- 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 Draftify. Moved to Draft:Bigamy (canon law). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Bigamy (canon law)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Bigamy (canon law) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I do not see the point of having a lenghty article which consists of an unedited copy-paste of a one century old source (the article of the Catholic Encyclopedia); if I wanted to read the Catholic Encyclopedia, I would read it online, not go to Wikipedia. Moreover, the article does not take into account the 1917 Code of Canon Law, nor the 1983 Code of Canon Law, nor the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, nor any source which is not the article of the Catholic Encyclopedia, be it older or more recent than said article. Veverve ( talk) 02:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Veverve ( talk) 02:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve ( talk) 02:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to Marriage in the Catholic Church. At the very least, WP:TNT should apply. While I agree with all points of your argument, the question before us should consist of whether bigamy in canon law is a notable topic worthy of coverage in the modern Wikipedia. I would think no, that it could be adequately covered under the aforementioned article, or perhaps if such an article should exist specifically on marriage in canon law. This topic is too narrow today to merit a standalone article. I really never hear the term mentioned in Catholic circles. Elizium23 ( talk) 02:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: WP:TNT. Would welcome a redirect as proposed in another comment, or a rewrite addressing noms issues. ~RAM ( talk) 08:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I do not see the point of this nomination. All our content is expected to be found elsewhere. By bringing topics into Wikipedia, there are mechanical advantages as the topics are then easier to access index and cross-link. And we are then able to update the topics to improve them by incorporating later changes and findings. This topic is no different and so our policy WP:ATD applies: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉( talk) 12:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- @ Andrew Davidson: in four years, no one improved the article drastically enough to make it something else than a copy-paste. Moreover, by experience I know that on such a niche subject of a niche subject (an obscure point of Catholic canon law, which is part of the niche of Christianity) today, 99% of the article as it was produced by the main contributor will always remain. Veverve ( talk) 14:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I do support using WP:TNT on this topic irregardless of notability. The original Catholic Encyclopedia article is outdated and can be found on Wikisource so why is there an exact copy on Wikipedia? Dronebogus ( talk) 13:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete I note an additional problem. It purports to deal with bigamy in Canon Law, but this term covers the legal systems of all Christian churches, and the article only deals with Roman Catholic Canon Law. PatGallacher ( talk) 20:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- @ PatGallacher: Canon law of the Catholic Church exists. Veverve ( talk) 20:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Very weak keep -- If kept, it should be as Bigamy in Catholic canon law. However, as pointed out it sets out the position in 1913, ignoring the rules of other churches and later developments. I suspect that with the topic split into multiple types of bigamy, no one has thought fit to try to improve it, as being too difficult. I looked at Bigamy and found another unsatisfactory article, as that lists the situation by country, but conflates bigamy with polygamy in its discussion of Muslim countries. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- Draftify (and apologies for throwing one more option on the pile). There is nothing inherently non-notable about the topic and there is potential for improvement. This could be turned into a broader and more useful
Bigamy in canon law article by massively pruning the Catholic Encyclopedia material and adding other faith's positions. I don't see the TNT argument being applicable because TNT is for truly hopeless articles, while there is material here that could be improved with not a great deal of work.
