Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wife

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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wife

Wife (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Dictionary-style entry; WP:WINAD. Possibly WP:POINT, due to ongoing argument at Talk:Marriage as to whether marriages other than man-woman marriages exist or are valid. Content is very sparse, most content besides dictionary content is unsourced opinion from User:Flammingo. -- Joie de Vivre 23:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page because it is a complementary term:

Husband (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Joie de Vivre 23:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments and discussion

All new discussion threads should be created on a new line with a bullet. Add Keep, Delete, Comment, or similar, to begin.

• Comment: Check Talk:wife, Talk:husband and especially Talk:marriage! Flammingo, 23:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Added:I oppose deletion because marriage does not, and should not, cover the position of a wife, or husband, in society, family, law, and so on. Until yesterday, wife and husband were deleted in marriage if entered, which seems odd to me. Flammingo^Parliament 23:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Response:What does that have to do with whether this article meets basic criteria? Joie de Vivre 00:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, then i don't see a problem keeping it, since it does. Do you have a list of desiderata? Flammingo^Parliament 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: The article "marriage" does not, and should not, explain the terms

• A husband pillow.
• Animal husbandry, such as conservation or agriculture
• Husbands, a 1970 American film.
• Richard Douglas Husband, astronaut
• The Husband's Message
• Wife (film) (1914, yes, no article, point is that there are more meanings than that)

The same reasons would apply to dowry and bride price, and not connected at all are wedding, bride and groom!Flammingo^Parliament 00:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Response: This is not a nomination to delete Husband (disambiguation). That disambiguation page takes care of all the concerns mentioned above. Joie de Vivre 00:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[Deleting defamation] Flammingo^Parliament 00:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC) entries deleted by Joie de vivre: here, notes Flammingo^Parliament 10:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• DeleteWeak keep Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article doesn't even get the basic dictionary meaning right - it is not a word purely associated with marriage. The word simply comes from the German word "woman" (Old German Weib), and still has that sense today in words like midwife. I sense that this article was created to prove a political point about marriage.Trishm 05:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC) This article seems not to be quite the political football that I thought it was.Trishm 04:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for joining, how does your comment contradict the article's definition? And how could the opinion of giving information on "wife" and "husband" be political, please? Flammingo^Parliament 10:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Not so much a contradiction as an indication of the purpose of the article. When the article has little more than a non-inclusive dictionary definition with an error in it (Old German Weib was not obsolete), it doesn't look like the article was created for the sake of the topic. It was very obvious that it was there purely to make a point, and not very well at that. What point? I'm not sure, but it seems to be part of the battle between advocates of SSM and right wing Christians. I note, though, that the article has changed quite a bit since it was nominated, and may be salvageable. -trishm-

i am neither right wing nor ssm or who else, just interested in history and literature, as you see. Question, though: it never said, "Weib was obsolete" (which doesnt make sense to me right now), "obsolete" meant "not in use today", which is true, "Weib" means "Ehefrau" in both colloquial and legal German. If that is what you meant? Thanks.Flammingo^Parliament 00:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess we were talking at cross purposes, and you've won me over. I didn't mean to categorize you, it just seemed that the article was being used as a weapon in some idealogical war. "Weib" is archaic, for sure, but still survives a weiblich, so I reacted a bit to "obsolete"; and I'm sure your German is far superior to mine. Now I can see the potential in the article. Trishm 04:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• CommentOther items marriage does not mention: husband (disambiguation), similar terms like housewife, the education for wives at wife.org, support (make necessary) a disambiguation. Also what about the question The article should describe the position of a wife/husband in the context of society and marriage, which Marriage does not doFlammingo^Parliament 10:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Nominator says "Content is very sparse", but Wife doesn't look that way to me. Also merging into Marriage would be a bad idea due to the sheer length of the article. It is long past the stage where sections need to be split of. Lets not go backwards. Mathmo ^Talk 16:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep very expandable. Could have better content someday. I think wife is sufficiently notable. Selket ^Talk 16:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep very encyclopedic topic, including discussion in fields of demographics, history, sociology and religion (and many others). The article could/should be expanded to an enormous extent but as a starting article it's decently written and well-referenced. -Markeer 17:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep both. There is a world of custom, law, literature, and folklore for these articles that really does not belong in the marriage article. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - one of the things you would type into wikipedia and be shocked if it didn't have an article. If this is deleted, it will reappear and we start from scratch again. Cant believe this was AFD'd! {{gofixit}} THE KING 18:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Both and Redirect to marriage, which is where "spouse" redirects. This is simply a dicdef, the wiktionary should suffice. Agent 86 19:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• There are very well sources for every single sentence, hell, for every single letter in those sentences. So, all are invited, rol up your sleeves, (have a coke...) and punch in a book or two! Flammingo^Parliament 20:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That is incorrect. There are many, many unsourced statements in Wife and also some in Husband. Joie de Vivre 20:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

