Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dating and marriage at Brigham Young University

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dating and marriage at Brigham Young University[edit]

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

This is an essay with highly dubious sourcing. None of the independent reliable sources used mention Brigham Young University in any way. Sources that do mention Brigham are either not independent or not reliable by any standard (for example, the title of a facebook group). I do not believe dating and marriage at this university is a notable article subject and most of the material seems to be wp:synthesis based on statistical data Yoenit (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or maybe redirect. It's basically redundant to the content at Student life at Brigham Young University#Culture, and I'm a bit skeptical that independent sources have really given this significant coverage, persay. Not that there isn't some research out there on this: [1][2]. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Wow, it is not just redundant, it is a direct copy of that section. If the article is kept in some form the attribution will need to be fixed. Redirecting it back is fine with me. Yoenit (talk) 07:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the only sources available are BYU publications, the relationship culture there hasn't received enough coverage to be notable in a general encyclopedia (as opposed to a hypothetical BYU Wiki, if one exists). Sourcing is also an issue, as nom points out. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Chadwick article showing in the footnotes is scholarly. Even if not fully independent, it should be regarded as close enough for our purposes, it is not a self-serving commercial assertion from a company website, which is the intent of the "independent" requirement. The piece here feels like an original essay, however. Close call. Carrite (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's THE PDF of the Chadwick et al. article, by the way... Carrite (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- The problem isn't that it's promotional in some way, but rather that publications devoted specifically to events on their college campus can't generally attest worldwide notability. Ie. a school newspaper might often discuss a particular a cappella group, which nonetheless is probably completely unknown outside the campus. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In my estimation this is a notable topic, the same as Dating and marriage at Bob Jones University would probably be. Carrite (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Mark Arsten already gives evidence of significant coverage of this topic in not one, but two books: Davis et al., Contemporary Marriage and Schuman, Seeing the Light. This article needs work, but the topic is pretty clearly encyclopedia-worthy. Carrite (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dunno, these two seem rather trivial. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks more like "substantial" coverage to me. Carrite (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I tend to think that those two are not enough coverage for a stand-alone article, but enough to justify a section in a related article. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wouldn't consider Dating and marriage at Bob Jones University to be notable either. To me, this article has the vague feel of a hit piece. --Yaush (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that could be sourced out, no doubt about it. Carrite (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:37, 5 October 2011 (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.