Eggishorn
(talk)
(contrib) 16:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- @ Eggishorn: "massively pruning the Catholic Encyclopedia material and adding other faith's positions" – the term "canon law" is specific to Christianity. While some other religions do have developed systems of religious law, they generally use some other term to refer to it – e.g., Jewish religious law is called halacha, Islamic religious law is sharia, etc. Catholicism is not the only part of Christianity with canon law – the Orthodox churches also have a tradition of canon law, as do some of the more traditional Protestant churches (such as the Church of England). But, I don't see any need to remove details about Catholic canon law from the article, even historic Catholic canon law. We can add information on other Christian denominations without having to take away any information (even historical) about Catholicism. Mr248 ( talk) 01:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. The Catholic Encyclopedia text is too tendentious and too strongly bound to its Catholic POV to be suitable as a Wikipedia article, not even as a basis for improvement, so WP:TNT applies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per Veverve, this topic is so incredibly obscure that it’s highly unlikely it will ever be improved, and it’s not really notable enough to have an independent article anyway. Making it a redirect is also pointless because it’s not a likely search term. Dronebogus ( talk) 23:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Keep. Improvement has begun.95.149.135.141 ( talk) 16:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)- @ 95.149.135.141: what you have added so far is not directly related to bigamy in canon law. Veverve ( talk) 17:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. It has been a notable topic in the past. Bearian ( talk) 19:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment what does that even mean? Something is either notable or not notable; it can’t fade in and out of notability. Dronebogus ( talk) 22:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 14:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 14:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, or as a second choice draftify. As the nom indicates, the Catholic Church has rewritten its code of canon law twice since the Catholic Encyclopedia this article was taken from was published. The historical perspective is of some value but isn't of much use without the modern context. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The topic itself is notable – the topic of bigamy in Catholic canon law is notable; even the topic of bigamy in the old pre-1917/pre-1983 Catholic canon law is notable, and plenty of reliable sources will be found on that topic – although when dealing with older canon law, English sources are often lacking, with the most common sources being in Latin. Even if the question of what the Catholic Church's internal rules were prior to 1917 or 1983 is not very interesting or relevant to most people today, that doesn't make it unworthy of an article. An article on what the law used to be is just as Wikipedia-worthy as an article on what the law *is now*. The solution to this, is not to remove valid material on the pre-1983 law, but to add material covering the legal developments since 1917 and 1983.
Mr248 (
talk) 01:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- I think that's a better argument to draftify than to keep this article outright. Suppose that an article such as Grounds for divorce (United States) was based on copying a source from the 1910s with no later information. Such an article would be very misleading to readers, who might be able to figure out that the laws are different today but not be able to find out what the current laws are. It would be preferable to move this article to draftspace until it is updated to cover the present-day canon law on this issue, than to keep it in the mainspace and wait for someone to improve it. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- I could get behind draftifying this article. I think there’s a general consensus that it should not be in the mainspace in its current state, if nothing else. Dronebogus ( talk) 21:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 Draftify. Moved to Draft:Bigamy (canon law). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Bigamy (canon law)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Bigamy (canon law) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I do not see the point of having a lenghty article which consists of an unedited copy-paste of a one century old source (the article of the Catholic Encyclopedia); if I wanted to read the Catholic Encyclopedia, I would read it online, not go to Wikipedia. Moreover, the article does not take into account the 1917 Code of Canon Law, nor the 1983 Code of Canon Law, nor the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, nor any source which is not the article of the Catholic Encyclopedia, be it older or more recent than said article. Veverve ( talk) 02:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Veverve ( talk) 02:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve ( talk) 02:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to Marriage in the Catholic Church. At the very least, WP:TNT should apply. While I agree with all points of your argument, the question before us should consist of whether bigamy in canon law is a notable topic worthy of coverage in the modern Wikipedia. I would think no, that it could be adequately covered under the aforementioned article, or perhaps if such an article should exist specifically on marriage in canon law. This topic is too narrow today to merit a standalone article. I really never hear the term mentioned in Catholic circles. Elizium23 ( talk) 02:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: WP:TNT. Would welcome a redirect as proposed in another comment, or a rewrite addressing noms issues. ~RAM ( talk) 08:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I do not see the point of this nomination. All our content is expected to be found elsewhere. By bringing topics into Wikipedia, there are mechanical advantages as the topics are then easier to access index and cross-link. And we are then able to update the topics to improve them by incorporating later changes and findings. This topic is no different and so our policy WP:ATD applies: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉( talk) 12:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- @ Andrew Davidson: in four years, no one improved the article drastically enough to make it something else than a copy-paste. Moreover, by experience I know that on such a niche subject of a niche subject (an obscure point of Catholic canon law, which is part of the niche of Christianity) today, 99% of the article as it was produced by the main contributor will always remain. Veverve ( talk) 14:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I do support using WP:TNT on this topic irregardless of notability. The original Catholic Encyclopedia article is outdated and can be found on Wikisource so why is there an exact copy on Wikipedia? Dronebogus ( talk) 13:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete I note an additional problem. It purports to deal with bigamy in Canon Law, but this term covers the legal systems of all Christian churches, and the article only deals with Roman Catholic Canon Law. PatGallacher ( talk) 20:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- @ PatGallacher: Canon law of the Catholic Church exists. Veverve ( talk) 20:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Very weak keep -- If kept, it should be as Bigamy in Catholic canon law. However, as pointed out it sets out the position in 1913, ignoring the rules of other churches and later developments. I suspect that with the topic split into multiple types of bigamy, no one has thought fit to try to improve it, as being too difficult. I looked at Bigamy and found another unsatisfactory article, as that lists the situation by country, but conflates bigamy with polygamy in its discussion of Muslim countries. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- Draftify (and apologies for throwing one more option on the pile). There is nothing inherently non-notable about the topic and there is potential for improvement. This could be turned into a broader and more useful
Bigamy in canon law article by massively pruning the Catholic Encyclopedia material and adding other faith's positions. I don't see the TNT argument being applicable because TNT is for truly hopeless articles, while there is material here that could be improved with not a great deal of work.
