Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro-abortion rights violence
Partisan nature of reliable sourcing is something that  anticipates;  is relevant.  Just because, for example, Catholic News has an opinion on abortion does not make it unreliable.  Most of the above deletion arguments seem to hinge on this misreading of policy.  Note that this area remains under /DS|discretionary sanctions.  I think {{U|E.M.Gregory}} makes a valid point: how much of the argumentation here is based on editors' own strong feelings about abortion?  As the drafting arbitrator for the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion|2011 case, I can say that the argumentation here seems pretty mild by comparison to what I had to wade through there, but there are echoes of the partisan arguing couched in terms of Wikipedia policies which that case examined. The fact is that there is both pro- and anti-abortion violence throughout the world.  Maybe the right thing to do is to put it all into one big article and lay out the relevant incidents in one article that shows the relative preponderance as covered in RS'es.  Regardless, this is verifiable content on a notable topic, and so the burden on those seeking to delete this from here becomes, "If not in this article, where should this information best be presented in encyclopedic fashion
— User:Jclemens, 21:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:DUE||WP:YESPOV||WP:AC (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)