Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Valjean (talk | contribs) at 03:33, 8 October 2015 (comment for Ivan). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy

Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy (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)

Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk)#RfC: Two articles or one? (Or three?) decided that only one article on this topic should exist. There is a separate disucssion taking place here to rename the Kim Davis (county clerk) biography article into an event article, which would take the place of this article if it passes. Even if this does not pass, this article is largely a duplicate of the Kim Davis article and unwisely dilutes the controversy into a handful of other non-notable Kentucky clerks. Kim Davis herself is truly the only controversy. If you agree, please support this deletion. Thanks to all editors who have contributed to this topic. Prhartcom (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - Although I !voted to retain this article in the RfC, consensus determined otherwise. This should be deleted as a simple matter of process.- MrX 19:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete – If we assume that the outcome of the RfC will stand, one of the two articles should be deleted. This article seems like mostly just a copy-paste spin-off of the other one, and it has generally not been updated or improved much since the spin-off. So if one of them should be deleted, it should be this one. This is not a comment about what name the surviving article should have. It is merely a comment about which one should have its edit history preserved. If only one will be kept, the one with the valuable edit history is the other one. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge with Kim Davis keeping this article's title intact and replacing the other article's title. No way should there be a BLP for Davis per 1E and NOTNEWS. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any disagreement here with the idea that the surviving article shouldn't be titled as a BLP about Davis. There's already an RM on the naming question that's currently being discussed. The exact mechanics of how to get from two articles to one seem like the only real issue raised here (so far). I just suggest basing the content on the other article instead of this one because this one started as a copy-paste content fork, and people have been working on improving the other article while this article seems relatively neglected. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WV, there is nothing worth merging. This article is a copy of the Davis article (although all further development has been occurring there), but it turned out that there wasn't any significant content or controversy outside Davis to make this article go anywhere. There is very little unique content here, and there might be a way to include it in the other article. Davis does not deserve a pure biography, and that's not what she's getting. Her article is a person/event article, with the main weight on the event, as can be seen if you actually bothered to study the Davis article and sources. For some time now, all your comments about this reveal no evidence that you have actually done that. That's how far off the mark your comments are. You should create some good Google Alerts on this subject. You'd discover the enormous coverage, also internationally, and how far reaching her actions are into many fields of thought, law, and rights. NOTNEWS doesn't apply anymore. We're way beyond that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rigsofrods (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification. For the purposes of this AfD, those comments have no validity, but for the move discussion, they still do, because throughout all these AfDs and RfCs, it has been recognized that Kim Davis does not deserve a pure biography apart from the controversy, IOW two articles, one purely about her (without the controversy) and one only about the controversy. The current title is the type of title one uses for a pure biography.
  • The Kim Davis article, with its content and scope (mostly about the controversy), has always been what was approved (not the title), but the title doesn't match the content, as it should. The controversy should be the main focus, and it is in that article, but not in the title. A move to the better title is the only change that needs to happen after this article is deleted. Unfortunately some editors who have not been involved in all this mess have come to the move discussion and objected, using arguments which are not valid, per both AfDs. They are muddying the waters. -- BullRangifer (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two snow keep's in a row would seem to invalidate the RM as well. It was kept as a biography. Otherwise, here you are stating your opinion that belongs only in that RM. There are other opinions there who vehemently disagree using objective reasoning. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not that simple, unless one ignores the actual comments in those AfDs. The scope and content were approved twice. The fact that the title was the only one which could be used in the AfDs is just that, and says nothing about whether that title was optimal or not. It was the existence of the article which was the bone of contention, and not the title itself. The deletion of this article prepares for the next step, which is to change that title so the title actually describes the content, and Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy does that perfectly. The current title is woefully inadequate. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Process Delete There was an earlier consensus to create this spin-off article, but then there was a later consensus to only have one article. It's possible the earlier consensus was arrived at too hastily. I still see the rationale for two articles, but for the sake of process, and assuming two snow keep's of Kim Davis (county clerk) hold that in place, I can accept rolling back the earlier spin-off decision for now. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 11:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there should only be one article about the controversy, and it should live at this title per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Whether or not Kim Davis should have a separate biography is a different issue. There is certainly some content work required to sort this out. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, that is wise advice, however I think that which article is better is irrelevant to this discussion. When I review an AfD, I look at the article title, and consider whether that topic meets the inclusion criteria, based on our policies and guidelines, and relevant consensus. I don't really bother with the current content, because that can always be fixed, and AfD is not cleanup. The same-sex marriage license controversy in Kentucky is certainly notable, who would even argue? Thus we should keep this page, and make it our article about the controversy, because we surely don't need two articles about the same thing.
  • That being said, if as you say the Kim Davis (county clerk) article is currently a better article about the controversy than this one is, rather than the biography that it should be, then I wouldn't oppose moving that article over this one, or history-merging or whatever is required for attribution. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ivanvector, your mention of AfD is not cleanup is a bit misplaced in this situation. When one must choose between two identical articles, one needs to delete one of them. That's a form of cleanup. This one was an improperly created article. It was a copy paste of the Kim Davis article, but supposedly would end up with a larger scope (the controversy in all of Kentucky). Well, that has never materialized in RS. Only two other clerks have objected, but they haven't become significant subjects in RS, partially because Kim Davis has been much more aggressive, and the American Civil Liberties Union deliberately chose to ignore them and focus on Davis. Hence the court cases, and jailing. Davis IS the controversy. It doesn't exist apart from her. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A deletion here actually makes it easier to move that article to its proper title. We are not supposed to have two articles with nearly identical content, and it's the Kim Davis article which is the first one and is MUCH better developed, with it having ALL of the current content here (except for a paragraph), and much more. That article includes this one in its entirety. This one was a direct copy paste of that article at the time, but it hasn't been developed much, simply because RS didn't justify adding more. Everything about this controversy centers around Kim Davis, which is why that article needs to be renamed to include the controversy. The scope and content there is mainly about the controversy.. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kentucky_same-sex_marriage_license_controversy&oldid=684682805"