Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Same-sex marriage in the British Virgin Islands


 * 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 move to LGBT rights in the British Virgin Islands and delete redirect, which I will do now. El_C 17:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in the British Virgin Islands

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

As a quick reading of this article will confirm, it is completely unnotable. Same-sex marriage does not exist in the British Virgin Islands, homosexual sex is illegal and there appears to be neither any prospect nor proposals for change. In short the article exists only to say that its subject matter does not. Caveat lector 16:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into Politics of the British Virgin Islands Corpx 17:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe create a Social Issues of the British Virgin Islands or something? Corpx 01:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as part of what appears to be a series of articles on same-sex marriage in North America, or, failing that, merge along with other similar articles into Same-sex marriage in North America. The legal status of same-sex couples in various nations is certainly encyclopedic. Otto4711 17:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per nom Sawblade05 17:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: I see nothing sacred about a "series" on much of anything that propagates beyond what actually exists: that's what led us to articles like Mali in the 1998 Winter Olympics and such other gems.  That the legal status of same-sex couples in various nations is becoming encyclopedic is arguable, but when even small colonies are considered, it's far better handled with a table in the main article with a "Yes" or "No" entry.    RGTraynor  17:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Which strikes me as an argument for a merger, rather than a deletion. Otto4711 17:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact there already is a table in Homosexuality laws of the world. An entry for the British Virgin Islands should be added. Caveat lector 14:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. A merge per Corpx into Politics of the British Virgin Islands doesn't look practical, since that article is really about the governmental structure (and should probably be renamed), not specific issues. I don't support a merge to Same-sex marriage in North America because all of the existing articles of this type would also have to be merged there, and this is not a group nomination. (But I would definitely support merging all the articles there, because the article's current state is pretty silly; it's just dozens of redlinks to articles about same-sex marriage in countries that don't recognize it.) As it is, since the nominated article essentially just says "There is no same-sex marriage in the British Virgin Islands," I don't see much added value in keeping it in any format. Propaniac 18:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I am all for the series of "Same sex in X" articles - however when it's a stub that basically says "Same sex marriage is illegal" with no other information, no court cases, no attempts at altering legislation, nothing else to mention - there is really no need for the article. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:STUB. There is no basis in policy for deleting an expandable stub. DGG (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are quite a few of them, in fact; there is nothing about an "expandable stub" immunizing it from any of the other policy and guideline grounds governing deletion. That being said, upon what factual basis do you consider this expandable?  Do you know about an organized movement to change the laws in the BVI?  Have there been prominent court cases, or a celebrated martyr to the cause?    RGTraynor  23:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The question to ask is not whether there is a movement for change in this location, but rather, is there any documented coverage of the issue within this location. FrozenPurpleCube 02:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. I created the article a while back purely because I saw that there were a series of other articles on same-sex marriages in North America and I thought I was probably the best qualified Wikipedian to put something down about the position in the BVI.  I don't pretend that there is anything terribly illuminating in the article.  There are no proposals to change the law, and no particularly famous martyrs that I am aware of.  The only reasonably controversial thing that has happened was a few years ago the British government (as it has power to do) pushed through laws decriminalising homosexuality generally against the wishes of the legislature; there was further controversy when the Governor at the time (a staunch Catholic) refused initially to sign the legislation into law (almost unprecedented for an appointee of the British Governement).  But I haven't taken the time to locate hard sources for that to cite (LGBT issues is not something that really interests me to be candid) so I didn't stick it in.  No strong personal views about whether the article lives or dies; being as neutral as I can I'd probably keep it under WP:STUB, although I see the force of RGTraynor's suggestion of a "Yes/No" table in Same-sex marriage in North America and just putting redirects in for the smaller countries. --Legis (talk - contribs) 12:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Frankly, I don't see a problem with letting the article stand; it explains what the current situation is there in a few words.  And Wiki is not paper. If I were planning a trip or a relocation to the Caribbean, I'd find it very helpful to know that the government of this place or that place has an announced policy of discrimination against LGBT folk!  However, as Legis admits, there are no hard sources to back up that statement in the article, which is a real weakness.


