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 merge to Prostitution and the law. T. Canens (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Abolition of Prostitution[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Basically an essay, not sure what this contributes that's not already presented at Prostitution and the law. If there is anything here that's salvageable it could be merged there. TJ Black (talk) 06:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essay. Adequately coverd in the article cited by nom. MLA (talk) 08:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like a term paper. Prostitution and the law isn't all it should be (the footnote section is a complete mess for openers), but it is the established page on this basic topic and this page is therefore a content fork. Carrite (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. –Tom Morris (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. –Tom Morris (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Though it does look like an essay, there are some valuable references and information in there. I've started merging some of the content into Prostitution and the law. I'm not totally sure that it is a content fork: abolitionism is a valid position one can take on prostitution and it is a qualitatively different public policy approach to traditional prohibition or liberalisation approaches. I'm not sure if Prostitution and the law is the best place for it: perhaps we need a new article summarising the different policy approaches that are possible to prostitution. I think the answer is to assume good faith and try our hardest to guide the content in this article into the best places for it. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - It is necessary to keep pages on the women questions. There is a considerable cost to the encyclopedia to eliminate its pages....Wikipedia has a serious deficit of female readers and female editors, and that is a problem, and this sort of thing doesn't help (references Wikipedia: This is a man's world, Where Are the Women in Wikipedia?. It is necessary to preserve this page and to improve it. Thanks, merci --Geneviève (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that I buy the idea that Wikipedia needs relaxed notability requirements or forgiveness of content forks for articles dealing with women's issues. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's a really bad idea, as good intentioned as the thought may be that WP needs better coverage of such matters and more participation from female editors. Carrite (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree. The idea that to keep women on Wikipedia, ideologically-motivated feminists must be given special dispensation from NPOV and other rules of Wikipedia is foolishness at its very worst. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bias is a serious issue on Wikipedia, I'd suggest Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias as a starting point for constructive ways to address it. This article is a presentation of a specific viewpoint on prostitution, it's not a woman's viewpoint in any universal way - some women may or may not share this view as easily as men. We do have Feminist views on prostitution which may be more along the lines of what you're thinking, though that is specifically feminist views, not representative of all women either. TJ Black (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to upgrade Prostitution and the law where appropriate. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the useful bits to other articles such as Prostitution and the law. This article's tone is prescriptive, not descriptive; it seeks to change the world rather than describe it. This is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to point out that there was a legalization movement in the mid-1800s countered by an abolitionist movement, and U.S. suffrage proponent Susan B. Anthony was on the fence on the issue until about 1870 when she threw her weight on the abolition side. Both sides had good arguments. There's plenty of material that can be put into an article on the subject, but not at all in the vein of what we are discussing for deletion. Just about all the text under discussion should be thrown out. Binksternet (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge (and later restore if appropriate).Weak keep and rescue (per my comment below) This is a clear essay which nonetheless has substantial value. For now, the most appropriate target is Feminist views on prostitution and secondarily (mainly "the Nordic model" material) prostitution and the law. Note that feminist activism (as opposed to just views) in support of sex workers gets space at Sex workers' rights. It's entirely legitimate to create say Feminist activism against prostitution, which is probably a more accurate description of the wide range of activism, legal moves, and philosophies described here. However, I doubt the essay concerns would be addressed by just moving the article.--Carwil (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essay. Too complicated to merge. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think there probably should be a separate article with this title, actually, although not with the current content. Our treatment of this subject as it relates to English-speaking countries belongs in Prostitution and the law, but there's also room for a separate treatment on the historic social movement for abolition of prostitution in the German-speaking world, which was called Abolitionismus (Prostitution) (link is to de.wiki). A direct translation of the de.wiki article would be called "Abolition of Prostitution". So, even though I don't see it as necessary to keep the current content, I don't think this should be a redlink.—S Marshall T/C 19:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best way would be to start a section on history of abolitionist efforts in Prostitution and the law and then see if there's enough material/support for its own article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it would, actually. Prostitution in Germany's incredibly different because of their culture. I don't think it's ever been illegal to buy or sell sex there, and I think all the major cities have large and well-advertised brothels. The kind of establishments that offer loyalty cards and discounts for the elderly. I only really looked into it briefly while translating a biography for Lida Gustava Heymann (an influential German anti-prostitution campaigner in the 1930s), but I have the impression that this might be best treated as a separate subject from scratch. Mind you, it's tangential to the AfD. I have no axe to grind about whether the present content is deleted or merged—I really just want to establish whether it'll be okay to reuse the article title.