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. and rename to Supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 08:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supporters of marriage equality in the United States[edit]

Supporters of marriage equality in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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

per WP:NOTDIRECTORY; also, the title choice is a neologism per WP:NEO and the argumentation given by the admin in deleting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traditional marriage movement applies Hekerui (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename to "Supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States" or "List of supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States" *Sigh* You know its always good to discuss possible changes and improvements before you go ahead with AfD. The Title can be changed, this article is notable and the article can be improved with Prose. Knowledgekid87 18:12, 28 August 2009 (AT)

NEO, POVforking, and making this a repository of loose association per point one of WP:NOTDIRECTORY is the point in my opinion. Hekerui (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Inappropriate venue to propose a title change. Movements supporting the equalization of marriage laws are very real, and not synthesized, like the concept the "traditional marriage movement" article described. Wikipédiste Consommé (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No title change was proposed. Hekerui (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One is being discussed on the talk page, and you participated in it. Wikipédiste Consommé (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had suggested "Supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States" Do you read the talk? Knowledgekid87 18:26, 28 August 2009 (AT)

Nonsense, you're glossing over the several points I made. This AfD proposes no name change, you can find whatever consensus you like on the talk page. My comment there merely said the other name was better, not that the article should be kept. Hekerui (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well youre talking about WP:NEO and the current topic title as a reason why this should be deleted. Knowledgekid87 18:30, 28 August 2009 (AT)

(outdent) It's a loosely assembles repository. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is no source speaking of the supporters as a coherent group. The name is NEO, but can be changed or not. Try to address another point as well. Hekerui (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What makes it loose? All of the persons described support a movement and its goals, and have made various statements on it. I do think the article needs to change to be more proseful—that was also discussed on the talk page. But this AfD is not helping improve it. Wikipédiste Consommé (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"All of the persons described support a movement and its goals ..." - no evidence for that Hekerui (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS NOT A MOVEMENT It is currently more of a list of people who support same-sex marriage. Knowledgekid87 18:39, 28 August 2009 (AT)

Per WP:SALAT: "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future). For example, lists of atheists doesn't include every individual with a Wikipedia article who happens to be an atheist, because not all of them are notable for their atheism." - so it's not an appropriate list because the sum of these people is not notable for their support of gay marriage Hekerui (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't attempt to list everybody who supports the movement. Almost everybody listed has at least their own article. List of Sephardic Jews are not full of Jews notable for being Jews, and the same for the Lists of LGBT people. Wikipédiste Consommé (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a discussion of other articles, especially when they have references tags on them. Hekerui (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and why did you bring up the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traditional marriage movement then? Also in the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supporters of traditional marriage in the United States THIS article was brought up there.

That's a deletion discussion, not an article. As for the mention, it was not by me. Please move further discussion down, there's little place left. Hekerui (talk) 23:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does "support[ing] same-sex marriage" entail for anybody but a priest? These people are not advocating that people enter into same-sex marriages; that people convert to homosexuality, or marry someone of the same-sex for unstated reasons. It is a movement for a change in the law to remove distinctions between marriages between persons of the same sex and persons of the opposite sex. Wikipédiste Consommé (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what movement? What has Pelosi to do with the Communist Party? Hekerui (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The movement to reform marriage laws so as to remove the current gender restrictions, that both support. Wikipédiste Consommé (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or rename to List of supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States. Assuming that this can pass Directory, "Marriage equality" is a POV neologism that has little or no mainstream use. - Schrandit (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The renaming of the article to that would be dishonest to those who actually use the term "marriage equality" in what they support. Should they be delisted, then? People and groups such as the Libertarian Party: "The LP praised officials in Iowa, Vermont and the District of Columbia for taking recent steps toward marriage equality, and urged legislators in all states to scrap government licensing, taxation and regulation of marriage.", Kirsten Gillibrand: "Gillibrand endorsed her appointment and said she assured the group that she 'supports marriage equality' for same-sex couples, Jared Polis: "said Polis... 'Marriage equality is long overdue in this country, and I can't wait to see which state will be next to step up and provide equal rights to all its residents.'"... Wikipédiste Consommé (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage equality just like Traditional marriage is a Neologism, a better title can easily be found and I have suggested one. Knowledgekid87 18:59, 28 August 2009 (AT)

How about a descriptive phrase, then? "Supporters of marriage law reform", "Supporters of the legalization of same-sex marriage", or "Supporters of the equalization of marriage laws for same-sex and opposite-sex couples"? "Same-sex marriage" is just not accurate. Wikipédiste Consommé (talk) 23:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well "Marriage equality" certainly isn't. Equality between who? Certainly not polygamists or other undesirables, just same-sex couples. - Schrandit (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shockingly, what is called in the US the "Civil Rights Movement" is about a narrow set of people's civil rights, African Americans. And the "Suffrage movement", not about 18 year olds! "Pro-life movement", not about ending war or capital punishment! It is a phrase with currency enough such that you generally know what the speakers are talking about. —the Homosexualist (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For those of you those who think that marriage equality and same-sex marriage is diffrent there is nothing stopping you from making an article about marriage equality. As for this one though it poses WP: NEO, and WP: POV issues and that is something that goes against what wikipedia is. I dont see how renaming something that doesnt imply anything other than the fact that the people support same-sex marriage can be harmful.Knowledgekid87 12:49, 29 August 2009 (AT)

