Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Value of monogamy

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 delete. Clear consensus for delete, though there were significant calls for merging. I will userfy on request, though I note that some content has already been userfied. A note of caution, in that some of the content relates to Marriage rather more than Monogamy, so if deciding to work on the material for merging, it may be worth checking the Marriage article which already contains some of the ideas and material used in Value of monogamy. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Value of monogamy

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

Rambling, incoherent essay. Seems to be full of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to the point of being irreperable. Dubious title as well. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a fork of Monogamy. This essay got dropped in in 2006 and has been tweaked and twiddled since by a number of different hands. It probably should have been shut down as a fork back in the day, in my opinion. There might be mergeable content, although I rather doubt it. That would be an acceptable alternative outcome, in my view. Carrite (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - seems to be content worth keeping. Eddie.willers (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete, if that's a possible option. There's plenty of well researched information in the article, and much of it could really be included in the existing article on Monogamy. Sionk (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MAD --B music ian 01:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Usable, referenced content to Monogamy. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not notable per gng Pass a Method talk 09:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has surmountable problems, but you haven't said why it's not a notable topic. See WP:UGLY and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If it needs a new title, use the move tool. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a content fork, quote farm and irredeemable mess requiring a complete rewrite. If anyone wants to userfy it, have at it and take anything usable to Monogamy. Yes, building a house takes time (6 years?!?! Fire the builder!). That does not mean that we substitute a blueprint for a house. The garbage currently holding the place of an article here isn't even a blueprint, it's a rough idea for a house scrawled on a napkin. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR, content fork. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 06:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - this is clearly a half-baked article, but one that has pretty good potential. Just this month, Dan Savage is soliciting essaya nd comments on this issue; George Michael infamously sang of its virtues. Otherwise, a merger or redirect to save the hard work done thus far, as well as the citations. Bearian (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although I am tempted to go through each of the points being made by those who have their hooks into this article and want it deleted, is it really worth my time? Is it really worth detailed lengthy specific responses on this page to "the problems"? Is it really worth it... to calmly and resolutely point of the wrongness of many of the attacks? Because, yes, it could be done... but really, is it worth it? Well, with this particular AfD I think things have become clear enough that a GENERAL criticism of the nature of the process is called for. In order not to get messy or too detailed here I've placed some thoughts including a reasonable but mildly tongue-in-cheek proposal regarding Monogamy in Christianity on my user page, where I hope to gradually develop some thoughts. See section "Do significant Wikipedia biases sometimes cause deletion or exclusion of appropriate content?" Also see my somewhat tongue-in-cheek comment in Talk:Monogamy in Christianity# Merge? regarding merging that "fork" from there to here. Anyway, I think that the massive amount of energy expended on trashing stuff seems to be exceeding the positive efforts needed to advance the "presentation of the sum of human knowledge." FeatherPluma (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not criticizing the content; that I think is pretty good. I think the article is just not ready for publication. I'm going to be bold and userfy it for you, OK? Bearian (talk)

Delete - If you want to talk about the evolutionary basis of monogamy we have Monogamous pairing in animals (which is an actual subject that needs some attention) as well as Animal sexual behaviour#Monogomy and of course Monogamy. If it's not the first two it's a fork of the third. It's clearly not a notable "subject" that isn't already encompassed by the ones I just listed. Shadowjams (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to point out that the poor shape this article in is a direct consequence, and a great example of the problem with having too many forks or tiny stylistic variations on the name of a single subject. The lack of focus on a single article means we have multiple not-very-good articles instead of one good or even featured article. Shadowjams (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see there's already a user page at User:FeatherPluma/Value of monogamy. There seem to be work done and to be done. What do we do now? Bearian (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable term,[1] the content of which should be dealt with by cleanup, not deletion or merging. -- Trevj (talk) 03:36, 20 February 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.