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. MBisanz ^talk 04:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage Strike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article completely fails NPOV and Verifiability. The concept of men refusing marriage as a political protest might be notable, but that would be better represented as a section in Arguments against marriage. The few useful parts of the article have been merged to a section there. The article is nothing but arguments why men should not marry, and the arguments are not attributed to anyone. The references are about declining marriage rates and provide support for some of the arguments, but do not describe the topic of the article ("Marriage Strike") at all. Rather, it is an original synthesis to form an argument. I suggest redirecting to Arguments against marriage and deleting the current redirect Male attitudes toward marriage. I did redirect Marriage Strike myself, but it was reverted several times. There is some discussion on the talk page. Apoc2400 (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Please do not allow political censorship dilute Wikipedia. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.221.154 (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:OR.    SIS  21:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a NEW "marriage strike" page,the article was completely rewritten, with excellent citation etc, neutral point of view, overcoming all the objections listed above. The new marriage strike article offers discussion of current topics regarding the present day sociology of marriage avoidance. Arguments against marriage article is more historical and political in nature.The newly written Marriage Strike page should NOT BE DELETED.Daxmac (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)daxmac[reply]

• KEEP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daxmac (talk • contribs) 02:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been less than 12 hours since I lasted posted in the discussion/talk page on the article and its already been deleted? How come no one is interested in actually discussing these things or getting a third party opinion or mediation or any of the other normal paths taken to resolve disputes? hmmm... Jwri7474 (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted again on the talk page. Hopefully we can come to a compromise here. Thanks. Jwri7474 (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has not been deleted yet. This page is for discussing if the page should be deleted. The discussion will be open for several days unless it is deemed obvious, then it will be closed by an administrator. This is a method for getting third opinions since many editors review articles listed for deletion. You can read more about the process at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and see other ongoing discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 September 30. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Reads like a polemic in places. Essentially OR. I was expecting this to be about the (small and itself not particularly notable) practice of heterosexual couples refusing to get married until equal rights are extended to same-sex couples. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Please consult the topic talk page. Please note that the article has been significantly changed since Apoc2400's first attempt at a biased, unilateral blank/merge, with no prior discussion. The article is verifiable, with cited and referenced sources. The article is written in a neutral 'voice'. Apoc2400 just up and blanked 'Marriage Strike' earlier, with zero discussion, or community consultation. Now, failing that attempt, Apoc2400 is attempting to kill this page by any means possible. DesertTruffle (talk) 23:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Your comments on the talk page read somewhat like a threat to recreate the page, contrary to consensus, if it should be deleted. This would seem to be an example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. As it is, the article under consideration is original research by means of a novel synthesis of sources. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect As it stands the article is an original synthesis that uses Wikipedia as a soapbox - as indicated by the nominator. Attempts to get the current SPAs to address the problems with the article have not been successful. There may be encyclopedic content above that already added to Arguments against marriage but if so evidence of it has not emerged. -- SiobhanHansa 00:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep This is actually a pretty common sociological term, though it may be more common in the US. A look through Google News Archive[1] shows many examples of use, with recent articles as well as turn-of-last-century material i.e. URGES A MARRIAGE STRIKE.; Emma Goldman Tells East Side Girls to Wait. And no, nobody is suggesting a there's an actual "strike" against marriage. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I do not believe this to be a common term, the research is almost all original under WP:NOR and it is poorly organized. I could be convinced that it is notable under WP:NN if there were some non-original research available for the existing points and the areas in desperate need of citation could be filled. However, it would still require another complete re-write. CorpITGuy (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - I've been hearing this term since around the time of the original Rutgers study; as Squidfryershef has mentioned, Google turns up many hits. Today the phrase mostly refers to younger men not wanting to get married, but the article could use some more info on earlier usages. The 'analogous points in history' section should probably be dumped; we have no idea how the current 'marriage strike' movement will turn out. How about some charts illustrating the decline of marriage, and increasing age of first marriage, in Western countries? Heian-794 (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please recognize that the opinions of SiobhanHansa are highly biased. SiobhanHansa has a long history of activism against articles she is personally at odds with. SiobhanHansa is colluding with Apoc2400 to attack this page on personal grounds. As SiobhanHansa has said on the Marriage Strike talk page - she essentially didn't like the fact that rates of marriage have fallen due to men's choice in the matter. SiobhanHansa did not like this information. The mask 'slipped'.

