Deletion of Abolition of Prostitution

Comment: Merge''' depending on content. Most of this is  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAPBOX)

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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:CFORK||WP:AGF)

Comment: If you think the page as it stands is even remotely in line with , 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:UGLY||WP:FORK)