Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 abortion protests in the United States

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. There is clearly no consensus to delete. A strong minority is for merging to Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, but not enough to establish consensus. A merger can continue to be discussed on the article talk page. Sandstein 10:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 abortion protests in the United States[edit]

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

2022 abortion protests in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:RECENTISM and WP:DELAY. Much of this is already covered in the Dobbs article itself. A separate article is only redundant. This is jumping the gun, we'll see if this becomes notable enough for a standalone article later. A lot of things receive national-level protests, but they don't have their only own articles. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge that mention of where some additional protests were held, but there's little else and given that at least right now there does not appear to be the type of outrage building like in wake of George Floyd's death, I can't see this being an extended protest event. --Masem (t) 05:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? This will continue until June when the decision is released and afterwards to the midterm election in November. This is only the first week. This is impacting all women in the United States. Liz Read! Talk! 01:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with this! Wikipedia is meant to be reliable, but not a news source. This event is changing far too fast to make an encyclopedic and reliably informative article. Uncanniey (talk) 05:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I cannot agree with this statement. You're right about Wikipedia being not a news source, but it relies on news to a big degree for a lot of things. You might be right on how the event is changing rapidly, but there have been several similar articles (that I cannot think on top of my head right now) that did not receive a deletion notice. Teedless (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now – I don't think these protests are big or loud enough to require a separate article. It could be recreated depending on how the situation progresses, but it's not needed right now. Guyfromearth2 (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it seems so for a "Guyfromearth2" but not to a "woman in the U.S.". Liz Read! Talk! 01:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now. I feel that the subject has not yet garnered enough notoriety that would permit it to be a separate article. I do not doubt that people could come to the reasonable conclusion that there are major protests, but this topic could be revisited if something major happens as a result of the decision. --Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep (disclaimer: page creator). I've added quite a few more cities to this list this morning, and there are many more to add. This entry should be kept and expanded, not deleted. There are opportunities to flesh out the list into prose, describing crowd sizes, demonstration locations, organizing groups, etc. Additionally, there was violence in LA and arrests in multiple cities. More protests are being planned, including by Women's March. There's enough content and detail to create an entry similar to Impeachment March, Not My Presidents Day, etc. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Argubly, this is great content for Wikinews, not Wikipedia, due to the question of whether these protests gave legs or not. Wikinewd is great for coverage of breaking events without worrying about long term influence, but here on WP, NEVENT must be met. --Masem (t) 16:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      We'll have to agree to disagree. Wikipedia should have entries for notable protests and this series of demonstrations has clearly received sufficient secondary coverage, IMO. Happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now. These protests could definitely warrant their own article in the future, especially if and when the Roberts Court officially reverses Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. But for now, I don't think these protests warrant their own article. StuckEarlier (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support protest are inevitable in an issue controversial such as this. Nothing overly notable has happened as of the time of this edit, and per WP:NOTNEWS it doesn't seem as if this article is doing anything of encyclopedic value by just listing off venues where protest have occurred. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, merge for now. This is an encyclopaedia, not a US current affairs site.—S Marshall T/C 18:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify In agreement with others here. Too soon to know if these protests will have lasting notability, especially given that pro- and anti-abortion demonstrations happen all the time with varying levels of media coverage in response. These is good material here, so I think drafting and waiting a few months would be the best option. KidAd • SPEAK 19:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete. This is a largely irrelevant aspect of a largely inconsequential event. Let's keep it encyclopedic. Innican Soufou (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This is just the beginning. There will be lots of protests to come. --Deansfa (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably. But they have not happened yet and there is no way of telling what will happen. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 20:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CRYSTALBALL is what we are not. If these protests become notable then we can reinstate this article. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 00:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not Wikipedia. --Deansfa (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for the time being. Per WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS, it's a little WP:TOOSOON for this to be a standalone article, but there is potential for future developments that may warrant one.A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/keep I think just with the large continuous level of reporting about the current and upcoming protests it would be good to keep it as an article, as there have been other Wikipedia articles listing protests such as for BLM. Additional information is being added for each protest, and potentially the article could be renamed for a Response to the leaked draft only, as multiple news anchors, politicians and lawyers have weighed in about the leaking of the draft, implications of the draft, reaction laws to the potential reversal etc.Leaky.Solar (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. It can always be extracted into its own article if and when the protests have notability independent of the actual SCOTUS case. Predictions that this will become independently notable are just predictons. TJRC (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment can this be closed as a WP:SNOW merge? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge\Defer - While the leak has resulted in international headlines, the protests have not been newsworthy outside a minor reference to violence. 