Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mixed-orientation marriage

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. Cleanup is a priority, however. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed-orientation marriage[edit]

This article is clearly a neologism; when searching "Mixed-orientation marriage" on google with quotes, only 2,800 results pop up. This is not a widely used term and the tone of the article seems to play as nothing more than an "ex-gay" movement propaganda piece; especially when considering its original author; User:Joshuajohanson, who has been notorious for POV edits in similar subjects; and a self-proclaimed "ex-gay." Another major flaw with the "term" "Mixed-orientation marriage" is that it revolves completely around a heterosexual man/woman with a homosexual/bisexual man/woman; when such a term, if truly a widely-used term, would apply to same-sex couples as well; with a gay man and a bisexual man; a lesbian woman and a bisexual woman; etc. Even heterosexuals have married homosexuals in the past; such as in ancient China and certain tribes as part of a tradition.
Anyhow, I have seen such an occurrence ["a mixed-orientation marriage"] referenced in books and popular culture, though it was never referred to as a "mixed-orientation marriage;" nor does the happening have any reference in any reliable dictionary.
Such a term may belong on Urban Dictionary, but neologisms have no place on Wikipedia. Camillex555 (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. As noted by Camillex, the term is confusing and does appear to be used only within the "ex-gay" population (and perhaps primarily among "ex-gay" Mormons). I have significant concerns about NPOV and fringy content but am not quite persuaded that deletion is the optimal outcome. Could it be renamed and rewritten? Amid the hodgepodge of refs, a few look like they might form the basis of an acceptable article. Rivertorch (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Ladyof Shalott 14:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it could be renamed and severely rewritten, though since there is no well known title for such an occurrence, I feel it would be better to simply flush out the POVs and merge it into another article. Camillex555 (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought this was about mixed religious orientation but it turns out to be about sexual orientation. Definitely needs a rename. Drawn Some (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, lacks reliable sources, delves way too far into original research territory. Rebecca (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Original Research. Joey the Mango (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rework - The article cites numerous reliable sources that discuss the concept of non-heterosexuals knowingly marrying heterosexuals, including several scholarly journal articles, clearly satisfying general notability guidelines. If the name is a neologism then come up with another name. If there's OR, remove it. If there are POV issues, resolve them on the talk page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto4711 (talk • contribs)
Keep but remove POV. Sorry, this seems to be a POV minefield biased in various ways. There are reliable sources to support this but prune out the subtle and obvious POV and it will be a much happier article. -- Banjeboi 20:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rewrite, rename. I agree wih all the problems noted above, and the page certainly needs a severe re-write and a more descriptive title, but the concept itself seems to be notable and has sources that can be used to write a good article, so deletion seems the wrong route. A good article on this should cover ex-gay type marriages, Lavender marriage, Beard (female companion) etc, and could be a useful parent article to bring the topic togetherYob Mod 12:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per YobMod. --Alynna (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; POV material in an article is not by itself a reason for deletion. Born Gay (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because of the reference section, there plenty of news out there about this phenomenon, even though there doesn't seem to be a set name for it. Dream Focus 01:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resounding Delete. Written in an apologetic style along with feigned tolerance, mixed-orientation marriage is a non-article article (see non-apology apology) in defence of the happy, so-called traditional (read: ostensibly heterosexual) marriage. As the article stands, it is loaded with contradictions, faulty logic, incorrect style and language, all with a heterosexist skew. Also, the red-flag combination of indicators for deletion is waving violently because of comments citing major renaming, “severe” rewriting, and “a POV minefield”. I have detailed and organised the clear-cut instances of the major shortcomings in an extensive preliminary list on the talk page. Nonetheless, I would theoretically agree to nothing more than a simple mention of the term “mixed-orientation marriage” paired with its condoning by the ex-gay movement provided that the mention occurs within in a larger, different article encompassing lavender marriage, marriage of convenience, and potentially, Hollywood marriage. Sorry if anyone should feel otherwise. --CJ Withers (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an inherently POV article, and seems to be nothing more than an effort to use Wikipedia to establish a neologism for the purposes of religious propaganda. Kaldari (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . A jargon term but it seems to be well in use and is not a neologism . See Google scholar http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22Mixed-orientation+marriage%22&btnG=Search and Google books http://books.google.co.uk/books?q=%22Mixed-orientation+marriage%22&btnG=Search+Books . Lumos3 (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I can see that this is clearly not neologism, however it's notability may not be much in terms of whether it's suitable to be on Wikipedia or not. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 07:13, 12 June 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.