Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traditional Marriage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete as a POV fork. A couple possible single-purpose accounts have been disregarded (though one or two that were tagged do not appear to be SPAs). --Coredesat 05:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Traditional Marriage

Traditional Marriage (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • Delete. This is a POV fork of the Marriage article, begun because Marriage is currently protected from edit warring. The creator of the Traditional Marriage article has stated "I will not agree to any "consensus"", declared contempt for RFC, and has been asking for a POV fork. Such a fork is no kind of solution. — coelacan talk — 16:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedily Delete This article appears to have been created solely to push a point of view agenda on an article that is protected from edit warring. This directly circumvents the entire purpose and process of Wikipedia's policies and is totally unacceptable behavior. Lankybugger 16:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Quite obviously a POV fork. -- Ec5618 16:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete—article created only to circumvent protection of Marriage page and to advocate a POV.--GMS508 16:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete-even the title is uncyclopedic.--Yannismarou 16:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Traditional" Delete. POV fork. AgentPeppermint 20:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a sign of our sacred commitment against WP:POVFORK POV forks.-- danntm T C 01:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a POV fork & being generally unencyclopedic. SkierRMH,02:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above --BenWhitey 03:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Traditional Marriage is between one admin and one Delete, under AfD. -/- Warren 05:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Vandalism of this AfD by User:Nkras may be interpreted as a vote of "keep", I guess. Trying to be charitable here. — coelacan talk — 06:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment User:Coelacan has no basis - nor the permission - to assert a vote on my behalf. Such an action on Coelacan's part constitutes fraud. Nkras 00:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment He also removed the AfD tag off the article itself. Restored the tag and warned. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 06:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a POV fork and salt name space (or make it a protected redirect). NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 06:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per above comments. Bad faith effort on the part of one user to get his own way about the definition of marriage. Jeffpw 09:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete article created to push one POV when contributor couldn't get their own way on another article. POV forks are always a terrible idea. -- Siobhan Hansa 11:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork of the worst sort. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 13:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This article describes Traditional Marriage. Its very existence angers the Same-sex marriage POV pushers who seek legitimacy. That is not a reason to delete an article. Using their logic, Same-sex marriage is also a POV fork, and must be deleted as well. Arguing that a "consensus" of a few Editors, drawn from a narrow socio-political caste, is enough to delete this article while retaining the blatantly POV Same-sex marriage will render Wikipedia as hopefully biased and without credibility. Traditional Marriage describes Marriage as it has been understood to the world through history. Nkras 19:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

*Speedy keep, per precedent set at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Same-sex_marriage. Both are POV-forks, and frankly both should share the same fate. I would have voted for deletion for both, but same-sex was speedily kept. - Aagtbdfoua 19:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment: You seem to misunderstand what the term "POV fork" means. Read the article in question here, and compare it with Marriage; someone has attempted to rewrite the Marriage article by removing most of the information on same-sex marriages (while leaving intact practically all other information on other types of marriages) and filing this version under a different name. This isn't how things are done at Wikipedia. Same-sex marriage exists as a separate article because it's a major social issue; it can also be seen as a natural result of Wikipedia:Summary style editing on the Marriage article itself. -/- Warren 20:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment A good-faith effort is now underway to resolve the Marriage article. Traditional Marriage should not be deleted. Doing so could damage the process of resolution and the goal of Wikipedia NPOV on this issue. The disputes concerning the TM and Ssm articles can be resolved later. Nkras 20:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice to re-creation with a mostly original text. This does seem to be a POV fork. But I am pretty sure the phrase "traditional marriage" is noteworthy, not obvious or tautological in the meaning given to it by those who use the phrase, and otherwise could support an article. That article has yet to be written, though. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Disregard my above comment. I didn't realize the Same Sex article was already in existence, and this is a POV fork four days old. Delete it, this content dispute needs to be settled elsewhere. - Aagtbdfoua 00:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm not any kind of SSM or gay-activist, but traditions of marriage are too varied to allow for just one article. Articles in Category:Marriage and religion and Category:Wedding should deal with most of the concepts of marriage in traditional societies, but if not there might be a need of expansion in this area.--T. Anthony 01:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP "Traditional marriage" on Wikipedia. Why would anyone want to remove this term? It exists all around the world, deleting these two words doesn't make it go away. So sick of people who feel that they must push their agendas by taking away from others.DeltaFox 02:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC) — DeltaFox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • KEEP "Traditional Marriage" This will allow the original form of marriage to be defined. Proponents of SSM can explain their position on their own entry.Esteemedeffendi 02:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC) — Esteemedeffendi has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • KEEP "Traditional Marriage" I agree with the last comment. Same-sex-marriage is already a conceptual branch off of the marriage article (even if the latter's content is not yet resolved). This article too is a branch with valuable information. That most of this data is repeated in the original article is not really the point. The information here can and should be rewritten to be more narrowly-focussed. Also, if "same-sex marriage" is a social issue, then "traditional marriage" is as much a social issue; the two terms reference one another and I'd say deserve separate entries. Silverstarseven 02:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC) — Silverstarseven has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment: Same-sex marriage is a distinctly different topic than marriage, in that it is a controversial, modern development in marriage. The article deals with its development and political history, as well as its status throughout the world. The traditional marriage article is just a cut and paste job of the original marriage article, with all references to same-sex marriage deleted. That's what makes this a POV fork, while the same-sex one is not. Someone above suggested delete without prejudice. I second that. A fine article can be written about what traditionalists think of as marriage, and their efforts to defend that in a changing world. The article as it now stands is not that.Jeffpw 11:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV fork. --Duke of Duchess Street 03:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. As others noted, a POV fork with nothing new to say. Luis Dantas 17:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Although the creation of this article was pretty plainly a POV fork, the term "traditional marriage" is notable in the context of the same-sex marriage debate -- social conservatives have made it a buzzword similar to family values. Assuming this afd results in deletion, I hope this will not be taken as prejudicial to recreation of an article called "Traditional marriage" that discusses the political use of the term in a neutral way. DanB†DanD 20:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - That's it exactly. "Traditional marriage" is now a political slogan with a non-obvious and non-trivial meaning. Opposition to same-sex marriage is often cast now as a "defense" of "traditional marriage". These usages are quite common - they appeared in every other political ad during the last US national elections, it seems - and surely deserve an article of their own. The text now under consideration is not that article. - Smerdis of Tlön 23:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP There is another article Same-sex marriage that deals with only the same sex side of this issue. Either Same-sex marriage should be folded into the larger "Marriage" article, or if Same-sex marriage is allowed to stand, than "Traditional Marriage" should too, since that term is as-common as "Same Sex Marriage" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucid-dream (talk • contribs)
Please read the AFD more closely. That point has already been addressed and countered.--69.156.204.183 02:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - POV, and rather sleazy POV at that. Besides, inaccurate title - as traditional marriage would involve same-race only, 10 year old brides, spouses meeting each other only on their wedding days, no divorce, kidnapping, spousal parents paying off the other, etc. etc. --John Kenneth Fisher 22:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as a POVfork but support comments by 'DanB_DanD' and 'Smerdis of Tlon' above to recreate an article that discusses the recent political use of the term. -- Adz|talk 03:13, 3 January 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.