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 keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Natural marriage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Almost totally unsourced. Everything the term is used to refer to has a real article (eg. Catholic marriage or LGBT rights opposition), but the term has enough uses that it isn't a suitable redirect, and is infrequently enough used that there's no point in a disambiguation page for people searching on it. The almost total lack of sources also indicates against a merge. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "Almost totally unsourced", "almost total lack of resources" so erm... it is sourced? I'm sorry, I was expecting a better argument for deletion. Tigerboy1966  15:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see no reason for it to be deleted. Corn cheese (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 2 substantial sources with substantial coverage and looks like a real topic. North8000 (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is sufficiently well-sourced. DiligenceDude (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename or delete. The present title of the article does not have a neutral point-of-view. The view, e.g., that all polygamous marriages are unnatural, as the present and existing title necessarily implies, is not universally held by all humankind, within or without the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, as the present and existing title also attempts to imply; and neither is the claim, that such marriages are intrinsically, automatically and necessarily invalid, is universally accepted by all. -- KC9TV 01:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It must also be noted that the very creator [1] of this particular article is himself prevented from further activity herein, for, amongst other things, espousing anti-Semitism [2], [and Jews are also mentioned in this article. We have no way of knowing that if this were in fact an elaborate "go at the Jews", or anti-Semitic rant, of some sort [3] . ] -- KC9TV 00:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It must also be noted that not having a neutral point-of-view is not a valid reason for deletion. Tigerboy1966  08:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following ...." ; and I thought that the Holy Father and the Holy Roman Church are supposed to put a stop to this medieval "carry-on" [4]. -- KC9TV 00:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Or, speedy-deletion. The articles was also created [5] [6] (the 16 April 2009‎) technically in violation of the creator's pledge (the 06 February 2009) [7] made in the course of his un-blocking request [8] – of " .... not to make controversial edits on Jewish issues" [9] [10] – with at least two references to Jews and Judaism, in two separate paragraphs, with one a disparaging one [11]. -- KC9TV 02:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • An editor evading a topic ban is not a reason to delete an article. That's something to bring up in Arbitration Enforcement or ANI, depending on how the ban was imposed. Lord Roem (talk) 17:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Traditional marriage, for which this is a POV fork, or Ecclesiastical ordinances, for which this is a minor example. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It really doesn't matter if people like the term or not. I can certainly see why one might object to the implication that any other form of union is somehow "unnatural", but the opening sentence makes it clear that the term is used in canon law and there are plenty of sources that back this up. The article is weak and messy at the moment, but that's really an editing issue. Tigerboy1966  23:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note KC9TV is rewriting comments after they have been responded to. This is not on. Tigerboy1966  08:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Short, rather messy but also succinct from an RC pov.--Lyricmac (talk) 01:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Research indicates it's a term of art in Catholic practices. Article could obviously do with some cleanup and expanding, but that's not a reason to delete. However, I'm not prejudiced against moving the article to "Natural marriage (Catholic theology)" or something similar in categorization. -- Lord Roem (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2012 (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.