Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wedlease

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 no consensus. After 2 relists and no clear/determinable consensus, this discussion defaults to keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 23:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wedlease[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The concept of this 'Wedlease' has only been referred to in a single book. This book was then written about in the Washington Post and followed up by an article in NPR based on the Post article. I disagree with the Kvng's assertion that WP:Golden Rule applies to the article as it has not received significant coverage in the media. It has not been discussed by sources independent of the author, and this is because it was merely fabricated for the author's book. Additional questions can be drawn in regards to the article's original author who created an account only to create the article in 2013 (days after the editorial the author of the editorial wrote in the Washington Post was released) and then never to make another contribution to Wikipedia again. This article detailing a concept that has only been remarked upon in a single book does not pass WP:Notability nor the WP:Golden Rule. Its continued existence is without reason and therefore it should be deleted. Cawhee (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is very few sources that I found from my seaches. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment also, the writer of this article is also the writer of one of the sources used in this page. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which, it should be noted, would constitute a serious conflict of interest.--Cawhee (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But, this is not a valid reason to delete. Any COI that has soiled such a short article can be dealt with by editing this article. ~Kvng (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm simply finding nothing else convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the fact that it was first introduced by WP doesn't make it notable. There are also no sources to ascertain notability of this one. Bilbo Baggins (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes, it is a neologism but it has been picked up by numerous reliable secondary sources and so clearly meets notability requirements. I have added new references to the article - check 'em out! COI issues can be addressed by improvements to the article. Deletion is not necessary. ~Kvng (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the term has been referred to in a limited number of articles, but all reference Paul Rampell. Rampell appears to be the only person to have ever used the term to classify a marriage. Additionally, I really don't know whether adding additional references to a single sentence qualifies as improving the article. The article is presently two sentences which have 7 citations. This seems a bit like WP:OVERSITE as none of the references you have added add anything new to the article. Furthermore, I don't know if it's even fair to refer to the term as a neologism as for it to be considered a neologism, it would still require use from people not Rampell. I continue to affirm that this article should be deleted.--Cawhee (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We consider things generally notable here if they are covered in multiple sources. Coverage in a "limited number of sources" is adequate for establishing notability as long as the number is two or greater, the coverage is significant and the sources are considered reliable.

I don't understand the argument you seem to be making that the subject is not notable because it comes from one man. Ideas and the words they're associated with have to come from somewhere. With respect to notability as Wikipedia defines it, it is not the origin that is important it is whether others pick up and disseminate the ideas/words. Clearly they have in this case.

As to your comments about article and improvement quality, I hear you but those issues are not relevant to the notability discussion which I interpret to be your reason for requesting deletion here. If I have misinterpreted, please let me know. ~Kvng (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor of Wikipedia, I like to think that I know what "we consider notable," and I continue to insist that the topic at hand does not meet this criteria. All of the sources cited in the article only make reference to Paul Rampell's, creator of the term as well as author of the article in question (WP:Conflict of Interest??), editorial in the Washington Post and therefore do nothing to add credibility to this article—and in the case of the Daily Mail source, one might find it valuable to reflect on WP:Identifying reliable sources.

On the topic of a lack of notability in reference to the fact it has only been proposed by one man, I point to what I've already said above as well as my previous remarks on a WP:conflict of interest that exists. The author of this article is also the author of the article and book that is the concept's genesis. In essence, the article was created by Rampell so that he could sell more copies of his book. I will agree with you of course that all ideas originate from somewhere, but as this term has not been used outside of the context of Rampell, I have to question whether this qualifies as WP:TOOSOON. Perhaps one day, though I doubt it, the term "wedlease" could be neologism, but it is not today. No one knows the term because it was fabricated by a man of no notability for the purpose of making money.

I think if you still feel my request for deletion relies solely on the premise that this is over WP:Notability, you have not read all of my comments. I would first suggest you do that, but perhaps one of the reasons I'm suggesting deletion that you have most ignored is WP:WINAD. The article is only a definition of what the term is. Why? Because there is no room to expand and frankly there never will be unless someone decides to take an estate lawyer in Florida's opinions on marriage seriously. --Cawhee (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're going to have to agree to disagree about WP:N.

The article may not be more than a definition right now but it is about a made-up concept as well as a made-up word. There are ample sources to expand so that it is more than a definition.

Any COI that has soiled such a short article can be dealt with by editing this article. There's no reason to blow it up and start over. I know you'd like to blow it up and not start over but that only happens if we get consensus here that it is not a notable subject. ~Kvng (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of reliable sources. Meets notability as a term in use. Proper attribution. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just saw your comment. What do you mean by 'as a term in use?' This term is in fact not in use and this is why it's up for debate. No one uses the term 'Wedlease.' Cawhee^Talk 01:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Cawhee (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ambivalent delete. While Kvng has done a commendable job of finding sources, the coverage is not, in my view, sufficient to establish notability of the concept or common usage of the term. Most telling is that, with the exception of the 2015 Toronto Star article, our other references are just news buzz from August 2013. Rebb ing 02:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rebbing: How do you distinguish "news buzz" from significant coverage in reliable sources? ~Kvng (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good question.

