Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ground rules relationships


 * 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 USERFY. The article can't be kept, it's original research - the title term doesn't exist on Goggle outside of this article. Moving it to userspace will give all the benefits of a Delete without destroying it altogether. Herostratus 04:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ground rules relationships
Delete: An interesting, high-quality essay, but nevertheless an OR essay which should be published elsewhere and not on Wikipedia. The title itself does not even seem to have common currency, or be derived from any of the cited sources. mg e kelly 19:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Userify (or conditional delete if userify does not happen). There is a bunch of useful referenced material, and I believe reducing it to the referenced material might make a good article (or articles) that isn't OR, but I'm not sure what it would be about exactly. The reference section is a wealth of information that might be applicable to other articles. Therefore, I don't think it should remain as an article, but the work shouldn't be discarded either as it can be of benefit elsewhere. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 20:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Cut sharply, but keep There's enough referenced, NPOV material here to form an article, the problem is that it has a bunch of essay surrounding it.  Slap a POV tag on it and prune it down.  This doesn't need to be entirely deleted. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I can't understand how it is justifiable, even if it has non-OR content, for there to be an article which has a title which is itself OR, i.e. not a widely-recognised concept. As other editors suggest below, userification and/or integration of the factual elements into other articles seem to me to be the only appropriate course of action. mg e kelly 01:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Move to userspace ST47 23:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into interpersonal_relationship. There is a lot of cited stuff here but I don't know that this deserves its own article. Spoom - Talk 00:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a very complicated, vaguely specified merge you're proposing. It's inappropriate for an admin to have to do that much work to close an AfD.  Mango juice talk 15:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I am not suggesting that one admin do that as Wikipedia is collaborative by its nature. Putting Template:Merging would suffice.  I apologize if I'm being unclear though; to clarify, I would recommend cutting the article sharply as above for original research material, then merging the rest. Spoom - Talk 20:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is Wikipedia not How to Live Your Life. Mallanox 18:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, don't userfy, unless the author requests it after deletion. Don't merge either.  WP:NOT a soapbox.  Mango juice talk 15:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research -- Whpq 21:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, userfy on request. The original editor has made various contributions of high quality to Wikipedia, so clearly this is not a run-of-the-mill low-quality, low-notability article. I share the concerns about OR though. So while we can't keep this article in the article space Kc62301 (and those who want to participate) should get every chance to make this a NOR article when she returns from wikibreak. I don't see the alternative solutions offered above as feasible. ~ trialsanderrors 07:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: if the author is on a wikibreak, I don't think it's too much to ask the admin concerened to copy it to her namespace and leave a note on her talk page if, as I hope, it is deleted, IMHO. mg e kelly 07:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll leave that to the closing admin on how to handle it. ~ trialsanderrors 17:48, 29 August 2006 (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.