人族 (talk) 02:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge\Draftspace This is gonna be a doozie only because of both the obvious policy violations but the probable inevitability of this page. Assuming this is a 'set-in-stone' decision/final outcome, this will likely precipitate in fairly wide protests this summer. Either merging it with the aforementioned Dobbs page or shelving this in the draft space would be appropriate. The prose is a nightmare as is and unless something greater happens, the page can't stand on its own merit. Etriusus 02:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: When nominator says "A lot of things receive national-level protests, but they don't have their only articles" it is unclear what those "things" are and why a major protest that has received more than significant coverage in a multiple number of reliable, independent sources doesn't rise to the level of having it's "only article" whatever that means. Kire1975 (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pretty sure it was meant to read "own article". The volume of reliable coverage is currently high, but it's too soon to know if the protests will an an WP:EFFECT on anything, or be a temporary response to the proposed redirect. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I've corrected my sentence to say "own article." Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is both notable enough and documented enough to stay. Just because a situation of this caliber is developing or in its infancy doesn't mean it shouldn't have an article. Rooves 13 19:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not only is this going to get bigger, but there are protests in cities nationwide already. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The protests, while happening because of the Politico leak, have clearly grown into a notable entity in their own right. DrewieStewie (talk) 00:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This may or may not have an impact on the outcome of the Dobbs case, or may become more significant if Roe v. Wade is overturned. I say keep for now as stories develop. Can this be linked to the Dobbs page as a related article, or the main article for the related protests only? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScotchOnTheRocks (talk • contribs) 03:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now. Seems to be the result of WP:RECENTISM right now. Should wait as it currently fails the WP:10YT.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 11:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but I'd say the page should be presented as a stand-alone list for now instead of a full-fledged article; these protests are clearly receiving significant national coverage but at the same time there really isn't much to this page other than documenting the places where the protests happened. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 12:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I tend to think Wikipedia shouldn't rush to cover current events, and err on the side of not assuming something will receive lasting coverage when it's unclear. This matters more for some kinds of events (crimes, for example) than others. In this case, it's so obvious that it will receive sustained coverage that it's a clear keep for me, even if yes, perhaps we should've waited a little longer. Rename it though, because the name makes it sound like it's a list of anti-abortion protests. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I had created the page at 2022 abortion rights protests in the United States, but another editor moved to the current title, presumably because there are both pro-choice and pro-life demonstrations. Open to other page titles, of course, but that's a discussion for the article's talk page. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that was a bad move. The protests are over abortion rights (for or against). If moves during AfD weren't messy, I'd just move it back now, but that should definitely happen when the AfD is closed (if it's kept), and send the proposed move to the talk page. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confident the page will be kept, so feel free to start an informal rename discussion on the article's Talk page if you think that's helpful to do ahead of a formal or manual move. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessary. We can undo a bad bold move after it closes, and then that person can start a move request if they so choose. That said, although the current title seems completely ill conceived and unlikely to find support, it would be worth considering "reproductive rights", too, since some of the conversation has broadened, too. FWIW. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW - yes - agree - seems a better article name may be worth considering - several possible names (at least for starters):
    "2022 demonstrations for abortion rights in the United States"
    "2022 demonstrations for women's rights in the United States"
    "2022 pro-choice protests in the United States"
    "2022 protests rollback of reproductive rights in the United States"
    "2022 protests rollback of women's rights in the United States"
    "2022 protests suppressing pro-choice in the United States"
    "2022 protests suppressing reproductive rights in the United States"
    "2022 protests suppressing women's rights in the United States"
    "2022 rallies for abortion rights in the United States"
    "2022 rallies for pro-choice in the United States"
    "2022 rallies for reproductive rights in the United States"
    "2022 rallies for women's rights in the United States"
    "2022 women's rights issues in the United States"
    in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just in case you weren't aware, the page was moved last night from 2022 abortion protests in the United States to 2022 abortion rights protests in the United_States. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For future reference while editing, is the consensus on Wikipedia that abortion is a right or is it still something we are neutral on? Dialmayo (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge and redirect per others. I'm also thinking of WP:NOTEVERYTHING and I don't know the benefit of listing every single city that's had a protest. Maybe if this develops into a larger, protracted series of events akin to George Floyd protests a split + list like this would be helpful, but I'm not sure I see the need now. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 16:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the Dobbs article, or to a future article about the Politico leak if eventually a decision on the Dobbs article to split that off. I don't see a reason why all of them should be sorted by year, when some protests are held annually and some will be following the eventual ruling. This isn't the way the past abortion protest related article have been set up.