Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Same-sex marriage and procreation (2nd nomination)

:{{la|Same-sex marriage and procreation}} – (View AfD)(View log)

:({{findsources|Same-sex marriage and procreation}})

Article isn't really an article, as the first sentence makes clear--and "Same-sex marriage and procreation" isn't an argument, of course. The article is cobbled together from others; for instance, the "Controversy" section is lifted out of Same-sex_marriage#Argument_concerning_reproduction, sources and all. I see nothing here worth saving: the contents are covered under the various articles linked to in the subsections, as are most of the references. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Merge with Same-Sex Marriage The content is good but it should be streamlined and merged with Same Sex Marriage, I am curious, was this original part of the same sex marriage article, just split into this? --User:WngLdr34 (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• It was my suspicion that this was a POV fork, but that's not exactly the case. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Same-sex_marriage_and_procreation&oldid=190481659 first version] starts "In the long struggle to fully legalize same-sex marriage..." Sure, that's POV enough in its very language; the rest of the article basically consisted of a long, long overview of case history in the US with tons of quotes. Later, User:Gorillasapiens added the "controversy" section, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Same-sex_marriage_and_procreation&diff=next&oldid=302709715 here], which appears to be pasted from Same-sex marriage. It is because of that reason (what I think is of encyclopedic value in this article is already found elsewhere) that I proposed delete rather than start a merge-discussion--but I would not oppose a merge. I do want something to be done to this article that is not an article, something that is not just cleanup or a rephrasing. Drmies (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Merge relevent and non-redundant information with Same-sex marriage and leave a redirect behind. Per WP:PRESERVE, that is likely the best way to handle this one. --Jayron32 19:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Merge - I tried to clean it up (see talk page) but even so it was a big POV mess as written. I found myself wondering why we had a page on that one argument within the debate, which seemed to be better placed in the article on "same sex marriage" as a subsection. I didn't list it for merging, but I'd agree if someone else has now done so.

  All the article can really do is rehash the stances of different groups in that discussion, and their rationale. Although the argument is notable and POV alone isn't a good deletion reason, I have concerns whether its actually capable of sustaining a topic on its own, or that characterizing a specific argument in the debate like this can be fairly done in a stand-alone article. The thin-ness of the existing article tends to add weight to this concern. Better merged back into its parent context at this point, without prejudice if someone feels a useful subarticle could be fairly written in future on this one narrow point in the debate. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Right. For clarity's sake, I am not arguing that the article should be deleted because it's POV--in its current state, I don't think it's so bad. Drmies (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to Same sex marriage. It's a weird synth of info and goes all directions, but there's some data that can probably be merged back into the main article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Merge per above and past consensus to delete; salt to prevent further vandalism. Bearian (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - certainly this is an important aspect of the legal discussion, in fact the child-rearing argument was central to (and rejected in) one of the first same-sex marriage cases to garner national attention (in Hawaii in 1993) but the material can be covered neutrally in an "arguments against" type section in the lead article. Or perhaps an article that lists the various legal arguments advanced on both sides would be possible. Otto4711 (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Abysmal sourcing and lacks neutrality, reads like a POV fork even if it isn't. Merging might be appropriate in conjunction with a full rewrite. Rivertorch (talk) 05:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: we have articles on Abortion, Pro-choice, and Pro-life; maybe, as we have an article on Same sex marriage and a section on Reproductive_technology#Same-sex_procreation, we could have an article on 'anti/pro-same-sex-marriage/reproduction', which this could be transformed into? it's a large issue, so presumably there'd be demand for articles on the pro-/anti- stances? --Arkelweis (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong don't merge. The Same-sex marriage article is huge and right in the middle of trimming and spinning out subarticles for just this sort of content. We don't need AfD damaging that article all because people don't like to delete. SSM marriage already has a better section than this on procreation arguments, and adding more detail would cause undue weight. What do people think should be merged: "having children is the underlying reason for marriage"?! People shouldn't vote merge without actually reading the target suggested. Instead Delete or redirect, as NPOV essay, with no predudice against recreation of a better article in the future.YobMod 13:13, 29 September 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.