Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Companionate love

Companionate love was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was

Companionate love

 * Delete. Unless there is alot about this topic that is hidden somewhere, I don't think that this article has the potential to become encyclopedic.CB Droege 22:14, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Neologism, but seems to have at least some popular use. Neutral. Cool Hand Luke  03:41, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I've definitely heard this term in my a psych class I took (like from lecture and in the text book). So, keep, because I think its less neologism and more psych jargon. Posiduck 06:05, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - links to the article show some sort of need, but it's a stub right now. Krupo 07:29, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, cleanup &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  10:09, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clean up.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 22:21, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Clean up--Josiah 02:37, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment Before I vote.... wasn't there something called companionate marriage that was bruited about circa the 1920s or thereabouts? Hmmm... a quick Google makes it seem that this is a complicated topic. But it seems that I was thinking about Benjamin Barr Lindsey who wrote a book in 1927 called "The Companionate Marriage" which, click click, "he defined as 'a legal marriage, with legalized birth control, and with the right to divorce by mutual consent for childless couples, usually without payment of alimony'" Created a scandal at the time. I'm just babbling here and I don't really have time to think about this now, but we ought to have an article on companionate marriage and I don't know whether companionate love has any connection to it. Gotta look around some more before I vote. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 03:42, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Possibly just a neologism... for now the article is just a dicadef. Keep, for now, and clean up.  --L33tminion | (talk) 19:44, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * To wiktionary. I certainly see no reason to say that this is an invalid article, but unless someone can drudge up a shipload of stuff about the history of societal attitudes toward such feelings, and maybe some important examples of important historical figures, this will never be more than a dicdef, and should be moved to wikitionary.   &bull;  &rarr;  I&ntilde;g&oacute;lemo  &larr;&bull;  07:12, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up. "Companionate marriage" would be a better term, with several thousand Google hits, but this term also generates hits to articles in such locations as About.com. Those who claim it is a neologism or that it cannot be expanded beyond a dicdef have clearly not done their homework. Denni &#9775; 17:50, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)
 * Companionate Love (specifically, not companionate marriage) was a key term in my psychology and social psychology classes at the University of Florida. However, this entry does not define it very precisely. As a frequent reader, non-editer, I doubt that I have a vote, but in either case I would agree that it should be kept but cleaned up. For what its worth, I can vouch as a former psych major that this is a real psychology concept. regimeoftruth@hotmail.com Ryan Callahan 22:10, 7 Nov 2004

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.