Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traditional 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. (Updated to expand the reasons for deletion). Although numbers are evenly we assess consensus by looking at the strnegth of arguments against policy rather then by headcounting. This is an article about the Traditional Marriage Movement that has lots of sources but the primary delete argument is that this isn't sourced and/or is non-notable. Wikipedia notability is demonstrated by showing multiple non-trivial reliable sources about the subject and notability cannot be inhertied from sources that are about something else. The keep side argue that the article has lots of sources but that is refuted by the deleting side who counter-argued that the article was a coat-rack and that the sources were not specifically about the Traditional marriage movement. Review of the sources shows that they are substantially about the subjects discussed in the article but not specifically in depth discussing the "Traditional Marriage Movement" so my closing is that the notability of the article has not been properly demonstrated.

Secondary arguments concerned NPOV, NEO and POVforking, original research (which I guess comes under a subset of WP:SYNTH and lots of assertions of notability or arguments to keep/delete that as pure assertions "or per foo" rather then evidence based. In a case like this where core sourcing issued remain unsatisfied, I really needed the keep side to be arguing by demonstrating sources rather then by casting personal attacks, pointing out that othercrapexists or claiming notability by assertion for me to give them as much weight as the delete side. The secondary arguments are essentially subjective so normally need a strong consensus that they are valid before being acted on exclusively. This means that the core issue here is proper sourcing discussing the Traditional Marriage Movement as the subject of the source and the possibility or original research through SYNTH which is likely a reasonable argument if the sources cited don't discuss the subject exclusively. Spartaz Humbug! 22:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Traditional marriage movement

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


 * The phrase "traditional marriage movement" is a neologism, giving it WP:NOTABILITY problems. Google finds only 118 uses that aren't "very similar to the 118 already displayed" (generally automated copies of other uses.) Of those 118, many are links related to Wikipedia (reuse of the content), or are part of some larger phrase (anti-traditional-marriage movement, "Defense of traditional marriage" movement) or have scare quotes ("traditional marriage" movement). Clearly, this is not a term generally used by anyone, it is not WP:COMMONNAME. Arising from this is problems of finding a working definition: much of the article rests on claiming people or groups as parts of the "traditional marriage movement", which since they don't identify themselves that way and we don't have a third party identifying them as such, qualifies as WP:OR. Most of the articles linking here are clearly either refering specifically to the concept of "Traditional marriage" rather than to the movement, or are part of a batch of marriage-related links with unidentifiable intent. History indicates that this article was created as a WP:COATRACK for "traditional marriage". Considered suggesting that it be renamed opposition to same-sex marriage in the United States, but I've come to believe that while such an article would be of value, the material now in this article would not form a solid base for that one. That should be started as a new article, and there would be a place for the "traditional marriage" argument within that. Nat Gertler (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Nat, when I punch TMM into google I get just shy of half of a million hits. Where is this 118 number coming from? - Schrandit (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Try clicking through those results. If you try to click to page, say, 18 of the results, you'll find a message saying "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 142 already displayed." (The 118 result was from a while back.) In other words, other things look like copies of things already presented... such as all of the many, many sites that reproduce Wikipedia content. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 07:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  -- —Cyber cobra  (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  -- —Cyber cobra  (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - The title makes it impossible to avoid WP:NPOV issues. Best to start from scratch with Organizations attempting to define marriage. (Maybe the existing article could be moved to user space somewhere for later reference?) (sdsds - talk) 19:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Article is a neologism and after half a year has still proven to be a NPOV problem. I support remaking the article into Opposition to same-sex marriage in the United States (or Opposition to same-sex marriage in the U.S.A ) The word Opposition I feel is something most would agree with as its a general term and not a neologism. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Are you suggesting a move (or rename) to Opposition to same-sex marriage in the United States? Note that would keep the article history accessible.... (sdsds - talk) 00:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggested it being that way, the problem would be that the article would need a major overhaul, and I wouldnt know what could or should be saved in the article the way it is now. So I suggested to just start fresh as there are alot of references out there that talk about where opponents stand on the issue.Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: Agreed — Obvious WP:NPOV problems. Billbowery (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Whatever it's called, the movement that is the article's subject seems quite real, and the article is extensively sourced. Bickering over the title is needless WP:BUROcracy. Nor, with all respect, is user:Sdsds's argument that the title necessarily implicates WP:NPOV persuasive. That would only follow if the view that novelty and departure from tradition are suboptimal was NPOV; if that were so, the title would indeed implicate NPOV because it would tacitly label gay marriage as nontraditional. But gay marriage is nontraditional, and its supporters do not regard its variance from the traditional understanding of marriage as a bad thing. That isn't the bone of contention. Everyone agrees that it is novel; the fight is over other matters (whether it is good or bad, whether it should be allowed or not, etc.) so acknowleding the uncontroversial point of its novelty is fine, and doesn't ipso facto implicate WP:NPOV. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - If you look at the sources for TMM even for the first two in the lead the news media and such call it "Opponents of same-sex marriage" Reading some sources I believe the Traditional marriage thing is a reason for opponents rather than a movement, they argue that they need to protect marriage in a Traditional way. Check out some of the arguements made on the talk page of this article as well if you wish. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You could, I suppose, cast it in the negative and call it Opposition to same-sex marriage or somesuch, but that's cumbersome, and lacks much to reccomend it over the positive-form Traditional marriage movement. I don't read WP:NC to inflexibly demand such a result, and even if one does, that would in any event be an argument for renaming not deletion. So why are we here at AFD with this? While the nomination uses the title as a jurisdictional hook, its real target appears to be the article itself (note the subtle transition from attacking the title to "the material now in this article would not form a solid base for that one"), which wouldn't otherwise be susceptible to an AFD. We have a process for renaming an article, and the objections to the content are beyond AFD's ambit, whether they are persuasive or not. This is simply the wrong venue for the nub of the complaint. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - On the persuasiveness of the "argument that the title necessarily implicates WP:NPOV": perhaps not on its face, no. But based on my participation in editng the article (56 edits since January 2007) and my assessment of the edits by others over that time period, I am persuaded that deletion of this article will help Wikipedia as a whole present this material with a neutral point of view, which is our policy. (sdsds - talk) 20:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So it's kind of like the Brian Eno theory of deletion. You know, the story of the recording of Where The Streets Have No Name? They had a version recorded, but there were problems with it and they were spending weeks trying to fix it. Eno thought this had gotten beyond a joke and tried to delete the recording on the theory that if they started from scratch, wiped out the faulty version and rebuilt it from the ground up, they'd get there faster. That's essentially your theory, as I understand it: delete this article, start again from the ground up, and we'll get to a fully-functional article much faster. Well, if so, how do you shoehorn that into WP:DEL? I'm not sure that there's any basis in the deletion policy for an "Eno delete." And if that's the purpose of the nomination, I'm back to my question of "why are we here?" What you're proposing can be accomplished through WP:BRD, so why do we need an AFD? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * One does not need to shoehorn things into WP:DEL, as that specifically notes that reasons to delete are not limited to what's seen there. If you have an axe on which both the blade and the shaft are cracked, you don't go out, buy a new blade, put it on the old shaft, then go out again and buy a new shaft that will fit your new blade. You go out and buy a new axe. As someone who has spent considerable effort on the article in question, I would say that much effort has been put into trying to fit it to its problematic title, and that it would be easier to reach a healthy article by building it from the ground up, rather than building it from this. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To reiterate, WP:NPOV is policy supporting deletion. As regards the guidelines supporting deletion referenced at WP:DEL, be aware that over the years strong cases for deletion have been made based on WP:NEO, WP:OR, WP:N, WP:POVFORK and probably others. The editing process described in the WP:BRD essay, which is not policy, does work well for some articles. It tends to work poorly for articles which are highly controversial, and in the case of this particular article, it has not worked even though it has been attempted by many editors over the 30 month long, 500+ edit history of the article. (sdsds - talk) 04:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV is a policy, but not one that supports deletion. Nothing in NPOV requires deletion for articles that have POV problems; its remedy is WP:SOFIXIT. Everything in NPOV points to improvement rather than deletion as the fix envisioned in response to NPOV problems; you could wring a rename from the discussion about "the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization," but not deletion. Nor would treating a violation of NPOV as a reason for deletion be consistent with esjudem generis, which confines the scope of general general language to the nature of the specific class or thing it is tendered in connection with. See, e.g. Tourdot v. Rockford Health Plans, 439 F.3d 351 (7th Cir. 2006). Wikipedia is not a legal system, but there is much wisdom in this. Although Nat is right to point out that WP:DEL is not a comprehensive list, we would do well to understand the scope of the reasons for deletion it leaves unenumerated as being confined by the nature of the class of reasons it does enumerate. A novel reason for deletion should harmonize with the accepted reasons for deletion listed in DEL#REASON, but deletion because of NPOV problems does not; it is in a different key altogether. The common thread that links DEL#REASON's list, with one exception not relevant here (BLP violations, which are a special case), is that the problem supporting deletion is intractable. All of the problems that trigger NPOV scrutiny can be fixed. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The arguments from the delete camp seem to be that the title is a violation of NPOV or that the article should be changed to something along the line of "Opposition to same-sex marriage in the United States". The NPOV claim is laughable - take a look at this article's counterpart; Supporters of marriage equality in the United States.  Is anyone prepared to argue with a straight face that the second article's title is a neutral phrase?  We allow political groups to describe themselves in less than neutral terms if they are in common use - look at the Pro-choice and Pro-life movements.
