Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marriage (Judeo-Christian) - Wikipedia

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. Bucketsofg 18:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage (Judeo-Christian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

From WP:POVFORK: "A POV fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines.... POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be nominated for deletion."

And, in fact, this article was created at the same time as Marriage (post modern), about 15 hours ago, out of a content dispute at Marriage, and the content needs no separate coverage besides that main article. The article author has said: "To re-iterate, the article is NPOV within it's own context.... I will edit the article to protect it's credibility, and will remove any edits that are attempts to push a POV and violate the NPOV of the subject matter."[1] Apparently WP:NPOV is going to be different inside of this article, and the article author will enforce this. Wikipedia does not allow walled gardens, nor article ownership, nor unnecessary content forking. The content of this article can and should be handled at Marriage, instead of creating yet another minor battleground. Delete. — coelacan talk — 09:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- IZAK 15:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -- very good reasoning  Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs}  10:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, note that this guy is claiming that the "GLBT SSm POV pushers" are imposing their POV on the main Marriage article. Krimpet 10:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Article also includes irrelevant statements which could be considered POV - 'traditional' attitudes to homosexuality, whatever they may be, seem to have no place in an article on marriage of whatever kind Chrislintott 10:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As with Marriage (post modern), this fork was clearly created to advance Nkras's POV, so that he/she can avoid following consensus on the main marriage article. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 10:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What is the comparison exactly? Seems like stab at a neoligism hence a problem with WP:NEO IZAK 11:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Redirect(or I guess delete). I'm supporting the concept of articles splitting off from the main article Marriage. Have you seen how long it has become! There should be a short summary in a lot of the section with a link to a main article, as is done in most articles long before they get to this length. Mathmo ^Talk 11:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ummm Mathmo: There are already articles such as Jewish view of marriage and Christian views of marriage (as well as a series on Religious aspects of marriage: Buddhist view of marriage; Confucian view of marriage; Islamic marital jurisprudence; Hindu view of marriage) which explain the concepts clearly. What is the point of an article that will only add confusion? IZAK 11:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • D'oh, thanks for pointing out it is time for me to go to sleep soon... how had I forgotten about those articles? Yeah, obviously now it should go. Thanks. Still believe however it would be good for the marriage article to be made shorter, but obviously going this way is not going to do it. Mathmo ^Talk 12:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete yet another POV fork of marriage. We know that some people have a problem with same sex marriage, they need to take that up with their local legislatures, Wikipedia is NOT the place to fix this "problem". Guy (Help!) 12:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Glad to see that this is up for deletion along with Marriage (post modern). Neither add anything to the encyclopedia, except strife. Jeffpw 13:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. POV fork. I tried on the talkpage to get the author to explain why this article was necessary in light of the numerous other marriage articles mentioned above, but the hostile respose was pretty unpersuasive. Editors' problems with Wikipedia's NPOV policy are not solved by creating new article after new article ad infinitum. WJBscribe 15:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a POV fork, possible speedy G4 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traditional Marriage, which was posted by the same user.) Mangojuice^talk 15:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as was created to push POV. Creator Nkras has now been indef blocked for disruption. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Merge any appropriate content into Marriage. See comment below. --Shirahadasha 20:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unlike the situation in the Marriage (post modern) AfD, "traditional marriage" as a phrase and a concept has a lot of notability, particular in legal writings in conservative jurisdictions and legal authorities. See, for example National Pride at Work v. Governor of Michigan, Mich. App. February 1, 2007] ("We begin by noting the relatively significant public attention this case has received...The people, in an act of self-government, could rationally conclude that the welfare and morals of society benefit from protecting and strengthening traditional marriages, and this act of the people constitutes a legitimate governmental interest.") It is less clear, however that this traditional marriage concept deserves a separate article rather than being included in the Marriage article along with other perspectives. Furthermore, since the views of traditional Judaism and Christianity are not the only views involved in the concept of marriage, traditional or otherwise, it is unclear that the traditional concept, if presented in a separate article, should focus exclusively on the perspective of these religions particularly given that each religion already has its own article on marriage. Nonetheless, it's reasonable to argue that "traditional marriage" represents a distinct subject rather than a POV fork in "marriage", and Wikipedia could present things if the articles (and other articles with different approaches) were appropriately named and sourced, and if the Marriage article linked to each appropriately. While I agree the article shouldn't stand alone, I believe the issue here is more one of pragmatism and avoiding reader confusion than strict policy. --Shirahadasha 20:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There is already an article on the subject of Traditional marriage movement. Traditional marriage redirects to it. WJBscribe 20:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I don't think the redirect is well-taken, any more than I think that (to pick an example out of a hat) Evolution should redirect to Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (forgive the imperfect analogy). In both cases, the concept and the social movement are distinct and should be treated separately. Either Traditional marriage should redirect to an appropriate subsection of Marriage, or it should be an article in its own right and any reliably sourced and appropriately-toned content in this article could be merged into it. --Shirahadasha 20:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      I think the problem here is that across the world different cultures have different views on what constitutes traditional marriage. Writing an article to encompass all traditions would be problematic. A series of articles on Traditional marriage in culture X might be possible, but I'm not they will add much to the Religious views of marriage articles. WJBscribe 20:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• (Edit conflict) There's no need for a separate traditional marriage article unless and until the coverage in the marriage article becomes so large it needs a subarticle, per Wikipedia:Summary style. As John Kenneth Fisher noted in the previous AFD, such an article "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."[2] We have barely begun to approach such coverage, so a subarticle is far too premature. If such coverage does eventually need separate articles, traditional marriage is still the wrong title, as it's a neologistic POV-loaded term. There's no reason to give a neologistic term like traditional marriage undue weight by pretending it addresses a clearly defined concept throughout history. A (set of) timeline(s) of marriage practices in different regions would probably be much more encyclopedic, and an appropriate title for one of these might be marriage practices in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. I agree with Shirahadasha about the "Richard Dawkins Foundation" example, and accordingly I'm changing the redirects back to marriage for now. — coelacan talk — 21:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Never mind, I can't change the redirect, it's protected. — coelacan talk — 21:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this as a POV-fork. Semperf 21:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - poor POV-ish article at this point but both Jewish and Christian marriage and its ceremonies are rich in unique symbolisms and philosophies. Arguments for this article's coverage in traditional marriage are very problematic. Traditional according to which culture and tradition? Early Jewish and Christian marriage traditions were radically anti-traditional. And the traditional marriage article is about a modern political movement whereas Marriage (Judeo-Christian) should be about ancient histories and philosophies thereof. CyberAnth
  • Also, the user that started the article has been banned already. The future of the article need not reflect on its beginning. CyberAnth 04:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CyberAnth, the articles Jewish view of marriage and Christian views of marriage already exist. The ceremonies and symbolism seem appropriate for those articles, so there's no need for this one. This article was simply created for WP:POINT contrast alongside author's new marriage (post modern) article, also under AFD. — coelacan talk — 04:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Point about inclusion of ceremonies and symbolisms as appropriate to Jewish view of marriage and Christian views of marriage is accepted. Vote retracted. CyberAnth 06:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I wish more nominations were as well reasoned as this. Anyway, clear WP:OWN and WP:POVFORK problems.-- danntm ^T _C 21:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Candy-Panda 02:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination and Fork and Ownership issues as listed. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 02:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Avi 15:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Having it go away entirely will be much easier than trying to edit it into something reasonable. Sdsds 21:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. POV fork.--Sefringle 23:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Del per nom. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.