Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Same-sex unions in flux


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Same-sex unions in flux

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

This seems to be a neologism. A google search of Same-sex marriage in flux and of Same-sex unions in flux doesn't suggest it is a widespread term, with (currently) 6 cumulative hits--two of which are to Wikipedia and none of which are reliable sources. There are 0 hits for the term at google books, 0 at google scholar and 0 at google news (, .) The article makes clear that it is asserting that this is a term, not just a concept: "Same-sex marriage (or "same-sex unions) in flux" is a term that describes a form of same-sex union"; "The term "in flux" helps other users and readers diaffentirerate between a country or region that has already ruled in favor of legalizing such unions." Also, the article is unsourced and only ever cited to another Wikipedia article. We already have both Same-sex marriage and Same-sex relationship. This was a challenged PROD. Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Arguably speedy as an attempt to communicate, since the promotion of the term is aimed at reader and users - implicitly, those of Wikipedia itself. In any case, this is a useless neologism. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research and/or attempt to coin a new term. Exactly what Wikipedia's not about. Stifle (talk) 14:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this neologism.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  17:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge all content not regarding the neologism into Status of same-sex marriage, if it's not already there. Dcoetzee 03:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Userfy until sources are cited. Even giving the benefit of the doubt that this isn't a neologism, I'm having trouble understanding the fine points of what the article is trying to say--fine distinctions between "in flux" and "future legislation," what "accomodating" means, whether we're talking about just same-sex marriage or other legal unions, etc.  As an editor, I need reliable sources before I can improve the article for clarity. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 05:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment( To the last two. ) I'd be fine with userfication if the contributor requests. Otherwise, I'm afraid it might just delay the clean-up for later. I also need to note that, until this term is taken up by a community, I'm afraid that it may always be a fork of Status of same-sex marriage, now that I've read that one. :) With respect to merging material into that article, the only information here that does not relate to the neologism is "The most notable examples [of countries with changing legislation] would be Ecuador and Nepal, though the situation in Nepal is not seemingly stalled as in Ecuador, therefore Nepali same-sex marriages should be legal by 2010 at the latest." I don't know much about the topic, but this unsourced statement doesn't seem to mesh with Recognition of same-sex unions in Ecuador. The 2010 date for Nepal is covered by Same-sex marriage in Nepal, where it is sourced. If it needs to be merged, it might be better to merge it from that article, which is otherwise likely to remain on Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:35, 8 April 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.