SiobhanHansa could not find other another plausible explanation to explain away the fall in marriage rates. See her sandbox - she tried hard. So, in attempting to delete information about the Marriage Strike, she has decided to hide information from herself and others that does not fit her world view. Strong, long-term bias from SiobhanHansa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DesertTruffle (talk • contribs) 08:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my attempt at a rewrite in my sandbox I wasn't looking for a plausible explanation for the fall in marriage rates - because the article isn't about fall in marriage rates in the USA the article is about the subject marriage strike. If the article were on the fall in marriage rates then I would have a whole different set of issues with it! Please do not ascribe intent to my actions - you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. -- SiobhanHansa 11:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed your Tag_team_editors collusion work below so that the record is clear for others. DesertTruffle (talk) 13:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This morning while you were redirecting I was having a go at a rewrite. Rather than revert your redirection I pasted my edits into a sandbox. It's in no sense a good or finished article but provides a little more depth to the term than the current Arguments against marriage paragraph. I would appreciate your thoughts on whether it would be a good alternative to redirecting the article. A significant part of me favors the redirect because I think it will be easier to ensure less POV pushing long term. But I spent a few hours putting the rewrite together so have a certain attachment to seeing that information in the encyclopedia if appropriate. -- SiobhanHansa 11:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] There will be a lot of overlap, but your version provides a good view on the history of marriage criticism. The term "marriage strike" itself doesn't seem all that important, but marriage-critical activism and writing certainly is. Still, would it be possible to merge the two articles? Arguments against marriage is in quite bad shape too, and could certainly use a rewrite. I like the idea of separating it into historical periods since the criticism of marriage and marriage itself has changed a lot over time. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] Sounds like a good plan but I don't know how much I could help with the more general subject. I did my best on the marriage strike rewrite but really sourcing from a couple of good newspapers isn't exactly great for what is, in the end, sociology. Do you have ideas or sources that could be used to improve and combine the two? Also it looks like there's a bit of an external campaign (or a bunch of sock puppets) getting into the Marriage strike discussion. Might make sense to broaden input so there are more good editors keeping an eye on it before it gets out of hand. Any ideas? -- SiobhanHansa 11:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] There are some ways to request outside opinions, but it's often hard to make people spend time on something. I'm still considering listing it at AfD since it is essentially a question of deletion. AfD has many regulars the know the Wikipedia policies well. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] It's a blunt but often effective tool :) -- SiobhanHansa 11:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] I listed it at AfD, discussion here. Please help out if I forgot something. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above was copied from User talk:Apoc2400 by User:DesertTruffle. Border added by User:Apoc2400.

Oh, yeah. Reasonable discussion between editors. How simply horrid. Violet (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article seems to sufficiently substantiate the idea that this particular neologism is notable, and not original to Wikipedia. There is no convincing candidate for merger without loss of information. There are some fairly dodgy parts of the article, but nothing that can't be fixed by regular editing. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The phrase "Marriage Strike" has certainly been used by many writers, but for all kinds of different things. This article only about one such case, Men's movement activists suggesting men to boycott marriage because of perceived unfairness to men. They have used the phrase in a small number of opinion pieces (only two are cited, both related to ifeminists.com). The article could be rewritten to include all kinds of "marriage strike", but then it would become an article about criticism of marriage in general, and should be merged with Arguments against marriage (which I think would be better moved to Criticism of marriage. What information would be lost that is not original research or synthesis? --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the idea of a "Marriage strike" is distinct from "criticisms of marriage". I'd like to see the article concentrate on the use of the term "marriage strike" by journalists, and how they use it for a variety of situations where people avoid marriage consciously or unconsciously. An article about "criticisms of marriage" would talk about tax issues and divorce rates. While this article obviously needs work and has a ridiculous number of "see also"s, it is not WP:HOPELESS, and a revamped article would still include the material on the Rutgers study. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried that with a rewrite in my sandbox. The wording is used in all sorts of ways and doesn't cover one concept. I found my rewrite attempt unsatisfactory because in the end this is a sociology topic - not a journalism one and it becomes a fairly uninformative article if it just lists when the term is used - but I couldn't find good sociology sources for use of the term. The Rutgers study doesn't mention "marriage strike" nor does it draw the conclusion that one gender is refraining from marriage to a greater extent than the other or attribute the reduction in marriage rates to its findings about reluctance to marry by young men. Indeed it finds that most young men want and expect to get married - just not yet. I'm not sure how it would fit into an article on journalists' use of the term except to say that some commentators have used it along with statistics on falling marriage rates to draw the conclusion that there is a marriage strike by men in the US - but it doesn't appear that any actual experts on marriage have drawn the same conclusions (from what I could find). -- SiobhanHansa 22:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually went and checked all the articles on Google news ([2]), 101 hits in total.

• 39 articles are from before 1950 and about all kinds of things. I skipped those.
• 25 of the remaining 62 don't actually use the phrase marriage strike. Example: Indeed, the Bush Administration's recent proposals to "encourage" marriage strike me as just west of absurd.
• 7 are about marriage strikes for same-sex marriage, by either individuals or priests.
• 1 is about Kuwait women, 1 about Japanese women and one is a 1959 article about Israel Arabs striking due to high bride prices (the stuff you find...)
• 2 I couldn't figure out because it requires payment and I could get around it or understand enough from the Google summary.
• 1 was a user comment on a news article (Google News must have failed with filtering it)

Remaining are 24 columns or opinions pieces. Removing duplicates there are 13 distinct ones: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. All by eight opinion writers. None of it is actual news coverage.

Our guideline on reliable sources says

News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text.

--Apoc2400 (talk) 16:33, 4 October 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.