—S Marshall T/C 23:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd assume it'd be redirected, to either Prostitution and the law or Feminist views on prostitution. Presumably someone could create a new article at some later date if a reasonable article could be written. TJ Black (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I think the page accurately describes the abolition of prostitution movement. Abolition of prostitution is based on facts and research, and is a global movement so, perhaps a modification to reduce “essay” features is needed. nmw3 (talk) 2:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC) — nmw3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete, it's an essay, does not adhere to a NPOV, and is essentially using Wikipedia as a soapbox. BurtAlert (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete/Merge depending on content. Most of this is WP:SOAPBOX and really should be dropped rather than merged. (Also, please note that its presentation of prostitution research, while referenced, is extremely one-sided.) However, the topic is a valid one, and the "prostitution abolitionist" movement is one with a long history (albeit, not covered at all in this article) and considerable political influence currently, and hence, a large enough topic for its own article. However, I think once this article is stripped down to the non-soapboxy essentials, there will be little left, and the content is best merged rather than left as a stub or incomplete article. If sufficient quality content is generated on this topic for its own article, I suggest the title Abolitionism (prostitution), which would parallel usage of specialized movements calling themselves "abolitionist" that are not the same as the more generally accepted definition of movement to abolish slavery, per Abolitionism (disambiguation). Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - While I am new to this process and not entirely sure how these decisions are ultimately made, I of course, think this article should be kept. I want to answer the original criticisms from Iamcuriousblue. I can take the point about merging some of the content with the main prostitution article, especially the stats about violence before and after entry into prostitution, race/colonisation and prostitution, and money earned in prostitution, which are severely under-studied and under-reported in prostitution research generally. Certainly, I can also agree about adding a history section - in fact it's a great suggestion. However, to claim that this article should somehow discuss the prostitution abolition movement without discussing the abolitionist position on prostitution itself is a bit ridiculous. An abolitionist perpective on prostitution is the reasoning behind the movement. This page is clearly labeled as an enclopedic entry about the Abolition of Prostitution. This is a global movement and a serious philosophy/politic in regards to prostitution that even exists in law in some countries, most notably Nordic countries. Though, I agree with another commenter above that this article cannot simply be added to the page on Prostitution and the Law as the range of topics is much broader than law or legal approaches to prostitution, as the movement is itself. Describing the research cited as purely abolitionist or somehow ultimately flawed through bias is to neglect both the validity of the research, which is by and large published in academic journals, UN and governmental/inter-governmental reports and by recognized NGOs. This argument also somehow presents the research cited here as more biased than any other research on prostitution. Prostitution and the legal/social approaches we should take to it are seriously under argument at the moment, as this discussion reveals. All prostitution research contains bias one way or another. The bias of prostitution researchers is revealed mostly in the questions they ask. Wikipedia is currently host to other entries discussing other perspectives on prostitution, some of which have their own pages, and should be host to a page with abolitionist perspectives. As the prostitution pages are set up now, they reveal primarily legal approaches. There is much more to know about prostitution than legal approaches to it. Adding the range of other information that can be and is known (and debated) about prostitution has the potential to make those page unwieldy and confusing. Branches are necessary. Abolitionism is a legitimate one. Discussing abolitionism requires a discussion of abolitionist perspectives on prostitution. Some content can be merged. Ultimately, though, the page should remain substantially intact and in existence. Abolitionista2011 1:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC) — Abolitionista2011 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: The article as it is written not only presents an abolitionist perspective, but presents controversial research claims as if they were established fact. And, yes, I do mean to call into question the validity of research of abolitionist oriented scholars. There are many people critical of the research of abolitionists like Melissa Farley, who's methods are problematic, to put it mildly, and seem to basically be formalizations of a priori conclusions. The flaws in such research were noted recently in the Bedford v. Canada decision: [1]. (And I will also point out that just because a piece of research manages to find its way into an academic journal (of which there are many, with a wide variety of standards of what they'll accept), or more especially, an NGO or government report does not validate something as incontrovertible truth. There are many published papers making claims that are not widely accepted.) Hence, I think research claims about prostitution belong another article, and controversial claims need to be presented in a balanced way. I also want to note that the way the article was written basically ignored the clear rules and guidelines set out in WP:NPOV and WP:SOAPBOX. An article about a particular position must not represent advocacy of that position, nor should it be an attack on it. A neutral presentation of a that position including criticisms of it is what is called for. This is true of any Wikipedia article on any political position, and I fail to see how prostitution abolitionism should be any different. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 03:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to draw particular attention to this point in particular under Wikipedia:NPOV#Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view:

Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.