 * Per the thought that the article should be renamed - this article has been around since 2007 and editors have constantly suggested an name change and for reasons too numerous to rattle off on this page consensus has always favored keeping the article where it is. In fact, a redirect discussion voted to direct other articles to the present one. - Schrandit (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This isnt just about changing a topic title, it is about proving that this movement is or is not a neologism and the article's content as well. I do not think the NPOV tag was placed for the article title alone (As for the Supporters of marriage equality in the United States, that was discussed as well in talk, if you still have strong feelings about that issue you can always say so).Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above "Strong keep" post offers a strawman argument that another article violates NPOV so allegedly TMN should be allowed to do the same. Please see WP:OSE and the adage "two wrongs don't make a right" because these remove any doubt whether the cited argument against deletion has merit. Since it is true that another article is far from NPOV, a good solution after TMN is (hopefully) deleted will be to combine the articles in a new and balanced article Marriage rights debate. Original poster please sign your posts. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Youre right this is about TMM and nothing else, as for your idea I had tried it before in the TMM talk but (and of course) consensus was split right down the middle on merging the two into one debate topic so no consensus was reached.Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The title creates a lot of NPOV issues, in light of its status as a neologism, and recreating it as Opposition to same-sex marriage in the United States would be more consistent with the policy. The user above makes a reasonable point about the non-NPOV nature of the Supporters of marriage equality in the United States article, but the point is a more persuasive argument for renaming Supporters of marriage equality in the United States than for keeping the article under consideration here. Circumspect (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- The deletionists are clearly working an agenda here, to remove reference to (small-t) traditional values. Were it not that I don't believe bears edit the Wki, I'd be tempted to run the "godless killing machines" argument. -- 62.25.109.196 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 07:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC).
 * Um, I'm a deletionist and I argued that we should keep the article. This doesn't seem like an inclusionist-deletionist issue to me, and there's no reason to make it into one. They're philosophies not factions. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that he means “deletionist” with respect to this issue, rather in some more general sense. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 16:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Accusing editors who don't share one's opinion of (scarequotes intended) "working an agenda" is ominous rhetoric. To misrepresent the motives of editors who ask for deletion of the TMM article title as their conspiring to erase properly sourced arguments that call on traditional values is unjustified. That claim neglects the fact that there are proposals here for framing these arguments under a better article title. Anon 62.25's parting jibe about "godless killing machines" is incomprehensible. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Article itself may need to be renamed (I am neutral on that issue), but this is a real and politically powerful movement.  A subject doesn't have to have some well-established name to be a legitimate subject for an article. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 10:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per excellent points made by Schrandit, Simon Dodd and IP 62. This nomination for deletion and the so-called violation of NPOV in its title is laughable.  Caden  cool  11:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I just find it funny that only when some articles are up for deletion that they get all the attention and notice. Also people who have not done a thing for the article or read the talk pages chime in with their two cents, I dont know what this AfD will do for this article but hopefully something will come out of this if the choice is to keep. Up to editing on wikipedia on this article I had never even heard of this movement anywhere, the news media and such always refer to Opponents of same-sex marriage and some of the things I have read online talk about why opponents are against same-sex marriage. This isnt about changing the title it is about the article's content as well. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "This article was brought to AFD and now all these people who've never heard of the article before are chiming in on whether it should be deleted or not! Inconceivable! And the mainstream media usually refer to a conservative movement in negative terms (what it's against) rather than positive terms (what it's for) - inconceivable!" - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I didnt use those words, im sure this article is known on wikipedia or did I target anyone, my point is that there was talk about the article and reasons on both sides that I think should be looked at. It doesnt hurt to look at the article in it's current state and it's talk page. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Initially I was inclined to keep, despite the article being really badly written and with a fair bit of problematic content, based on the fact that there is opposition to same-sex marriage. Having read the article and this discussion several times, however, I'm changing that to delete per the concerns raised by Nat Gertler and Circumspect.  