Eggishorn
(talk)
(contrib) 16:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- @ Eggishorn: "massively pruning the Catholic Encyclopedia material and adding other faith's positions" – the term "canon law" is specific to Christianity. While some other religions do have developed systems of religious law, they generally use some other term to refer to it – e.g., Jewish religious law is called halacha, Islamic religious law is sharia, etc. Catholicism is not the only part of Christianity with canon law – the Orthodox churches also have a tradition of canon law, as do some of the more traditional Protestant churches (such as the Church of England). But, I don't see any need to remove details about Catholic canon law from the article, even historic Catholic canon law. We can add information on other Christian denominations without having to take away any information (even historical) about Catholicism. Mr248 ( talk) 01:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. The Catholic Encyclopedia text is too tendentious and too strongly bound to its Catholic POV to be suitable as a Wikipedia article, not even as a basis for improvement, so WP:TNT applies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per Veverve, this topic is so incredibly obscure that it’s highly unlikely it will ever be improved, and it’s not really notable enough to have an independent article anyway. Making it a redirect is also pointless because it’s not a likely search term. Dronebogus ( talk) 23:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Keep. Improvement has begun.95.149.135.141 ( talk) 16:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)- @ 95.149.135.141: what you have added so far is not directly related to bigamy in canon law. Veverve ( talk) 17:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. It has been a notable topic in the past. Bearian ( talk) 19:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment what does that even mean? Something is either notable or not notable; it can’t fade in and out of notability. Dronebogus ( talk) 22:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 14:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 14:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, or as a second choice draftify. As the nom indicates, the Catholic Church has rewritten its code of canon law twice since the Catholic Encyclopedia this article was taken from was published. The historical perspective is of some value but isn't of much use without the modern context. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The topic itself is notable – the topic of bigamy in Catholic canon law is notable; even the topic of bigamy in the old pre-1917/pre-1983 Catholic canon law is notable, and plenty of reliable sources will be found on that topic – although when dealing with older canon law, English sources are often lacking, with the most common sources being in Latin. Even if the question of what the Catholic Church's internal rules were prior to 1917 or 1983 is not very interesting or relevant to most people today, that doesn't make it unworthy of an article. An article on what the law used to be is just as Wikipedia-worthy as an article on what the law *is now*. The solution to this, is not to remove valid material on the pre-1983 law, but to add material covering the legal developments since 1917 and 1983.
Mr248 (
talk) 01:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- I think that's a better argument to draftify than to keep this article outright. Suppose that an article such as Grounds for divorce (United States) was based on copying a source from the 1910s with no later information. Such an article would be very misleading to readers, who might be able to figure out that the laws are different today but not be able to find out what the current laws are. It would be preferable to move this article to draftspace until it is updated to cover the present-day canon law on this issue, than to keep it in the mainspace and wait for someone to improve it. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- I could get behind draftifying this article. I think there’s a general consensus that it should not be in the mainspace in its current state, if nothing else. Dronebogus ( talk) 21:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- 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.