Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-monogamous heterosexual marriage

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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 05:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non- monogamous opposite-sex marriage[edit]

Appears to be a neologism or unnotable term, has exactly 2 google hits Lets drink Tea 22:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should allow the article to expand before you start tagging it up for deletion. Aggressive behavior like such is discouraged on wikipedia. You nominated it for deletion with in seconds of creation.--cooljuno411 [sign my contact archive] 22:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched for the term and am convinced that it does not meet the guidelines for inclusion. Lets drink Tea 22:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

google non-heterosexual marriage, then come back and tell me what it says....--cooljuno411 [sign my contact archive] 22:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note Article was moved to a new name with a grand total of 0 google hits, not to mention reliable sources. Lets drink Tea 22:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - this user has not yet tried googling "non-hetroesexual marriage"--cooljuno411 [sign my contact archive] 22:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did, ~200 hits and no reliable sources. Lets drink Tea 22:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage Equality USA is not a reliable source..... LOLZ. Ok then, please tell me what is..... Because that's were i got one of the references....--cooljuno411 [sign my contact archive] 23:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use a pressure group's website as an objective source on a topic they lobby about. (Unless you are clearly just quoting their POV, and state so within the text). Obviously, the group has a vested interest in the matter. This goes for pro-SSM groups as well as anti-SSM groups. Outsider80 (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is to show that the term is in use.... so there is not attempt at a POV.... your argument is void. I will go ahead and get a reference from anti same-sex marriage site using this term.... if it makes you feel any better.... because it doesn't matter what the reference is..... because, as i said, THE PURPOSE OF THE REFERENCE IS TO SHOW THAT THE TERM IS IN USE--cooljuno411 [sign my contact archive] 23:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That's just a complicated way of referring to polygamy. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Here, you can see that the creator's average article doesn't last very long here. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No... the article is everthing that is not a marriage between one man and one woman..... maybe you should research the topic a bit before commenting. This article includes same-sex marriage, polygamy (as you said), a marriage between, for example, one man and one person who is not a man or a woman. like i said, do your research.--cooljuno411 [sign my contact archive] 23:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-monogamous is the same as polygamous. By definition. And there are those who will argue that marriage is by definition heterosexual. (Whether or not that is the case is beside the point here.) So if you rewrite the title as polygamous ~~heterosexual~~ marriage, you get polygamous marriage, that is, polygamy. End of story. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, great.... the article is not Non-monogamous.... the article is Non- monogamous opposite-sex marriage..... so let me help you brake the title down, you seem to be having trouble. What does "monogamous opposite-sex marriage" mean??..... a marriage between one man and one woman..... ok.... now add the prefix "non-" to the front..... a marriage that's NOT between one man and one woman.... So please stop trying to say this article means polygamy.... i don't know how you have come to the conclusion, but it is wrong....--cooljuno411 [sign my contact archive] 23:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to redefine English grammar here. The prefix non applies only to the word that immediately follows, even with a statement to the contrary (since such a statement is not always visible). So "Non- monogamous" is the same as "Non-monogamous". Otherwise one could argue that it is non-marriage as well. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page is pretty much a dictionary definition; perhaps an attempt to coin a new term (judging from the author moving the page around). It cites no references to support that the term has such a meaning (the linked page seems to be a blog entry, and uses "non-heterosexual marriage" to mean same-sex marriage), and lumps together separate topics of same-sex marriage, polygamy/polyamory, etc. Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See that stub tag at the bottom of the article? it asks for you to help expand the page..... why don't you....--cooljuno411 [sign my contact archive] 23:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because I don't believe that the page could be expanded to make it appropriate for an encyclopedia. As I have said, it is an attempt to promote a newly coined term, which is not what Wikipedia is for. (In addition, it attempts to lump "non-heterosexual marriage" with it, which - as both I and other users have noted - is generally used to mean "same-sex marriage".) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very important in the debate on same-sex marriage. Also, none of the arguements for deleting the article are even credible.... on person said this article is a fancy word for polygamy. ?????.... do people even try to hit up google before speaking their opinion???--cooljuno411 [sign my contact archive] 23:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this important? Its not widely used. And none of the sources on the article actually say what the term is. LetsdrinkTea 23:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The reference are to show the term is in use.... and if you need a definition, try looking up the words "non", "monogamous", "heterosexual", and "marriage".... i didn't really think that it was necessary.... people usually know what those words mean....--cooljuno411 [sign my contact archive] 23:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question for article creator -- um, how exactly does this not overlap with Open marriage ? Outsider80 (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Open Marriage means that you can have sex with other people without it being called "cheating". An example would be that you and your girlfriend/boyfriend/partner have an agreement where you can sleep with other people, and it being okay. A non-heterosexual marriage would be any form of marriage that is not a monogamous heterosexual marriage.... such as same-sex marriage....--cooljuno411 [sign my contact archive] 23:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article is claiming that "non-heterosexual marriage" refers to any marriage which is not between 1 man and 1 woman. This obviously is not taking into account polygamous marriages of the Christian variety -- where the man is married to more than 1 woman, but the women are not married to each other, only the man. Hence, it would be a "heterosexual" marriage. This article is just a hit-piece on the "traditional" marriage folks. If anything, it should be a blurb on the criticism section of that article. Sorry, Juno. Delete Outsider80 (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is flawed... the article is titled "Non- monogamous opposite-sex marriage"... so once again i will say... everything that is "not one man and one woman.".... that's what this article is about..... Please actually read the article.... i can tell you obviously haven't.--cooljuno411 [sign my contact archive] 23:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did -- "Non- monogamous opposite-sex marriage, or simply non-heterosexual marriage[1][2] is a marriage that is NOT between one man and one woman." -- :-( Outsider80 (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cooljuno411's point (from what I can gather) is the article is about anything that is not "monogamous heterosexual marriage", the title has a dangling modifier. However by his definition the article should include "non-monogamous heterosexual marriage" "monogamous same-sex marriage" and "non-monogamous same sex marriage" which are all covered in other articles and are different enough concepts that can not be covered in the same page.--kelapstick (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.. though even if the contradiction in the lede sentence is fixed, the article basically is documenting a political catch-phrase which applies to all marriages which are not 1-man/1-woman. Do we normally keep articles on such phrases unless they have gained wide-spread usage? Outsider80 (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I am not advocating keeping it, I was trying to clarify, after reading the article and the AfD, it took considerable thought to determine what the article was actually about.--kelapstick (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to wiktionary, Cooljuno411. This is an encyclopaedia, so an article that contains only a definition doesn't belong here. Also, Wikipedia articles should have reliable sources, demonstrate that their content is notable, and offer a neutral point of view. I really can't see this surviving AfD, I'm afraid.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a concept for an encyclopedia; I will concur completely and utterly with S Marshall. To the creator, I have read some of your responses here, and they only confirm that this is a dictionary/wiktionary entry AT BEST. And if editors here have to argue that Marriage Equality USA is not a reliable source, then you need to have another look at WP:RS. Drmies (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First the lead is contradictory:

