Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hollywood marriage


 * 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. Consensus is that the article is much improved without the list and sufficient sources exist. Hopefully it will develop and remain list-free to avoid a return trip here.-- Kubigula (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hollywood marriage

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Seems to have a lot of WP:OR (what constitutes a short marriage, and the lead). It is a list of living people without any referencing (bar one), and the purpose of the list is not clear. I am (currently) neutral on the subject, but this should have an AFD and has been raised on the BLP notice board. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  —Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  —Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  —Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, as I suggested before. There are no sources which support the notability of this expression. If there were it could be a Wiktionary entry, but not a Wikipedia article unless the topic was discussed in depth in secondary sources.  There are no sources that say the long list of married couples where one or both works in the American entertainment industry are examples of "Hollywood marriages."  Nor are there even sources for the data on any of the couples except one.Steve Dufour (talk) 03:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep (Back to keep per new sourcing) the term "Hollywood marriage" does see a lot of use Google, Google News, and Google Books. Strongly suggest that sense of OR be removed through WP:Cleanup and article receive proper sourcing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If to be deleted, then perhaps do so without prejudice and userfy to author, as a future rewrite may be able to address concerns of this AfD.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - BLP nightmare that is not notable enough for an article. لenna  vecia  12:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as Jennavecia puts it, it's a BLP nightmare. I've removed the list of people for the mean while, but I don't doubt that some idiot is going to put them back. Sceptre (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I followed the links provided by Schmidt, but thery seem to be random combinations of "Hollywood" and "marriage". There's no evidence that it is a term with a special meaning, unlike "Boston marriage", for example. The actual text of the article appears to be original research.   Will Beback    talk    18:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Several new sources have been found, so let's see what can be made of them. If the article still has problems after the sources have been mined then we can bring it back here.   Will Beback    talk    22:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Interesting topic, I wish there were some references. Rsolero (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The list of unsourced examples should stay deleted (obviously), but, unfortunate as it is that there are no references, I suspect that such references can be found by someone genuinely interested in the topic. For example, I've quickly found this, and I don't give a rat's ass about the topic. Rd232 talk 21:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's possible that an article on this could be written. I don't think the source you provided really says that the exact expression "Hollywood marriage" is an established phrase. I have never heard it, although I understand the concept, and I have lived in California most of my life. Well, the other part of the state, not near Hollywood. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * that source uses the expression 8 times. Rd232 talk 00:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't define it or say that other people use it.Steve Dufour (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct, it's a newspaper article, not an etymological dictionary. But it's an article which clearly expects the reader to recognise the phrase. Rd232 talk 00:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW the article lumps different things together under the one title, "Hollywood marriage." These include weddings done (at least partly) for publicity and marriages entered into sincerely but which failed due to the pressures and temptations of the entertainment world.  What was not mentioned is fake marriages done to hide the fact that one or the other person is gay. I don't think you can put all these together under one title, although they are important topics for concern and/or study.Steve Dufour (talk) 23:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - provisional that the terrible list stays deleted. A Gbooks search returns 550 hits. Abundance of sources. From the first 10 hits I picked four sources which I added to the article. It's a real shame that people find time to comment on AfDs, voting delete due to "lack of sources", without taking that marginally extra effort to actually look for some sources - grossly violating WP:BEFORE - deletion is the last resort.  Listing and categorizing a lot of celebrity marriages into "short", "medium" etc is a terrible idea, from WP:BLP concerns - and the list should stay deleted. Power.corrupts (talk) 06:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is improved, especially by losing the list. However it now seems to be saying that any marriage involving people in the movie business (in the USA) is a "Hollywood marriage." Steve Dufour (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't delete articles because they need improvement. We delete articles if they have no potential for improvement. The results of my Gbooks search proves that this concept is mainstream, passing WP:GNG, and certainly WP:V. Somebody with an interest in the topic can improve it, but it won't be me. The article was taken to AfD because of BLP and OR issues - they are now gone. Power.corrupts (talk) 06:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is the article going to be about marriages of people in the American entertainment industry? Or is it going to be about the expression "Hollywood marriage"? If the first then I think it is original research. If the second then it probably belongs on Wiki-dictionary.Steve Dufour (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Wiktionary, I'm unable to judge the development potential, perhaps we could give it a chance, right now it at least passes RS. As somebody noted above, the page Boston marriage has survived so far. I have no subject matter knowledge, I have a regular marriage. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Lots of people living in Hollywood do too. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The phrase and phenomenon has been discussed since the 1920s: Here's an article in the Telegraph on the topic:Movie stars plus marriage equals disaster. Here's a quick pick of some more sources: Fences and windows (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those cites but what could we say in an article based upon them beyond the dictionary definition: "A Hollywood marriage is a marriage between two Hollywood celebrities"?   Will Beback    talk    01:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * we could say things about the difficulty of having a marriage in the public eye, for one, in the particular context of the movie business. Rd232 talk 07:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) The problem here seems to be, that all the editors at this AfD, deletes and keeps alike, seem to subscribe to WP:IDONTLIKEIT - so we will have to leave article improvement to somebody else. Thanks to Fences and windows for locating the New York Times article.  How painful it may be, the article clearly passes WP:V and WP:GNG. Power.corrupts (talk) 07:44, 31 May 2009 (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.