I also see no particular reason for this stand-alone article to exist, especially given that there are "Opposition" sections in the relevant main articles, and that there appears to be insufficient reliable information to flesh out this article.  Exploding Boy (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete is the sensible conclusion from the debate that was seen here that gives points that are now being reiterated. It is a dead-horse article. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is good enough. It discusses highly controversial topics and no one has provided a better alternative for the discussion of these issues and groups. Mrdthree (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not a neologism, but a notable movement.Biophys (talk) 05:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not including ads can you find any reliable sources as proof that this is not a neologism?Knowledgekid87 (talk) 10:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep/rename - this movement is a notable meovement although I am not sure if the name is one fhtat is used in secondary sources. User:Smith Jones 17:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is not about the movement, but is a coatrack for an extended POV split of Gay marriage. An article could be written, and the first step would be discarding this one. That an article can be written on a topic does not mean that anything written under that title ought to be kept. If an article can be fixed, it is one thing, if all the content or almost all must be first removed it's another. We frequently delete articles as hopelessly inadequate and not worth building on. This is articles for deletion, not topics for deletion.     DGG ( talk ) 23:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hopelessly POV. I've certainly been called an inclusionist myself but DGG's on target here. If you have to clean-up an article by removing all the content and renaming it? That's a delete. Opposition to same-sex marriage in the United States is a notable subject but this is POV fork. Start with a new slate and lean on reliable sourcing so coatracks and soapboxes aren't needed. -- Banj e  b oi   21:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In what way(s) is it POV, hopelessly so or otherwise, and on what grounds is that a basis for deletion rather than improvement? AFD isn't a substitute for WP:BRD; I agree with what I take to be user:Uncle_G's point here that when the problems with an article can be fixed with the ordinary editing tools, and "[a]n administrator does not need to push a delete button either way," resolution "is not a matter for AFD." - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * By that logic, we should never delete any article, because every article is nothing but a rename and a strong editing away from being a really good history of Camembert cheese. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * chuckle* specious, but very funny. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

To me, tallying up the !votes so far, I see nine to delete (the nominator plus User:Sdsds, User:Knowledgekid87, User:Billbowery, User:Circumspect, User:Exploding_Boy, User:Cuddlyable3, User:DGG, and User:Benjiboi) and eight to keep (myself plus User:Schrandit, 62.25.109.196, User:SlamDiego, User:Mrdthree, User:Biophys, user:Caden, and User:Smith_Jones. As we know, this is not a vote, and the strength of the arguments presented is a highly influential factor; I think that the arguments presented by those favoring deletion are weak, for the reasons stated above, but either way, it seems to me that we are well within the perimeter of a no consensus close here. There's a ratio of 9:8 delete:keep, and it's commonplace for discussions with comparable or even higher ratios of delete:keep votes to end in no consensus. See, e.g. (3:1);  (3:2);  (approx. 2:1);  (also 9:8);  (1:1). If there are good arguments on both sides and the vote tally is close, no consensus is usally the right answer. Here, the vote tally is close, and both sides have advanced arguments that, by their own lights, are serious. A no consensus close is the correct outcome. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think saying that one side has a bit weak of a stand here is a bit arrogant in my opinion, I am troubled at the fact that the views are split right down the middle. I hope there are also no COI's in place here and hope an agreement can be made that keeps both sides happy. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, as I've said above, I don't think that the delete votes advance a particularly convincing rationale for deletion, either as a matter of policy or discretion. The problems identified with the article don't strike me as a sound basis for deletion, as I've explained in comments above. The right outcome is for the users who have problems with this article to address those concerns through the appropriate processes, which this nomination wasn't, and that outcome is facilitated by a no consensus close. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how it advances the conversation for you to note that you quite strongly agree with yourself. That it is at least a close call suggests that any claim that this nomination was not the appropriate process is misguided. You've presented a misreading of WP:DEL and some very off analogy to Brian Eno to try to make your case (this is not like Eno leveling Where The Streets Have No Name to create a new recording; this would be more like saying "that song doesn't really fit into the album, let's do a cover of Can't Take My Eyes Off Of You instead to in that slot", and Bono saying that if you do that, you have to take the recording of Where The Streets Have No Name, use that as the base, and then replace note by note the ones which don't fit.