Iamcuriousblue (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The current situation is undesirable. We have Prostitution which gives only a brief précis of the different attitudes to prostitution, and then we've got Prostitution and the law, which is fine but doesn't seem the right place to explain the political/moral debate over the legality of prostitution. The closest place to merge would be Feminist views on prostitution. But what about non-feminist perspectives? The debate about the legal status of prostitution isn't just a debate that goes on within feminist circles: it's something that goes on at a national political and international level, as well as a law enforcement level. It would seem better to have an article that goes into depth on the political views regarding prostitution that could cover both feminist views and things like law enforcement views (I'm sure there are views amongst police and other law enforcement officials over the status of prohibitionism vs. abolitionism vs. legalization, and efficient use of law enforcement and prison budgets and so on). Rather than make a dramatic change, I've moved it over into my user space: User:Tom Morris/Attitudes towards Prostitution, with the intention that once it is ready, we can create it as a new article. I've pulled in a mixture of stuff from the existing articles, and it would be useful if bits of the Abolition of Prostitution article were moved in, and people could make suggestions. That way we might be able to find an amicable resolution to this AfD. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Everybody, my opinion : why to try to put everything all text in a one single article ??? The prostitution is a very vast subject both in its history , Laws and legal approaches, and of its social positions and political movement ( "prostitution abolitionist") . Why not to put 2 articles in internal link as we spank it... by example wikipedia pages for women sports (example the Women hockey in Sweden: we have 2 pages: Swedish women's national ice hockey team and Women's ice hockey in Sweden... same in Finland and in several countries). I wish a good weekend for all --Geneviève (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I dont see no reason for deleting or merging this article.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The editors who have made this article have put a lot of work into describing arguments and philosophies, which is awfully useful for Wikipedia. Unfortunately, a lot of points of view are stated, rather than attributed, which is why so many of us are skeptical about turning this into a NPOV, encyclopedic article. The alternative is to improve this article, by attributing POV, noting where POVs are opposed by others, and grounding the opinions in some actual political actors. The big missing piece right now is the movement itself. It's not enough to have the citations of some advocates and a big list at the end. Who is the movement? Where are they? What laws are they advocating for? Note also that there's a pretty rocking article at Prostitution in Sweden on the Swedish model, which looks more comprehensive than what is presented here. To those who are urging merge/delete (and I did above), I urge you/us to give this article a bit more time, since describing a movement with a POV is completely legitimate on Wikipedia. To those who are committed to editing it, please check out the five pillars of Wikipedia and improve it. The sooner that is done, the more likely it can be kept instead of recreated later.--Carwil (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is about a political/human rights movement. Hence a separate article/subject. Notability was established by sources.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are serious problems with this article in its present form. Even if there is no consensus to delete, this article cannot remain in its current form and biased, soapboxy content will need to be ruthlessly edited, even if it means knocking this article back to a stub. I also highly recommend that if this article is not removed to use the title Abolitionism (prostitution), in keeping with the usage in Abolitionism (disambiguation). Iamcuriousblue (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: This article is an important addition. It presents information not available on the other pages relating to prostitution. For instance, on the Prostitution and the Law page, Sweden, Iceland and Norway are listed under a "Prostitution illegal" category along with many other countries that have vastly different legislative models. It's quite inaccurate to list these countries in one category as if they have the same or similar laws. As another example, the definition of abolitionism on the Prostitution page is confusing, and one that most abolitionists would not agree with.

This article is well referenced. You are kidding yourself if you think there's such thing as controversial vs uncontroversial research findings or clearly established facts vs not clearly established facts. All research is performed by researchers who have their own perspectives and opinions that inform the research. All research has its limitations. The great thing about this article is that there are many references so that readers can look at the sources themselves.

Finally, I think this article is actually much more neutral than other pages relating to prostitution on wikipedia. For instance, I don't even agree with the first sentence on the Prostitution page, yet it is listed as fact. I think that page is actually much more agenda-pushing than the abolition of prostitution page. Your perception of something as neutral is likely strongly positively correlated with what you agree with. This is an excellent page that adds something not covered by the other pages. --Lauramjo — Lauramjo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment: If you think the page as it stands is even remotely in line with WP:NPOV, you're either kidding yourself or have no understanding of NPOV. Perhaps the fact that you're one of the authors of this page has something to do with your assessment of the article as it stands? Iamcuriousblue (talk) 09:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is an ugly mess right now and reeks of a POV fork, but it could be fixed within editing norms, and has plenty of sources. In accord with Iamcuriousblue, it should be re-named in any case. Perhaps incubation or userfication would work for this one. There has been more of an effort to add feminism topics. Bearian (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The title by itself proclaims one side of a controversy. This type of material can be more equitably handled in a balanced manner in an article such as Prostitution and the law. Not all of the material here will be suitable for merging, but that which is appropriate can be, and some of the rest can inform balanced additions to that article. I essentially agree with CarolMooreDC. --Bejnar (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quick google seach readily shows that this is is a well-known topic. However the article must be brought to wikipedia standards. Some content may be moved into other articles on the subject, while other content must be better sourced. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2011 (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.