Non- monogamous opposite-sex marriage, or simply non-heterosexual marriage

Non-monogamous heterosexual marriage is open marriage between a man and a woman (unless my definition of heterosexual is wrong). Non-heterosexual (same-sex marriage) is, between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, monogamy has nothing to do with it. Open marriage (between a man and a woman) and same sex marriage are not the same thing. Having said that, there are perfictly addiquate articles about marriage, same-sex marriage and monogamy (or lack of). Non-heterosexual marriage (which redirects here) should redirected to Same-sex marriage (which I will do, because as I stated it has nothing to do with monogamy). So again delete as a neologism that contradicts itself, any information that would be usable in it is found in articles about marriage, monogamy and same-sex marriage.--kelapstick (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your definition is very wrong.... Non-heterosexual marriage DOES NOT mean same-sex marriage.... is means a marriage that is NOT a heterosexual marriage... you are very lacking in understanding of gender identity, sexology, etc.... let me give you an example..... What is a marriage between a man and a person who is not a man or woman..... clearly an non-heterosexual marriage.... and quite clearly not a same-sex marriage.... like i said.... non-heterosexual marriage means a marriage that is NOT between people of the opposite sex.... you can't just assume it is going to be a same-sex relationship.... it's not always the case--cooljuno411 [sign my contact archive] 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article seems to be an attempt to define a term lumping same-sex marriage and polygamy together in a term that is spectacularly unclear. I had to read the whole thing before I realized it was non-monogamous and same sex that was intended by the poor phrasing. Sorry, cooljuno, I know you meant this in good faith, but it just does not work. Aleta ^Sing 03:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - A notice has been placed at WT:LGBT alerting the LGBT Studies Wikiproject to this discussion. Aleta ^Sing 03:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Aleta ^Sing 03:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —Aleta ^Sing 03:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Term seems, at best, a neologism. The original contributor might consider expanding related pages on human relationships with relevant material. --Gimme danger (talk) 03:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like the term that the creator is groping for is "Non-traditional marriage". But I agree that these are better handled in the existing articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that would be very inappropriate. The term "traditional marriage" is an attempt at political framing on the behalf of conservatives try to make same-sex marriage look negative.... Same-sex couples have been getting married before the United States was even around.--cooljuno411 [sign my contact archive] 04:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm aware that this term does not suit your personal preferences or promote the point of view that you want represented on Wikipedia. However, it's the term that seems to be commonly used to describe the concept that you explained here. The quoted phrase "nontraditional marriage" gets about four thousand hits on Google, and a good deal of them discuss issues of same-sex marriage and polygamy. It might be a heternormative term, but WP:COMMONNAME is the relevant rule. Furthermore, your current choice of name is used to mean something entirely different in 100% of the three uses found by Google (e.g., this book), so we simply cannot use it. But I am still not convinced that this article is appropriate for Wikipedia at all: it appears to be a collection of separate topics, much like someone might try to write an article on All colors except blue or All humans, except Americans. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree that this is a polyamy coatrack article. More than 2 people marriages can be covered in the polygamy article or elsewhere - there are not the sources to warrant a seperate article, and even if there was, this is a terrible title and article. Plus non-monomamous marriages are just normal marriages aren't they? Dont most spouses cheat?YobMod 07:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aleta sums up my reasoning. The article is confusing and incorrect. APK How you durrin? 09:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only is the lead of the article incorrect, it also uses confusing terminology to describe ideas already covered in existing articles. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WhatamIdoing. The scope of this article is already covered in our articles on Same-sex marriage, polygamy, and open marriage; the term of the present title appears to lack currency. There are fascinating points to be made by deconstructing "traditional" marriage, for its assumptions both of monogamy and of heterosexuality, but I see no evidence that this gets done widely under this catch-all term. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch (delete). Another noble attempt, at what I'm not sure but it does seem to be more confusing than clarifying and more convoluted than clear. I don't really see a route to cleaning this up, sorry. -- Banjeboi 11:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "more confusing than clarifying and more convoluted than clear" said it all- Power.corrupts (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone but the article creator. This is a confusingly definied neologism and original research. Edward321 (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article essentially has no real content. Beach drifter (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OR. Just not notable. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 21:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NEO all the way, baby. Matt (talk) 07:59, 15 March 2009 (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.