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - I note that the delete !votes citing recentism and not news(PAPER!) are misapplied. Those policies are meant to apply to trivia such as who Kim Kardashian is currently dating, or what was the weather report in Tucumcarrey. Not to apply to events of such historical magnitude as this (which it is on its face - a human right that's been constitutionally protected by law for 50 years - the long term enduring coverage and notoriety of this doesn't require a crystal ball!) And, lastly...and please understand this is not a personal attack against anyone of any kind, but a mere statement of facts. Facts that would be irrelevant for most encyclopaedia topics, but for this one I think cannot go unaddressed. I think it is uncontroversial to guess that the question of notability of this topic would yield drastically different results amongst males vs amonngst females, no? And none of us is truly capabke of being purely removed from our personal biases. It is well known that editors here are > 90% male. Knowing that the overwhelming proportion of the effect of this issue is on women, and Knowing that women are severely underrepresented amongst the editors here, is this not effectively the notability of a women's topic being decided exclusively by men? And if all the aforesaid premises are true, AND are taken into consideration, and the notability is still deemed insufficient...is that not basically male Wikipedia editors declaring that the opinions of women don't matter, or that women are not fit to have a voice on matters that concern them? I am sorry for getting soap boxy, here, and I will stress again that I assume NO bad faith at all. I know none of the !delete voters had likely considered this, and that is not to be held against anyone. I would urge all to whom it concerns to consider these points, though. Best wishes to all SirTramtryst (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Editor was blocked for sock-puppetry. Striking per WP:STRIKESOCK Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - yes - *entirely* agree with those above supporting the article - re a worthy historical event - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I don't think just the protests alone are notable enough for their own article, although the broader reactions to the draft opinion leak definitely are. I think the article should be expanded to include other reactions to the leak, which have received widespread news coverage all week. Renaming the article to something like "Reactions to the Dobbs v. Jackson leaked draft opinion" might also be better. Blocod (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC) On second thought there is more than enough coverage of solely the protests to meet notability standards. Blocod (talk) 06:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Well sourced and notable. ɱ (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep for now. I would say if the protests last for 14 days and (stresses as a requirement) if anything else significant/worthy occurs it is worth keeping.
    I think what harms the article the most is that it has not got enough information at this state, and it is very hap-hazardly formatted and therefore does not look equivalent to other well written articles similar to this: basically it is undercooked and therefore looks like shit/garbage compared to something like the George Floyd Protests article. May put my hand at fixing it tomorrow if I have time.
    If this was to be better synthesised/assorted, I would suggest having (something along the lines of) a "part of 2021-2022 abortion rights in the us" thing, because there has been significant enough change in abortion law around this time period; and when/if this is done we can do an article on the leaked supreme court draft itself, and then responses to the draft (which this would fall under). This would not work as a merge yet as there have been too little responses to it, and because redirecting it to anything else feels like its just shoving it in there with hard-to-discern or not great, correlation.
    Then on that note it also feels like there should be an article series on abortion, or abortion rights (and/or then on abortion in the us, which I think there is plenty to make an article series on. )
    (ask me to elaborate further on my talk page not here on why id do it)
    TL:DR: keep for now because we dont know how it will develop yet; but i do think significant re/organisation is needed for the protests and the general topic. Chchcheckit (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG. A lot of these protests seem to be springing up and an activity related to these protests came up today in Portal:Current events. --2600:1700:D500:C6D0:101D:C60D:BC84:5D17 (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)— 2600:1700:D500:C6D0:101D:C60D:BC84:5D17 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep This is only the first week of a year-long protest that will undoubtedly be the biggest influence on the midterm election in November 2022. I can't believe some of the comments here from editors who don't think this is an impactful event. These comments remind me after George FLoyd was murdered how some editors thought the killing was no big deal and a local event that shouldn't even be covered on Wikipedia. I agree that Wikipedia is not a newspaper but the cluelessness displayed here just demonstrates to me again how much of the editorship here is disconnected from subjects that directly concern the lives of women. This AFD discussion might lead to the deletion of this particular article but articles on this subject will exist in the future because the subject is incredibly notable and easily well-referenced since every news organization in the United States is covering this topic. Liz Read! Talk! 02:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The outcome of Dobbs v. Jackson, judging upon the leak from the US Supreme Court, will be felt by many for decades to come. Not only is it attacking abortion rights, the leaked judgement also is calling into question the cases that established gay marriage (Obergefell v Hodges) and homosexuality (Lawrence v Texas), per The Human Rights Campaign. I agree completely with @Liz: that this will be one of the major US political events of this year, and will unquestionably have an impact upon the midterm elections. I would also suggest that perhaps all those who have supported Merge that they review the state of the article now, versus both when it was nominated for deletion, and when they made their comment. At the point at which it was nominated, the article content was 10,378 bytes. As of the time I'm writing this message it is now 113,181 bytes, and so may be well outside the territory where a merge is even feasible. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. just in the news today, protesters starting to target homes of individual justices, Kavanaugh was named. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There have been and will very likely continue to be more protests regarding the leak, enough so to warrant its own page. And if the unlikely case of the protests petering out were to occur, THEN we should delete the page.Unkie mark (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others. Mooonswimmer 14:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article seems to be reliably sourced and covers significant nationwide protests. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. This is notable enough to warrant it's own article. Doesn't need to be merged into the parent article either, as it is starting to grow quite a bit. Swordman97 talk to me 21:53, 11 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2022_abortion_protests_in_the_United_States&oldid=1137521279"