Talk:List of long marriages

Kiddie Rape a marrage?

The so called marriage of Karam Chand and Kartairi was nothing more than a rape of a little girl. This Indian rape marriage should not be listed as it promotes rape of children. No kiddie rape marriages from India should be listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.41.249 (talk) 04:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Add date of latest report and marital status at latest report

This list would be a lot more helpful with a couple of extra columns:

• Date of latest report
• Marital status at latest report (e.g. married/divorced/widowed/deceased) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.131.1 (talk) 08:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Changing the article's scope to be about list of people in long marriages

I discussed changing the article's scope with Sandstein, the admin who closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with the longest marriages (2nd nomination) as "delete", so that I could restore the list to mainspace in a form that does not violate Wikipedia:No original research ("the existing or proposed sources do not allow the creation of a verifiable, non-OR list of longest marriages"). I revised the article draft by changing the inclusion criteria from "marriages which have been reported as setting records for length" to "list of people in long marriages". I also added a background section about long marriages.

Pinging "keep" participants Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs), Dream Focus (talk · contribs), Lubbad85 (talk · contribs), Schetm (talk · contribs), and Doncram (talk · contribs). Do you have any suggestions or improvements to the draft we can make so that the article is less likely to be deleted if it is renominated for deletion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I moved the draft to mainspace. Cunard (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

How will this list be manageable? The criteria no longer even require that there be a record—simply that the marriage be long. The background section suggests that "long" could mean 50 years. Surely there are thousands of such marriages, if not tens of thousands. Pburka (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I have added the sentence "The list includes only people who have been married for at least 80 years" per my comment here. Currently, every single entry on that list meets this more restrictive inclusion criteria, which will keep the list manageable. Cunard (talk) 03:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• This is completely inappropriate. Getting the closing admin to say "I wouldn't personally mind if a different article were created", then recreating the same article with a different title, and pinging in all the keep !voters from the AFD is ... I can't see how anyone would think this appropriate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Note that no effort was made to comply with Sandstein's suggestion: this is the sum total of edits made to the article between when it was undeleted and draftified, and at no point was any attempt made to remove the OR and dodgy sourcing from the deleted article. This makes the above pinging of all the editors who said "keep the article in spite of the sourcing" and deliberately not pinging me and the other editors who had noted the bad sourcing seem all the fishier. When there is a consensus of the community to delete an article because of it's apparently-terminally-bad sourcing and, even despite leading questions, the closing admin noted that their reasoning had been based on the failure of the "keep" !voters to adequately address, in my view, the "delete" side's arguments that the existing or proposed sources do not allow the creation of a verifiable, non-OR list of longest marriages, you can't just say "Well, what if we restored all the poorly sourced contents and invite opinions from only those editors who already said they didn't care about the poor sourcing?" Might as well rectify the problem by pinging everyone else whose opinions were steamrolled by this somewhat slimy and backhanded action: @Newshunter12, Pburka, Slatersteven, The Blade of the Northern Lights, Randykitty, SportingFlyer, Reyk, and Mothman: Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• • Careful! Canvassing keep voters seems to always be OK, but counter-notifying delete voters is fraught with peril. Reyk _YO! 14:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but I didn't canvass you -- I asked for your opinions on your being steamrolled by this cloak-and-dagger, exclusionist behaviour that completely ignores our arguments in the original AFD -- the same way Cunard and the other "keep" !voters ignored them during the AFD. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I know that and I don't like this furtive behaviour either. But I've also learned that if there's anything this lot likes almost as much as unsourced trivia, it's hypocritical accusations. Reyk _YO! 14:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but then they appear to think it's hypocritical for me to accuse them of canvassing while in the same breath pinging a bunch of users who agree with me. If they like such hypocritical accusations, and they sincerely believe I was making a hypocritical accusation, then they should surely thank me for indulging them, shouldn't they? :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I fail to see any more reason to keep this, at the end of the day what is A "long marriage"? Its just an arbitrary number plucked out of the air, you might as well say 70 years or 100 years. Yes (by the way) pinging only a few selected edds is canvasing (that is to say the first instance, it is not canvasing to fill in the gaps).Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC) Lists are not (and should not be) a get around notability, if the subject is not notable enough for an article its doubtful they have a place on a list here either.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC) And as if to demonstrate this, source one "The present study involves a nonrandom sample of 351 couples who have been married 15 years or more.", so this tells us nothing about marriages over 80 years old.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Hijiri 88 Thank you for righting this underhanded move by keep voters to only notify themselves that this is back. I agree that it's entirely inappropriate to just recreate this article with a different title without really changing the true nature or scope of this article. Now that that dodgy list has been rightly removed, the present article is a complete joke. Wikipedia is not a marriage advice guide and this is just more WP:SYNTH. Do we need to go through a whole new AfD or is there a quicker way to undo this mess? Newshunter12 (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Technically, the new article is a junk stub on a loosely related topic. I don't think I could muster the motivation to actively !vote to delete it, since going to the effort of determining whether this topic is notable (essentially trying to prove a negative) is a lot harder than looking at the previous SYNTH disaster and saying we can't keep it. I don't know if anything can be done with this article to improve it beyond its current state; it could be boldly redirected, or speedied per G4 (the original article before I blanked the offending content was a blatant G4, and I have no problem with the garbage stub that exists now that I've "fixed it" being deleted -- if anyone does have a problem with it, they'd probably also have a problem with the fixing itself). If Cunard engages in any more disruption like the above (it's clear he had no intention of ever actually doing any more work in fixing the article, since he waited a week and apparently thought it was good enough to be moved back into the mainspace), the proper dispute resolution procedures should be followed. If you want to have a debate over whether "long marriages" is a notable topic, AFD is the place to go (that was not really debated, much less resolved, at the previous AFD), but I don't think I'll be joining you; I would support speedy-deleting this page or re-draftifying it, mind you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)