Deletion of List of celebrities who have had an abortion

Comment: u|Geo Swan}}, I'm at a loss for words over your waving away the major ethical issues involving actual living human beings, and if I addressed that I'd likely say something I regret. I will address your misunderstanding of our policies around deletion, however, and argue for them in this case. Thank you for motivating me to cast an actual !vote.{{pb}}Notability is not a policy. It is a guideline. We routinely delete notable things. In fact, not being notable is only -REASON|1 of 14 reasons we delete things according to the actual deletion policy. Reason 9|number 9 on that list is the BLP policy. Since notability is not the reason being advocated for deletion, the closer should ignore arguments based on notability since they do not address the very substantive policy reasons for deletion.{{pb}}In terms of other measures, I am 100% confident that even with extended confirmed protection deletion would likely be necessary, and in cases where the very probable issues ''cannot'' possibly be removed, deletion followed by discussion about whether or not to allow recreation is the norm (see ).{{pb}}That is to say, while deletion is still a last resort, when there is an argument that it is needed and other measure will not suffice, the burden of proof ''under existing policy'' shifts to those who want an article to achieve consensus to create it. Notability doesn't matter one iota{{pb}}In this case, we have an article that is all but certain for all other technical measures to fail. It's creation and subsequent sourcing to Tweets is a BLP violation by an autoconfirmed user. Anyone will be able to tell you that we have plenty of 500-900 edit accounts that have no clue how the BLP policy works. The ''only'' option under current policy is for an administrator to delete this article and for creation to be disallowed pending affirmative consensus
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DEL||WP:DEL9||WP:BLPDELETE)

Comment: This is not just about the You Know Me movement, and is not just a list of women who have said in 2019 that they had an abortion.  states that "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". On Wikipedia we already have several articles about movements of women stating publicly that they have had an abortion, eg: Silent No More, founded in 2003 in the US (women (and men) who regret their abortions); Manifesto of the 343, a French petition calling for the legalization of abortion, published in a weekly magazine in 1971; ShoutYourAbortion, started in the US in 2015 "for the purpose of “destigmatization, normalization, and putting an end to shame"; You Know Me movement, US, 2019. There are other projects in other countries in which women have also made public the fact that they have had an abortion, eg The X-ile Project in Ireland ('Reviewed Work: The X-ile Project', Review by: Katherine Side, ''The Canadian Journal of Irish Studies'', Vol. 40, 2017).  There are reliable sources discussing these movements/petitions of women publicly naming themselves as having had an abortion, and many of these sources also name and discuss some of the women
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: It looks to me that erifiability and otability are met (or at least editing could readily produce this situation) but I really don't like having this article here at all. However,  and OTCENSORED expect me think up which policy is being broken. The best I could find was  which arguably prevents "lists ... (referring to living persons within any Wikipedia page) that ... suggest that any living person has a poor reputation". Because of time or jurisdiction some of these people may have been breaking the law and so there could arise the more general suggestion of a poor reputation. No, I don't find this too convincing but it is the best I can think up
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:N||WP:N||WP:NOTCENSORED||WP:BLPCAT)

Comment: Many of the Delete rationales seem to me to be examples of one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions - , which says "the purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information: the potential readership or subjective usefulness of each item does not have to be justified if the material is notable." Some of the deletion arguments suggest that because of some people's attitudes to abortion, having a list like this might put women included on it at risk. As I have said before, this information is already in Wikipedia, and easily findable elsewhere on the internet. Many of the women who spoke out about having an abortion did so when it was still illegal, and when publicly speaking about it made them susceptible to criminal charges. They accepted that very real risk. The American women who have publicly spoken as part of recent movements, when abortion has been legal in the US, know that many people are vehemently opposed to it and that there is a real risk of Anti-abortion violence (and has been for over 40 years). They have taken that risk. To say Wikipedia should not compile a list of names, many of whom volunteered to be included in a list of names published in national newspapers or magazines (eg We've had abortions! and Manifesto of the 343, both in 1971), because it might be used by anti-abortion extremists (who, according to that Wikipedia article Anti-abortion violence, "are considered a current domestic terrorist threat by the United States Department of Justice"), seems to me a classic example of invoking the invalid deletion argument 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:HARMFUL||WP:HARMFUL)