Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marriage Privatization Model

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 November 25.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage Privatization Model[edit]

Non-notable neologism. One gets the feeling that this article is written by Lawrence Torcello who invented the term. The concept of treating marriage purely as a legal contract is probably fully discussed in other articles here in less pretentious language. — RHaworth (Talk

Delete - original research with no reliable source for notability.--Boffob (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep if all of the sources currently cited (and listed in the Sources section) are discussing the term in question and are reliable sources- I dont have access to verify. (And speculation about the identity of the author of the article is not appropriate WP:OUTING, WP:AGF, etc.) -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aside from this contribution on the topic, Wikipedia lacks any reference to marriage privatization, and therefore, is incomplete in its coverage of the same-sex marriage debate. I am a new contributor to Wikipedia and have started to correct this gap by beginning with peer reviewed professional literature and expanding as time allows. The clear justification for an article on this topic is that it adds to Wikipedia’s incomplete coverage of an issue that is being heatedly discussed in U.S. politics since California’s rejection of Same-sex Marriage during the November elections. Obviously the concept of treating marriage purely as a legal contract is discussed elsewhere. This article is not about treating marriage purely as a legal contract. ~~Hermesmessage - — Hermesmessage (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As noted in the article itself, Wikipedia already has articles on: Civil union Domestic partnership Same-Sex Marriage and California Proposition 8 (2008). This indicates the issued is addressed in Wikipedia, contrary to Hermesmessage's contention. I see no reason per WP:N why this specific neologism should have an article. Also, Wikipedia is not a forum for political essays, no matter how relavent, so this article has no place here. Theseeker4 (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm a little confused by the controversy over this entry. First, there's no "pretentious language" here. The language of debates on same-sex marriage, civil unions, et al, among political philosophers and social theorists, may be alienating to people as yet unfamiliar w/its terms, but this short entry is a model of clarity. Just do some reading. Second, it seems obvious to me that while "same-sex marriage" is a hot, much-discussed topic, there's very little out about marriage privatization, which is not handled in other Wikipedia articles but really ought to be (again, just do some reading). So, the use of references is exactly as one would wish: we see where to find the key figures debating the background theory and the published work in which the more singular argument (for MPM) is made. In sum then, this MPM is a valuable contribution to the literature as an alternative to civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc., and for just that reason it ought to be available here (I'm about to reference it in an article I'm preparing for an academic journal); but it is also an idea that's arisen in context, and that context is clearly cited. Perhaps I should add (in response to a talk comment) that I'm familiar w/the references made; they are to major contemporary and traditional ethicists and social philosophers and the ref'ed journals are top-tier, peer-reviewed standards. -- Iron Lion of Zion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iron Lion of Zion (talk • contribs) 01:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC) - — Iron Lion of Zion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as essay--the sources are very general, LoZ's reason for keeping--that he wants to reference it in an article he wants to write elsewhere, is about as improper reason for an article here as imaginable, and amounts to a clear declaration that its essentially his own original research. Things go the other way--if he can get an article on the subject published in a peer reviewed journal, then, a Wikipedia articlec ould refer to it, if someone else where to write it and think it relevant. DGG (talk) 05:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge+redirect into Civil Union, as: Marriage Privatization Model advocates legally-supported civil unions; Civil Union has no ethical / philosophical content at present. The redirect will provide access for any readers who remember that term. Ensure that Civil union Domestic partnership have "see also"s pointing to each other, and check whether Same-Sex Marriage should be included in this "web" of "see also"s. --Philcha (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just points of clarification re: comments above. I'm not the author of the entry nor did I comment on it before my only comment above. Rather, I found the entry while doing an internet-wide search on civil unions and privatization, was intrigued by the warning of impending deletion at its top, and then put off by the reasons arguing for its deletion. Just "fyi" - I'm an academic with several books in print and a score of articles (i.e., not Wiki articles, but works in peer-reviewed journals and books); I mention this not to sniff the air from the ivory tower, but to make clear that any confusion about the appropriate order of operations for research and citation are not mine. Rather, what I thought I made explicit above was that, having not heard about the "MPM" before (and having published on domestic partnerships and civil unions), this entry was helpful in alerting me to the existence of that position. Obviously, since finding the entry and becoming curious about the position, I ordered the copy of Public Affairs Quarterly in which the original essay appeared, and obviously, any reference I now make to it will be to that scholarly journal, not to a Wiki. Since the ref to PAQ is in the very first line of the entry, it's pretty clear that the order of operations for which DGG is longing has already been followed. And since I'm closely familiar with the journal PAQ (it is one of the most important forums in my field of ethical theory) and w/the other thinkers cited in the entry, I figured it would be a good act of citizenship to take a moment to write a comment on the entry's behalf. Now, this will be my last such comment -I'll happily leave the fate of the entry to more committed editors from here- I only wanted to mark the way in which this entry did help me find an (I think important) line of published research about which I hadn't yet known. Finally, again just as a point of clarification, in addition to not relying on Wikipedia as a final source, I do not allow my students (I'm a university professor) to use Wiki references as (final) scholarly sources, though I do encourage them to cast their research nets widely, and then to follow them out exclusively to peer-reviwed, academic sources. The reason for this entails the possibility for unsound evidence or assertions that might arise when amateurs write on specialized topics. I find the potential for pluralism and the recreational interest of some contributors to be among the reasons for the wonderful strengths of Wikipedia, but in the case of some of comments this entry has provoked, it is disturbingly obvious how unskilled or rushed readers might do damage to an idea, or might bar others from access to it. Iron Lion of Zion (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge+Redirect/or Keep It is truly interesting to see all of the feedback that this one post has generated! Adapting Philcha’s advice and per my previous contribution to this discussion I have already merged this entry with a larger entry I have prepared on Marriage Privatization. I hope that everyone will find this more general entry less “controversial.” In addition to merging the present article the article I have created chronicles the topic’s development, for over a decade, in more general media outlets. If the article discussed here is marked for deletion then this topic can be redirected to the article I have created. If the article being discussed here is deemed worth keeping then it can be linked as a See Also from the more general article I have created. I hope that one of these solutions will satisfy all involved. Regards ~~Hermesmessage —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermesmessage (talk • contribs) 23:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not every published article is notable. The paper by Torcello will be notable when it becomes a major subject of discussion and debate. Actually, the bar for individual academic papers is very high --we so far have limited them to a very few famous classics. Usually the author is the best choice for the subject for academic workers whether in science or socials science--and by WP:PROF it usually take not just one paper, but dozens, with dozens of citations each--or more, depending on the subject. If, on the other hand, and articles can be written on the general subject, we can judge it appropriately. Usually we seem to require a published discussion of the subject by multiple people--not just the proposer of the hypothesis. For this particular article as it stans, i continue to think the best course is a straightforward plain delete. DGG (talk) 06:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.