Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New relationship energy (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus to delete, defaulting to keep. There is substantial consensus, however, that the article has to be at the very least rewritten, and hopefully some of the keep !voters will take a stab at it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

New relationship energy
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No reliable sources have been provided since the first deletion nomination. Sources given are all from questionable sources, e.g. polyamory websites or books from publishers without a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Topic is a neologism, and is still non-notable. Discussion from the last nomination was skewed since notice of it was posted to polyamory discussion community on LiveJournal and members were asked to vote against the deletion nomination. Scarpy (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect – To here . I personally believe it is a  neologisms.  However, a small claim can be made that there has been enough coverage for Notability to be established in that the term has been covered by 3rd party – reliable –creditable and verifiable sources as shown here .  While Google Scholar only shows two hits, and one an unpublished thesis as shown here [], there have been a few books published covering the subject, as provided here .  Overall, as I mentioned above, there is enough information that someone can make a case.  However, I feel it would be better served with a merge/redirect to here  as it fits well in the research category of Polyamor and fleshes out the article.  Just my thoughts. ShoesssS Talk 23:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Having a look at the google news archive and google book results, there could be a small claim made for notability, but only as a neologism. They all document the term in more or less an anecdotal sense. There's no scientific or clinical definition of it established. This is evident by the large amount of original research in the "Related terms" section of the article comparing NRE to established language and concepts like limerence, puppy love and honeymoon. The only way this article could be written as anything another other than WP:OR is if it was just a list of anecdotes describing the subjective feelings described as "New Relationship Energy." -- Scarpy (talk) 02:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails as neologism and as OR. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - this article is certainly not original research. There may be an issue with the reliability of the sources, but there are plenty of sources that attest to the existence of this phrase and have significant enough coverage of it.  According to an unpublished doctoral dissertation for the Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality, "New Relationship Energy (NRE) was coined by Zahai Stewart in an Internet polyamory discussion group in 1993 to describe the overwhelming feelings of lust, emotional receptivity and easy connection that new lovers might experience. According to Stewart (2002), (RS?) “people seem ever so much more compatible, interesting and clever while in the throes of NRE.”--Michael WhiteT&middot;C 20:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as a neologism. Could be redirected, but infatuation and limerence would seem a bit original research.  Google scholar turns up ["new relationship energy" 10 hits, several of which are unrelated to polyamory and I don't see any discussions, just mentions.  Straight-up google turns up 4K with wikipedia at the top - never a good sign.  WLU (talk) 02:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and rewrite: It reads like original research, but there seem to be a number of sources that report that this term is actually real. Perhaps it needs to be rewritten to make it more clear who coined this term, who uses and accepts this term, and what others think of the term so as to make it non-biased. — OranL (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

lunaverse (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite: This term is used on a very regular basis, in real life conversations, by a very large number of people within the subculture and related subcultures of polyamory. I've encountered it in real life far more often than online.  It differs from 'limerence' and 'infatuation' in several ways.  Both limerence and infatuation do not require reciprocation, whereas NRE requires a reciprocal relationship.  A lot is discussed in real life, as well as in a few books, about how to deal with NRE, for instance, how it affects current relationships, how it affects daily life, how to retain it for longer periods of time, etc.  There are a great many articles on cultural perceptions and topics which by nature have not been nor ever will be studied scientifically.  That does not discount their reality, nor their need to be researched by individuals using Wikipedia.  (Has any published scientific paper mentioned Emperor Palpatine, today's featured article?  Or Live Aid concerts, also listed on the front page today?)  The fact that it is subjectively experienced should also not discount it, otherwise we'd have to throw out a lot of articles related to lesser studied topics on emotions, parapsychology, dreams, trance states, drug use, etc.  We'd also have to toss out any unscientific references to any topic, or any reference to materials written before the objective, scientific age.  The article may need to be re-written to give it better context.  But this is a real term, real phenomenon, used frequently in real life, and is distinguishable from other similar terms and phenomenon.


 * 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.