Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro-marriage movement


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Pro-marriage movement

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Content (POV) fork. Content on the topic of ‘’opposition to same-sex marriage’’ is appropriate for various articles, such as Same-sex marriage, LGBT rights opposition, and Societal attitudes toward homosexuality, and separate article with a neutral title might even be appropriate. However, the Irredeemably non-neutral wording of this article makes the possibility of a merge or page move unfeasible. Rivertorch  FIRE WATER   13:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   13:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Undesirable content fork that depends almost entirely on WP:SYNTH. The subject purports to be a movement, but the content is a hodge podge of material that could be covered in the articles listed by Rivertorch.- MrX 13:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per Rivertorch. Title doesn't even makes sense; would be more honest to call it the "anti-same-sex-marriage movement". Funcrunch (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to LGBT rights opposition. The title is a likely search term, so that article would provide the appropriate context for someone looking for it. Diego (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete and oppose redirect. Title violates NPOV and is unclear, since same-sex marriage supporters might also call themselves the "pro-marriage" movement. This term is not used by enough reliable sources to merit inclusion on Wikipedia.Michelangelo1992 (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Those are not valid arguments to avoid having the redirect. Relevant policy (WP:RNEUTRAL) says that "Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names. Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is therefore not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. "
 * The concern at hand is guiding readers to neutrally written information, even if the term they use is not neutral by our criteria. Matter of fact is that no same-sex marriage supporters call themselves "the pro-marriage movement", yet we have sources like New York Times, Salon or Business Insider using the term as referring to groups opposing it. Diego (talk) 09:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete and oppose redirect. I don't think it's teeeeeechnically a content fork of an existing article since we don't actually have an article on anti-marriage activism (we have LGBT rights opposition and a subsection on opposition in Same-sex marriage in the United States, afaict) but that's nonetheless clearly the intent. If WP wants to spin out a separate article on anti-marriage activism it will need to be done in compliance with policy.
 * See also: Articles for deletion/Traditional marriage movement. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * A title like "Traditional marriage movement" I'd actually have little to no objection to, assuming the content did not violate NPOV. That AfD was seven years ago, when same-sex marriage was legal in fewer countries than it is today. Funcrunch (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that would be a new article. This one, I fear, cannot be salvaged. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   03:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would still object to the title "traditional marriage movement" because monogamous opposite-sex marriage is still not traditional in all cultures. Many cultures included polygamy and concubines, for example, in their marriage traditions. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, but if enough reliable sources are using that term to refer to people that support "one man + one woman" style marriages, then we could include it, at least as a redirect for searching purposes. Funcrunch (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Would be happy with a re-branding "Traditional Marriage Movement". As for content. Could easily be expanded upon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hymnodist.2004 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Already covered at Same-sex marriage and LGBT rights opposition. This is a non-neutral WP:POVFORK evidenced by sentences such as "Coopers Beer was persecuted for releasing a video in which both sides of the argument were presented" and "Kim Davis, who was jailed in the United States in 2015 for adhering to her own religious belief". AusLondonder (talk) 09:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete agree with AusLondonder's arguments. SJK (talk) 08:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Clarification
Could you elaborate on what you mean by this article being "non-neutral"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hymnodist.2004 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Title and content are wholly at odds with WP:NPOV. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   13:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Much of the content is factual statement. Perhaps the title is not ideal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hymnodist.2004 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Never mind the title. The entire body of the article (one section, three paragraphs) consists of demonstrable falsehoods, deeply biased statements, and cherry-picked examples of recent events in a futile attempt to prop up the non-NPOV lead section. This article cannot be salvaged. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   11:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2017 (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.