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. Consensus is that this is WP:SYNTH.  Sandstein  09:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Same-sex guardianship

Same-sex guardianship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

This term (this topic) is made up and synthesizes unreferenced original research - meshing together situations that are not related to each other or the topic. Fails WP:N, GNG, and Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. An orphanage run by Catholic nuns is not "same-sex guardianship". This topic pretty much has the value of a wp:neologism ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 01:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment by the nom: This page was an apprpriate redirect back in 2008 to LGBT parenting ( [1]) which is pretty much what this topic means in the modern sense of the word. Then one editor has been repeatedly changing the redirect to an article. In July 2017 that editor created this as an article [2]. In early November 2017 the redirect was restored [3]. Then it was changed back to an article [4].

It was restored to redirect by another editor [5], changed back to an article [6], moved to User space as a an article draft to be worked on [7], Moved back to the mainspace [8], tagged as Original research [9]. And now we are at AfD. It was the same editor who kept resisting efforts to appropriately redirect or dratify. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 01:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply

For clarity's sake: the term that it was originally placed under (which had been a redirect to LGBT parenting) was same-sex parenting; the "guardianship" terminology was suggested by another editor hen trying to get it out of the same-sex parenting space. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 02:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - essentially an original research effort, this lumps together a disparate batch of child-rearing situations based on no source, so no sign that this form of grouping is significant. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 01:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply

I don't know of a source that actually combines these things together into one, and that is the only part of this that would be original. Psychological literature in published journals makes comparisons between gay or lesbian families and single parents to explore the issue of how a lack of a father or mother figure affects a child's development, and the two situations are in fact grouped together in order to explore that particular developmental issue. Studies on orphans and their development also exists and covers similar issues involving lack of a father or mother figure, although I don't know if there exists any particular study that compares them together with gay couples in the same place as can be found with studies on single parents.

The facts and details are not original, but they are easily found in published sources. OR synthesis is when a conclusion is being made in the article by combining facts that is not present in the original source. I would argue that the article has no conclusions in it other than the fact that these were forms of same-sex environments that raised children, which is a conclusion supported by the sources. The only thing that is original is the article is just listing them together in one category for reference sake, which is not a conclusion in itself. I don't think wiki's OR policy was designed to negate something like this. Perhaps I am wrong. Reesorville ( talk) 01:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply

"I don't know of a source that actually combines these things together into one, and that is the only part of this that would be original." Yet that is the core of the article. And even if you don't consider that OR, you've got the problem of lack of notability - the topic of these-things-lumped-together is something that you have no source for. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 02:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment I changed the redirect into a page in July 2017 without knowing that it was a problem for other links. The page existed for five months before someone deleted the content and changed it back without discussing on the talk page. I undid the reversion and asked that it be discussed on the talk page first. Then another user did the same thing without discussion, and I undid the reversion again and again asked for discussion on the talk page first. There was a tiny bit of discussion, before the page was deleted and put into some other category with a new name and then I republished it. Reesorville ( talk) 02:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply

I don't know if this helps, here is an abstract of an article that discusses the issue of children raised without a mother or father figure, that explicitly does compare same-sex couples with single parents: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121135904.htm Reesorville ( talk) 02:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply

The article being considered has nothing to do with single parents; they are not mentioned. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 02:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply

The fact that there are psychological sources that directly talk about whether or not a male or female parenting role model is necessary for a child's development, doesn't fulfill notability? The fact that there is a political/social debate about the same question, doesn't fulfill notability? The topic is notable; I think the text of the article doesn't need anything added to prove its own notability. The debate itself is not referenced anywhere in this article, however, because the sources have no mention of that debate and that would be an example of OR synthesis, but as it stands, the only conclusion the article is making is just that those are in fact examples of children being raised in a same sex environment, which is a conclusion supported by sources. I don't think that listing them should qualify as a conclusion. Reesorville ( talk) 03:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply

This article isn't about whether or not a male or female parenting role model is necessary for a child's development, so no, the fact that there are articles on that does not fulfill notability for this article. We could also have an article about all the various people named Andy, but that doesn't make "fact that people are named Andy" notable even if we can find plenty of articles about individuals named Andy; nor would it make trying to analyze them together appropriate. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 04:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply

The article doesn't need to be about that topic in order to be notable, but the existence of that topic is the reason why the subject of the article is notable, since that topic is directly related to the content of the article. Reesorville ( talk) 08:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete or restore redirect. Blatant OR. Incidentally, do we have an article on the practice of one partner adopting another in order to create some kind of legal relationship in the absence of marriage? [10] – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 19:35, 10 November 2017 (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.