-abortion syndrome, post-abortion stress syndrome, etc. -Kyd 04:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move per Blackcats below. -Kyd 03:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, if this "It is not considered to be a medical condition by the medical community at large.[1] It is also not defined as psychiatric condition in the DSM-IV-TR or ICD-10," is true... then why is this article even here.Gateman1997 05:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we have articles on crazier things that no one in the scientific community believe in, but that's never stopped laypeople. It gets tons of google hits, so we should address it. — Laura Scudder ☎ 12:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to post-abortion syndrome. Notable at least as an alleged phenomenon. This wording gets a lot more Google hits than the current title and is more NPOV. Blackcats 06:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per Blackcats. 'Abortion trauma' does verge on being a POV title. --Last Malthusian 10:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per blackcats: changing my vote to move, and apologizing for poor research. I didn't do my homework this time.--Tznkai 17:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per Blackcats. Stifle 23:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per Blackcats. -Ikkyu2 23:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per Blackcats. -- Jbamb 21:10, 20 December 2005 (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.