One after another, shall we? And yes, that's why more than one should contribute Flammingo^Parliament 20:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Well, even if i am not allowed to say who i am talking to, it would still be productive to post questions like whether novels count as a reference (edit: ie. what sources are acceptable in the context of wishing this article sourced) either here or somewhere it would be seen by more people. I am not saying this to anyone in particular. No threat intended. Keep it up, everyone, and there are tons of books on this topic, which would be nice to have here. Flammingo^Parliament 21:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete both. These articles were born out yet another WP:POINT from Talk:Marriage. If it is a good idea to start splitting the article for length purposes, the way it should be done is not to create dicdefs and fill them with historical anecdotes, but to simply create a (set of) timeline(s) of marriage practices in different regions. This would be much more encyclopedic, and an appropriate title for one of these might be Marriage practices in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, for example. Filling up dicdefs with little historical tidbits is not the way to go about this. — coelacan talk — 21:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This cannot be WP:POINT for the reasons i stated above. I am not interested in the article marriage, but in the article wife. I do not really care what marriage says right now, and did not take sides in the discussion there (if there are sides, i dont know, but POINT says i'd illustrate my pov, which would mean i did take my opinion solely from there).Flammingo^Parliament 21:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

And yet when you changed these articles from redirects, the article intros said "A husband is the male participant in a marriage. Compare wife" and "A wife is the female spouse in a marriage. Compare husband", and your edit summaries said "As by Talk:Marriage#husbands and wives redux".[1] [2] Looks to be straight out of the edit disputes there. — coelacan talk — 21:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, i thought the discussion ABOUT the article marriage on that talk page. Sorry. Yes, there were two editors suggesting that might be worth having, too. i was not precise.Flammingo^Parliament 22:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Secondly, the purpose of this article is not length, but what i just said, and have kept saying. It does not repeat the kinds-of-marriage issue from marriage, either. It is also not limited to the time frame suggested ~ten lines above this comment.Flammingo^Parliament 21:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can see that it's not limited to that time frame, that's why I'm suggesting a set of such articles, divided by whatever historical segments are appropriate. There's very little to be gained in having these dicdefs and just filling them with a variety of historical anecdotes. If the coverage is too long for Marriage (and I'm not convinced that it is) then the way to do it is is by articles on those historical periods, not just dumping grounds for anything and everything from every time period. — coelacan talk — 21:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not about the too long coverage. Flammingo^Parliament 22:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, if you agree with me that the coverage there is not too long, then there's no reason for the content not to simply be back at marriage. — coelacan talk — 22:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me emphasize: It's not ABOUT the too long coverage.Flammingo^Parliament 22:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well then why don't you explain what else it's "ABOUT". What you're putting in these pages are historical marriage practices, so they're really more appropriate for articles like Marriage practices in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and Marriage practices in the fifteenth to seventeenth centuries or whichever period-breakdown is most appropriate. — coelacan talk — 23:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It isn't. It's on "wife", "wives". --Flammingo^Parliament 23:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like "marriage practices" to me. That's the content of the article. — coelacan talk — 00:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not on the marriage practice, if i'm understanding that term in your sentence correctly Flammingo^Parliament 00:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"And customs" then, because all the content relates to customs of marriage. If we're taking "practices" alone not to include the after-ceremony customs (not how I meant it but I guess it could be interpreted that way). — coelacan talk — 00:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Coelacan's observation. Joie de Vivre 22:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That if it is about the long coverage it should still go back.....?????--Flammingo^Parliament 22:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The original bulleted comment. Joie de Vivre 22:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

But it's way more than dict now. And contains non-me sources.Flammingo^Parliament 22:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a dicdef full of historical anecdotes from various time periods, which is exactly what my original bulleted comment said. — coelacan talk — 01:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes! Great, eh? (expl. see below) Though I would not say it that way, obviously.Flammingo^Parliament 01:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but maybe divorce later? Jefferson Anderson 22:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Har, har, har.  :-P Joie de Vivre 22:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Wife is not just a term but a position that has existed in society for millenia. There's plenty of room for expansion in terms of the history of usage, religious and cultural views, etc. Joshdboz 22:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • If it's about history, then wouldn't it make sense to merge the content of both wife and husband and split off as approriate from marriage and make a series of historical articles like I've proposed above? — coelacan talk — 23:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That merge would put two different perspectives on a topic together, necessarily losing one of them.--Flammingo^Parliament 23:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What? — coelacan talk — 00:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

indeed.Flammingo^Parliament 00:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Cute. Please explain what you're talking about. — coelacan talk — 00:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ;) My pleasure. wife would be on relation to kids and village/town/legal protection especially throughout history (maybe including today) husband would be the same, necessarily different.Flammingo^Parliament 01:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously different, but very much related, so it makes sense to merge them into articles on the history itself. Nothing would be lost. That's what sections are for. — coelacan talk — 01:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, these are obvious expandable subarticles of marriage, which is a serious hodge-podge of pointers out to other articles already. --Dhartung | Talk 00:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The term "wife" has enough of its own historical connotations to make a valid encyclopedia article out of it. JuJube 00:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment -- I just want to say that I really agree with Coelacan's idea about separating content about the role of women in marriage by time period (or perhaps also by geography) rather than just one grand umbrella term for "Wife". I agree that it's much more encyclopedic, the way Coelacan is suggesting it. Joie de Vivre 22:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep You really must be kidding - nominating this article for deletion? --Ozgod 03:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep—really surprising nomination, because even if you exclude a basic dicdef, you're left with a huge amount of cultural and historical information to write about. Everyking 07:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep please really this is surprising there is so much that can be said about the wife yuckfoo 01:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Like what? Joie de Vivre 18:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

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.