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I've told you what my reading of DEL#REASON is; you disagree with it, but that's to be expected when you're advancing a nomination that, so far as I can tell, lacks any foundation in either community practice or a sound reading of policy. Since you misunderstood my position before, I assume that your last comment was forged in the same mistaken impression, so I will clarify: while you are correct that DEL#REASON is not an exhaustive list of reasons to delete an article, reasons for deletion should harmonize with or have some common sense connection to that list. A nomination for deletion that is entirely superfluous (because its stated objections could be remedied using the regular editing toolset and a rename proposal) does not meet that standard. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you've told me what your reading of WP:DEL was, and as it skipped an important portion of that, it qualifies as a misreading. If you've now shifted from something having to be shoehorned into DEL#REASON to some claim of a need to harmonize with that list, you are once again making claims that go beyond DEL#REASON, as DEL#REASON does not set that limitation (nor, should I note to I agree with the claim that the reasons for nomination don't harmonize with the our or even that it does not include reasons that are on the list). As for your claim to it being a superfluous nomination, that exact same logic could be claimed against any AfD nomination. If your goal is to argue against the entire AfD process, there are more appropriate venues for doing that than on this particular nomination. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, you didn't understand my point then and don't appear to understand it now. I doubt that the penny will drop if I fire yet more pixels at the target, so there is little point in wasting the time. As to the superfluity of the nomination, you are wrong: the same reasoning does not apply to articles that are nominated for reasons that can only be addressed through deletion, which is the lion's share of them. The only problems you claim to identify are that the title is POV and that the content is, in some vague, amorphous, unstated way, POV. Neither of those theories are sound on their own terms, as I've explained above, but even if they were they simply do not advance a reason for deletion. By contrast, claims that an article is non-notable, or that the subject is inherently incompatible with NPOV, are good arguments for deletion. I'm a deletionist; I'm all for clearing the underbrush. But this article doesn't fit that description. Deletion requires a reason that comports or harmonizes with WP:DEL#REASON, and one that can be advanced with a straight face, at that. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're making claim about my nomination that are clearly and directly false. The nomination makes no statement about POV, and does make claims about notability. If you wish to continue making claims about the nomination, I suggest you familiarize yourself with it better. As for your comports or harmonizes stance if you wish to claim that as Wikipedia policy and have that claim be effective, you may want to find a statement to support it; if you wish to campaign for that to be policy, there are far more appropriate places to do so. If the primary logic for "keep" here is based on a policy that doesn't actually exist being applied to a nomination that wasn't actually this nomination, then it looks hard to consider that as showing much "strength of the argument" on that side. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the nomination does make a claim about POV (it states that "this article was created as a WP:COATRACK for 'traditional marriage'" and COATRACK is a species of NPOV problem); even if it didn't, however, violation of NPOV has been one of the predominant themes of comments supporting deletion. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions   Better late than never Anarchangel (talk) 05:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Simon you forgot to include my !vote to keep. So this brings the total up to 8 to keep and not 7.  Caden  cool  11:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops! Sorry, revised. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Again as was said this is not a vote, this article looks like it is up for deletion from POV (Tagged since November 2008) and neologism concerns which have led to other problems for the article. I have yet to see proof that this is not a neologism and article problems have been discussed on the talk page for quite some time now eventully leaning towards deletion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - although the closing admin will know to ignore the tally, in the future, don't even tally the !votes up, as this may confuse newcomers into thinking that this is decided by a majority vote.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 18:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I doubt that even the dimmest newcomer could be "confuse[d] ... into thinking that this is decided by a majority vote" by a comment that says expressly "[a]s we know, this is not a vote." I do think that they could be confused by your statement that "the closing admin will know to ignore the tally," however. What you're driving at is WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, which notes that Wikipedia runs on consensus not democracy. But that simply means that we do not run on majority voting; it does not mean that the relative proportions of wikipedians signing on to or rejecting a given view are irrelevant.


