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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Procedural close as merge We have an RfC recently closed as supporting one single article, the content of this, Kim Davis (county clerk) and Miller v. Davis need to be merged to a single article and an appropriate title chosen. Guy (Help!) 10:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy[edit]

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]
  • Delete, then rename the Kim Davis article to Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy (thus keeping the original and proper contribution history), to emphasize that the event is the most notable feature, but that she is the only one involved in it and keeping it going. This article should never have been created. All we needed was the suggested rename. The rename will solve all our problems. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per two recent snow keep's of Kim Davis (county clerk), no matter what's decided for this spin-off article, Kim Davis (county clerk) must stay with its current name, or we have a breach of process. Any !votes here that suggest changing that result should be considered invalid. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 11:00, 7 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]
  • Again, you are revealing that you haven't carefully examined what was actually said in those AfDs. The article was saved with its scope and content, and it could not have been "kept as a biography", because it's never been a pure biography, but has always been an event/biography article, with the weight on the event. There has always been clear opposition to a pure biography because Davis is not notable apart from the controversy.
  • The purpose of an AfD is to save or delete an article, not determine the title. That's a matter for an RfC, and several have been held about the title. No position was taken on the actual title in the first AfD.
  • The second AfD was VERY DIFFERENT than the first AfD. It was a whole different story, being based on the experience from the first AfD and reacting to several RfCs about the title. There were MANY comments about the title being inadequate and not describing the content properly. In the second AfD, many desired that this Kentucky article be deleted and that the Kim Davis article be saved and receive a better title, most favoring Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. That was a frequent theme in that AfD.
  • Summary of the contents (not final decision) of the second AfD: (1) KEEP the Kim Davis article with its scope and content; (2) CHANGE to better title; (3) DELETE this article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC) (revised, per comments below) -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • MrX, you have a point. My comment can be interpreted as referring to the closing decision, which of course, as you point out, could only be a decision on saving or deleting the article. My "summary" above was meant as a summary of the content, not the decision. The closer's summary makes it clear they were aware of those discussion points, but referred those matters to the proper forum. I'll tweak my comment a bit so that misunderstandings won't occur in the future. Thanks for catching that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:04, 9 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]
  • Note to closing admin: Please process my !vote as a Keep if that's the eventual consensus from others. "Process Delete" just means I'm willing to let the article go for now as it was possibly created too hastily. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:30, 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]
  • Note to the editor above and to all editors: Please read the Kim Davis article. Compare it to this article. See which one is vibrantly alive and maintained and which one is a mostly-dead copy of the other. See which one has posted at the top of it's talk page: "Text and/or other creative content from Kim Davis (county clerk) was copied or moved into Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy" Educate yourself before making your decision here on this page. This is sensible advice. Prhartcom (talk) 15:04, 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]
  • Thank-you; we agree; that is exactly the point of the move discussion. Prhartcom (talk) 16:07, 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]
Ivanvector, would you please consider changing your keep to delete? This is the article which needs to go, and the other stay. That article has passed two AfDs as snow keep. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I think NOTCLEANUP was the right essay to point to to express my opinion. As I read it, there's a strong consensus that there should be an article about the controversy, and very little agreement whether or not Davis should have a bio (I have voted in favour, FTR). I'll consider changing my !vote but not to delete. This has turned into an end-run around a move discussion (though probably not originally intended), and I'm thinking that this should be closed with no action, or suspended pending outcome of the RM. If it's agreed that the controversy article should live here, then whichever one is better can be moved over this title as G6 maintenance, but there's no need to preemptively delete this page before the RM concludes. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as I've noted directly above, and directly below. This AfD is a misplaced request to move Kim Davis (county clerk) over this page, and that discussion is already happening in the proper forum. There's no reason to preemptively decide this page's fate before that discussion concludes. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: I wonder if this discussion will end up being redundant to the discussion at Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk)#Requested move 6 October 2015, on moving that page to a title covering the controversy (but not this title). It doesn't look that way now, but please consider whether the result here conflicts with the result there. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:53, 7 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]
  • Keep. I don't know what kind of football people are playing here, but this article says that three county clerks refused to issue licenses. Therefore, it cannot be confined within a Kim Davis article. Additionally, a consensus of people on a different article's talk page (Kim Davis) is not reason to delete this article. There's a page to develop that consensus, which would be here, and I'd like to see people do it from scratch. Last but not least... someone please track down what is going on with the other two clerks. Thanks. Wnt (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No need because they are not notable. Reliable sources do not care about those other clerks so neither does Wikipedia. Kim Davis is the only notable county clerk on this subject. Her article briefly touches on these other clerks as well as on the Alabama probate judges. This article is nominated for deletion because it is a mostly un-maintained copy of the Kim Davis article. Prhartcom (talk) 06:23, 9 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]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kentucky_same-sex_marriage_license_controversy&oldid=1077963767"