 * But whether the article stands or gets deleted, I do think somebody with better wikiskills than I really ought to start a table for LGBT rights in North America--providing lots of helpful, well-sourced information like the beautifully formatted, excellent table at LGBT rights in Europe.--Textorus 22:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Otto and DGG. Contrary to the nominator's opinion, this article is already informative.  And, as pointed out above by Legis -- it is not only expandable, but he has stated what information it can be expanded with.  Here are two sources, the second unimpeachable, btw, that should establish the "notability," (though I contend the guideline was probably not intended for such articles as this in the first place):
 * Island Sun article about decriminalization
 * Los Angeles Times article
 * I urge the nominator to reconsider. --JayHenry 23:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Errr ... the second item would be an unimpeachable source concerning the Cayman Islands, the sole subject of the piece.  RGTraynor  04:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge on the grounds that this is a notable subject in and of itself, the information is sourceable and possibly expandable. At the very least a table in Same-sex marriage in North America would be helpful and definitely encyclopedic. CaveatLectorTalk 02:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment (I had not idea there was another user also called caveat lector on Wikipedia!!! I hope no one's confused)
 * What these would actually appear to be is enough material for a article on LGBT right (or perhaps one on LGBT rights in British overseas territories). There is clearly no debate on same-sex marriage in the British Virgin Islands. I don't think not being a paper encyclopaedia defeats the notability criteria. Neither does being part of a series. (An expansion of the templates at the bottom of the Same-sex marriage in North America reveals their pointless) I can't imagine how you could expand this stub other than by adding a large amount of speculative material or non-same-sex marriage related material. Caveat lector 17:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment (2). If the article was moved to LGBT rights in the British Virgin Islands that would give the article greater scope for expansion. That would also give room in the article to exploring the tension in the British Virgin Islands between its "no sodomy" laws and the legalisation of homosexuality. --Legis (talk - contribs) 19:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We could also add an entry to the table on Homosexuality laws of the world. On the basis that it will be moved to LGBT rights in the British Virgin Islands, I withdraw the nomination. Caveat lector 21:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge&rarr;new Culture section in British Virgin Islands and Law of the British Virgin Islands. The majority of the content appears to focus on the legal status of homosexuality rather than that of marriage.  Another alternative would be to create an article Marriage in the British Virgin Islands and address all aspects of this topic, including same-sex marriage; this would go into Category:British Virgin Islander society. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, no sources. It uses terms like 'extremely religious and homophobic,' that certainly need a source. I *would* support Legis and Caveat lector's idea of a merge to LGBT rights in the British Virgin Islands, if sources could be found, but don't see the point if not. Note that this article uses the Template:SSM to track the status of same-sex marriage in various countries, and that template looks very useful and compact. The information provided in that template would be more helpful than a huge number of stubs that just say that same-sex marriage doesn't exist in country X. As others have noted, the tables provided in LGBT rights in Europe are very well done, since they present many legal nuances in a compact way.  So another way to present the information would be in a new article called LGBT rights in North America, as Textorus proposed, with tables like those in the Europe article. I don't object to also having an article called Same-sex marriage in North America, but the present article by that name is set up to have a zillion sub-articles on individual countries, which is not a good way to navigate the information quickly. EdJohnston 03:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI Ed, I have started such a table, but with 50 states, 13 Canadian provinces, and 20-something other sovereign nations, it's taking a while to fill out. You can see what it very tentatively looks like in my Textorus/Sandbox.--Textorus 10:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * merge or delete. This is an article about something which does not exist, and which likely will not exist anytime soon, according to the article. There isn't even any mention of legislation having been introduced to change the existing state of affairs. The information in the article would best be a section or table entry in another article or two. Argyriou (talk) 17:20, 30 July 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.