Hey, hey, not relevant to deletion debate and rapidly turning into political debate. Not helpful. +Hexagon1 16:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is this nomination a PoV fork minus an article plus a nomination? I think it might be. Anarchangel (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally I like talking about a deletion on the talk page and possible ways to improve an article before I go ahead with an AfD. This way most editors are in agreement on if an article can be improved upon or not. Knowledgekid87 19:39, 28 August 2009 (AT)

• Keep and fix. Sorry, I think this article is a mess but that's a reason to fix and not delete. If I had to waive the majic wand I would rename to List of notable supporters of same-sex marriage or similar. As a list this is pretty good, as an article, not so much. Let's embrace what it does well instead of pushing it to be something else. -- Banjeboi 03:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup. Well referenced but looks sloppy. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. Too much of a list, but the article should exist with good prose. LotLE×talk 06:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No response to the reasons I gave, just keep? Hekerui (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is notable, it has good references, and just needs fixing up. As for WP: NEO and WP: POV concerns you raised the title can always be changed. So what it really comes down too is if it passes WP:NOTDIRECTORY and if not, does it have the potental too with fixing up? Knowledgekid87 11:41, 29 August 2009 (AT)

• Delete Per WP:SOAP, Wikipedia is not the place for political campaigning. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see how it can be classified as political campaigning as the names are people who already got Elected and this shows where they stand on the issue. Knowledgekid87 15:00, 29 August 2009 (AT)

• It's advocacy, seems like a petition and is inherently not NPOV because it only lists one side of the issue (there doesn't seem to be an opponents page, let alone other shades of opinion). It also has maintenance problems because it doesn't seem to allow for the possibility that people or parties might change their mind. This makes it ephemeral and so contrary to WP:NOTNEWS. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, rename to Support for same-sex marriage in the United States, and clean up as a "main article" for the "Supporters" section of the article Same-sex marriage in the United States. --Alynna (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE Per WP:SOAP This is a political agenda type page in violation of WP policy

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=46428&o=1&rv=1251595552402#commentslistpos#ixzz0PcxotYQS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Durnian1811 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename to a List. Notable subject matter, very well-referenced. The title is no grounds for deletion, any debates about the terms marriage equality and same-sex marriage should be, say it with me... That's right, the article's talk page. +Hexagon1 16:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You ignore argument number one. Hekerui (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DIRECTORY? That doesn't apply here, if it did we'd have to delete every list ever. This is no more a directory, than, say List of Greeks. +Hexagon1 02:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Marriage Equality is a political label like Pro-Life or Pro-Choice and needs an explanation. Likewise an article discussing Supporters of Traditional Marriage should not be suppressed by the supporters of Marriage Equality (which is what is happening by the very people arguing to keep the marriage equality argument here). These are both valid or they are not valid. Mrdthree (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• No comment on the deletion, but I've just move protected the article. Pick a title, come to a consensus, and then move it. Don't create double and triple redirects by holding a move-war. That's a good way to get blocked. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep List of political supporters for same sex marriage in the United States of America, would perhaps be a better name. But the article is fine, both in concept and content. Dream Focus 03:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as Supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States. This and Opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States are companion articles, although this one is currently much better referenced. Per Mrdthree here and Alansohn in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supporters of traditional marriage in the United States who have drawn attention to the Pro-Choice/Pro-Life labels, I would be OK with renaming the former to Supporters of marriage equality in the United States on the condition that the latter is renamed to Supporters of traditional marriage in the United States. Location (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but Rename to a less POV title. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Strong Delete unlike lists of people by nationality or ethnicity, this is a subjective, changing list. not all people or organizations have the same definition of same sex marriages, just like we dont have one here. some here are massively more notable for this, others are notable ONLY for this. Many people are supporters of this, but not vocal. again, unlike ethnic/national identity, which cannot change, and national id added to by moving, this list is inherently POV. i work with a pastor who is struggling with same sex marriage, is generally in support of equal rights for homosexuals, is not homophobic, but cannot currently perform such marriages by his conscience and understanding of the bible. if he were notable, i really dont know whether he would consider himself on this list, but i can be sure he would object to someone placing him on this list without his informed consent. so i see lots of potential problems with this list. i would rather see this as a CATEGORY, OR CATEGORIES, say, "same sex marriage advocacy groups", "same sex marriage activists", "same sex marriage supporting elected officials", "same sex marriage supporters". the names may be awkward, but i think my point can be understood here. consider this: someone who is a same sex marriage supporter AND a critic of same sex marriage (say, supporter with reservations, or supporter of the legal right while unsupportive of it as a social phenomenon). with categories, a person or group can have unlimited labels. so basically, i support delete per nom, and eventual creation of categories based on article content. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  How is there more than one definition for same-sex marriage? Can it mean anything other than people of the same gender marrying each other? Dream Focus 10:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  If you think this is more complex than lists of people by nationality, and that nationality is changed by "moving" then you obviously have never been near such a list. This list lists people in support of legalising gay marriage, that's all there is to it, and regardless of other personal viewpoints they may hold. Quite simple. +Hexagon1 06:51, 4 September 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.