I'm mostly looking at the temporal proximity and depth of coverage. And, to me, this looks like someone wrote a surprising editorial that coined a new term, and a handful of news outlets and commentators tossed it around for a couple weeks without contributing much more than their surprise. I would say that the cited coverage, while reliable, isn't "significant." Even if the coverage is significant, the paucity of coverage since 2013 weighs against notability; and the fact that there can be little hope of expanding this article beyond a mere definition suggests that, even if notable, the topic isn't suitable for inclusion (see the point about "presumed" in GNG). Rebb ing 14:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen criteria like this applied outside WP:NEVENT. ~Kvng (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that the "enduring significance" test is from NEVENT, not GNG. However, I'm not relying on NEVENT's criteria here, which would be inappropriate; instead, I'm borrowing the test to flesh out GNG's criteria.

GNG is not explicit. The guideline defines "significant coverage" but that definition isn't—and couldn't be—precise enough to render significant coverage a mere mechanical calculation; it's a judgment call. The guideline is also only a test of presumed notability: other (unenumerated) factors may override that presumption. See, e.g., GNG n.5 ("Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example . . . minor news stories . . . may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources."). In evaluating both whether coverage is significant and whether GNG's presumption of notability is appropriate, enduring significance is a factor I have chosen to take into consideration—along with depth, quantity, and reliability.

Therefore, as to this subject, my judgment is that the subject fails GNG because its coverage—in its depth, quantity, reliability, and temporal proximity—is not "significant coverage" as that term is defined in GNG. In the alternative, assuming the coverage is significant, the subject still fails GNG as notability is rebutted, as described in GNG, by the relatively small amount of coverage combined with its extremely narrow temporal span. Rebb ing 19:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Cawhee^Talk 14:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cawhee^Talk 14:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Cawhee^Talk 14:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep we have an equivalent article for this phenomenon occuring in central Asia; Nikah mut‘ah; we have its equivalent in the Arab world; Misyar. Why not have its equivalent in the western world, especially seeing as there are no other article with which it can be merged? Furthermore the fact that its practised in at least 4 continents shows that the concept is definitely notable and the concept itself is unquestionably encyclopedic. Please do not delete. Hawaan12 (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue I see with this argument is that in the two cases you've given, they are widely documented. This concept of the 'wedlease' is not widely documented. Instead, it is a word which has been used in a very closed context—as has been mentioned by Rebbing. The very fact that there is nothing this article can be merged into—and the fact it remains an orphan to this day—only speak volumes to the fact that this article is not widely documented and not worthy of an article. Cawhee^Talk 18:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thats where you're wrong. It is reasonably documented except it is described as an SOP (sum of parts) rather than with a distinct noun; in this case wedlease. Hawaan12 (talk) 23:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is your argument, why keep the article around if the concept has already been documented elsewhere more broadly? This obscure term that was created for the sole purpose of selling author of the article's book. If what you are saying is true, that the concept has been adequately addressed in other articles that already exist, then this article continues to fail in having a purpose. Cawhee^Talk 00:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As an analogy, imgaine no word existed for the word "school", and instead people mostly said "Place where preteens study". "School" has started coming into use but is still a neologism. In that scenario I would prefer to use the neologism over the more attested place where preteens study. In some areas the English language is poor. Only a dictionary-conformist to the extreme would choose otherwise IMHO. Hawaan12 (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is truly how you feel about the article in question, it sounds as though you are calling for the creation of a redirect. The term in question, wedlease, is simply not a neologism. For it to be such would require much wider use and a deeper depth of coverage. No one is arguing that the concept of a Nikah mut‘ah or Misyar does not exist. The two of those a deep-seated traditions in the cultures in question. A "wedlease" is not. Cawhee^Talk 18:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a fan fact, the small, insignificant page in question, Wedlease, has a size of 2,890 bytes! In comparison, this discussion is 16,547 bytes. It really goes to show how little can truly be expanded upon the single definition Wikipedia caries of a word that doesn't exist outside the context of a man's book. Cawhee^Talk 04:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Marriage#Temporary_marriages where one sentence will suffice. This is not a distinct topic, as has been pointed out it's just another term for temporary marriage. There is so little to say about this term that, given a viable merge target, keeping it as a standalone article would be a nonsense. --Michig (talk) 07:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this. Cawhee^Talk 13:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support the above merger. Some of the sources are noting this concept has come up before in history, so it seems to be a concept that should be part of the Marriage article, but not enough material exists to support a standalone article. TheBlinkster (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while there are 'references', I find the 'references' to be trivial blog-type references, and it fails to make a convincing case that it actually is notable; there's no lawmakers trying to push it through anywhere for example, it seems to be a purely theoretical thing. There's also no books, there's no academic journals, and the article completely lacks content. I therefore consider it fails WP:GNG.GliderMaven (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to' Marriage#Temporary_marriages. No need to keep a stub on this. If this is going to become a more popular term, and the section grows, it can be restored. Also, if this is based on a book, an article about a book might be considered. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can go along with a merge. Right now, although technically passing WP:GNG because it has been covered significantly in several sources, it would be better treated in context. Keep the redirect because some student will no doubt be searching for the term. Bearian (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2016 (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.