 * Deletion guidelines for administrators (AKA WP:Rough consensus) is the key guideline to consider here. Although it confirms that an admin may "disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith, ... contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious," and that "[c]onsensus is not determined by counting heads," it is is important to read the whole thing. It also tells admins to call AfDs based on their best judgment of the "sense of the group" or the "dominant view" (citing Rough consensus). Simple majority voting is rejected; that is a far cry from saying that the closing admin should "ignore the [vote] tally." An outright rejection of the tally would be incompatible with determining the sense of the group. Cf. Voting is a tool ("Consensus is just a code-word for high approval majority").


 * This policy-based (or at least guideline-based) approach is confirmed by common sense. It would be fatuous to suppose that in practice, admins ignore the tally. There have been innumerable AfD nominations where a strong argument one one side has been defeated by numbers alone. As I have said, I don't think the arguments advanced by the nominator are sound, but if twenty wikipedians had said keep and only one had pointed out the flaws in the argument, what would youo expect the closing admin to do? Unless the argument for deletion was utterly and plainly ludicrous (deleting Abraham Lincoln for want of notability, for example, or if 18 votes turned out to be socks or canvassed), I think it obvious that the article would be a gonner. The admin might well think that the lone keep argument had the better of it, but the rough consensus would clearly favor deletion, and unless that position cut directly athwart policy, I truly doubt any closing admin in her right mind would resist it.


 * Where, as here, arguments have been advanced on both sides, and those arguments have each attracted a number of concurring votes, it is perfectly sensible that the closing admin take that into account. Indeed, modesty might require: if I were the closing admin of an AfD, and I thought the argument for deletion was weak, yet a dozen or more editors had endorsed it and no one had opposed it, that might well make me think twice about the soundness of my assesment. This is not a majority voting system, but it is inaccurate to suppose that the tally is (or should be) irrelevant. The tally is a proxy for rough consensus, and it is rough consensus that supplies the rule of decision for the closing admin. Here, quite plainly, there is not rough consensus to delete. Those who have weighed in are deeply (and about evenly) divided over both the article's fate and the relative strengths of the arguments on either side. Cf. WP:WHATISCONSENSUS ("An option preferred by 51% of people is generally not enough for consensus"). And absent consensus to delete, we default to a no consensus keep (see WP:DPR). - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You still haven't justified your actually doing and posting the tally. It came across as though you were playing mock closing admin, needlessly declaring a count on an incomplete AfD and announcing that you support your own logic. I concur with the recommendation that you do not do repeat that exercise in other AfD discussions. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could try reading what I said. If you had read the comment to which you replied, the sole purpose of which is to emphasize the relevance of the tally to how the closing admin calls the debate, you would realize that your question has already been answered. Similarly misplaced is your claim that the AfD isn't incomplete; it today completes a full seven day run, and it's a poor candidate for WP:RELIST (since any reasonable observer would have to conclude that "there has been substantive debate, and disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and it appears that consensus will not be achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable"). We have reached the end of the line without consensus (we needn't get into the question of how WP:CANVAS interacts with the inclusion of the subject in various special-interest listings, see User:Anarchangel's inclusion above), and that means a no consensus close. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't see any evidence of a movement, pure and simple. I see that there are people and organizations moving for things, but a movement generally means something clearly defined with some organizational/definitional and agreed-upon princile. I don't see that here. (Nor is there a "gay marriage movement.") The lead mentions one person, the background mentions another--but these aren't members of an organization. Calling it a movement is neologistic personification, wishful thinking more than anything else. I note also that the "opposing" article is called "Supporters of marriage equality in the United States"--an article whose very title suggests a list or a listing. That could be done for this topic also, but rather than rename or merge I vote delete, since the article that I see as viable and worthwhile would save only a few things from the current neologistic and coatracky article: the proper names and possibly references for the supporters. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 19 August 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.