Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fetal farming - Wikipedia

Article Images

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 redirect to Fetus Farming Prohibition Act. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very POV, even the page name has POV connitations Bacchus87 (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect This seems to be a POV fork of Stem cell controversy and can probably be covered better there. AniMate^talk 00:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ~~back to Stem cell controversy~~. This is a POV coattrack. Them From Space 01:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking over the discussion below I think the redirect should go to Fetus Farming Prohibition Act. This material rightly belongs in an article of that scope. As for BloodGrapeFruit2's suggestion, I think any "X controversy" article is asking to become POV ridden while an article about a particular act of government would have no concerns with notability or NPOV. Them From Space 18:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wrote the article and it is not intended as an attack upon anybody or anybody's rights or ideas. Both the people who support and oppose this use of fetuses/babies appear to be using this term now. If someone has a better or less POV name, that is not unreasonable. But: this is clearly not the same thing as stem cell research (which uses embryos, not fetusses); this is an entirely different matter, whether you support or object to it, and it has been covered widely as a different thing by the mainstream media. HommeFatale (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This user is the creator of the article. Acebulf (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - We know. Xe said so in xyr first five words. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 12:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Animate. Acebulf (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The term is clearly notable enough to deserve its own article: it has been used by CNN and the New York Times, and "fetal farming" is banned under that name in a bill that became law in 2006. However the current article does not say any of the things that actually make the term notable. See this item for more information. Looie496 (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I added information about the ban. I can add more, but I fear someone will then suggest that I'm adding POV, so if others would like to add more about the ban, please do so. HommeFatale (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Followup I agree that a redirect to Fetus farming prohibition act woul be a good solution. Looie496 (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The term "farming" has too negative of a connotation when used with something like Fetal, it is a somewhat widely used term. LetsdrinkTea 02:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Fetus Farming Prohibition act per below Lets drink Tea 20:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Fetus Farming Prohibition Act and redirect there. HommeFatale is correct that so-called "fetal farming" issues are completely distinct from stem cell issues. There are two related reasons for this. The first that's already been raised is the semantic difference between an embryo and a fetus. No exact instant occurs during the eighth week that distinguishes an embryo from a fetus. The change in labeling is just a matter of convention to approximate the time that major structures and organs are all formed. However, the second difference is more important. Stem cells are one particular type of cell that are used. So-called "fetal farming" refers to entire tissues and organs, not individual cells. Bioethical considerations are closely tied to biological complexity. Unlike the difference between an embryo and a fetus, the difference between cells and tissues is distinct. This is a separate procedure, separate science, and a separate issue that deserves its own article. Cells are not tissues, so this is not a POV fork. However, User:Bacchus87 is correct that the page name itself is POV. The best solution, I think, would be to create a Fetus Farming Prohibition Act article and place the content there. The emphasis of the article would need to change to the act itself, but I think it would change for the better. An article that discusses conservatives saying one thing and liberals saying another about a procedure that isn't being done seems a bit silly, but the law does exist, and the name of the law is in government records. Like the Defense of Marriage Act, the fact that the name of the law is POV is not our concern. With this name, the article could also continue its current tack of being centered on the issue in the USA. Flying Jazz (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 22:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and redirect to Fetus Farming Prohibition Act, since the majority of the reliable sources link seem to use this term in reference to a particular law, not an area of technology. I agree that since the term "fetal farming" is used in this law to refer to the creation of embryos as a source of either cells or tissues then a redirect to Stem cell controversy would be incorrect. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename but not after the Prohibition Act, as that seems too narrow. Maybe Fetus farming controversy, with a discussion of the act, the technology and viewpoints from both sides? To redirect this to Stem cell controversy would be POV, even if unintentional, as it would suggest that the two are directly linked -- BloodGrapefruit2 (talk) 04:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, The problem with this title is that it is the law that defined the term, this phrase has little independent existence apart from the law itself, so any controversy around "Fetus farming" is inextricably linked to the Prohibition Act that invented/popularized the term. Moreover, a more general article on the use of embryonic cells or tissues in medicine (such as Fetal tissue implants) or even an article on the controversy surrounding such technology could not use an emotive term as its title. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It might make sense to redirect to Fetal tissue implant and include a subsection in that article on the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act. I'm not wedded to this idea, but several of the articles referenced are more recent, so this is liable to become an issue again, I fear, if we merely refer to the act without leaving room for additional developments. (I'm aware of Crystal Ball; I'm just raising a note of caution). BloodGrapefruit2 (talk) 04:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I notice as a precedent that Defense of Marriage already redirects to Defense of Marriage Act. Redirecting to the source that made the term notable seems a good way of dealing with such inherently biased titles. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Redirect to Fetus Farming Prohibition Act, the notability of this term comes almost entirely from the act. As a procedure is it purely hypothesised, and not practiced. The term outside the act was created and used to stir up controversy about a theoretical procedure therefore does not warrant its own article. Bacchus87 (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've relisted because the current consensus would result int he creation of a broken redirect. Can someone make clear if that is the actual intent? MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At some point tonight or tomorrow I intend to get working on the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act. The consensus is pretty clear, but I think everyone is expecting someone else to actually write the targeted article. AniMate^talk 02:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and redirect to Fetus Farming Prohibition Act if it is created. TillsTalk 03:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, no redirect this seems to be a very controversial topic and looks like it can be expanded a lot more. Nicholas.tan (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2009 (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.