Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obsessive love


 * 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 Argument on both side have some merit. Some in favor of deletion suggest OR, those in favor on inclusion suggested the concept has been studied extensively. Redirect/Merge are also viable there is no bias against that if sources are not added. Valoem  talk   contrib  06:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Obsessive love

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is discursive without any clear subject, and appears mostly to be some combination of WP:SYN and a WP:COATRACK to hang other things on. I've taken a look at trimming it, but found that if all the questionable sentences were to be eliminated, essentially nothing would be left. I'm not sure quite what should be done with this, but in its current state, I believe deletion would be an improvement, and I can't see any better options at the moment. -- The Anome (talk) 13:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It starts with the words "Obsessive love is a hypothetical state", but then fails to give any real information about what this hypothesized state might be, or who might have proposed this hypothesis.
 * Mentions mental illness, but does not use WP:MEDRS sources.
 * Lists a lengthy bibliography, but is entirely unferenced except just one mention of one author, without specifying a work, or a page reference or other more detailed citation.
 * At a quick glance, the bibliography appears to be made up mostly of popular-audience self-help books.
 * Comment-non-MEDRS sources is not a valid reason to delete an article. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep since many similar terms have their own articles, such as conjugal love and unrequited love. However, this article does need huge improvements in sourcing, which I can assist with doing once this discussion is cleared and if it does not get deleted. smileguy91talk - contribs 02:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * - I don't have a strong opinion at this point, but please note WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 05:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * - The essay does have a point; however, let me rephrase my earlier reasoning. I intended my argument as more on the point that the specific subject isn't already covered in any other article, and the deletion of this article would result in a hole in the coverage of the subject of love in general. Thanks very much for pointing that out though. smileguy91talk - contribs 05:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The arguments for both keep and merge are compelling, would benefit from more input.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep There are obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger with infatuation or limerence, which are much the same topic which is clearly notable as entire books are written about it. Determining the best title and structure for this is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion because AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 10:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge very selectively, if at all, and Redirect to infatuation, which looks to be talking about a similar subject. I'm sure there are small differences, but I'm not confident this article could be salvaged as it is and the distinctions are probably not enough to justify a stand-alone article. In addition to books that use the term, there need to be books that use the term in a way that's distinct from topics we cover under different names. At best this is WP:TNT as it purports far too much psychology without using books that meet our standards for content about health/mental health. It even makes arguments like "Although not categorized specifically under any specific mental diagnosis by the DSM IV, some people argue that obsessive love is considered to be a mental illness similar to "attachment disorder, borderline personality disorder, and erotomania". ??? That someone wrote that in a book does not mean we should be including it here. Especially when it's as horribly defined and explained as it is, that's problematic. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Having been written about for centuries, it's a distinct topic and there are good references. Wgat the article needs is expansion.  DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is a start class article that is referenced differently than other articles. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Looks like 100% WP:OR, with sources like that on a different subject. I rarely vote "delete", but that is the one. My very best wishes (talk) 01:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to and if desired by editors merge with, Infatuation. Seems to be the same topic, see WP:CFORK.  Sandstein   10:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Onel 5969  TT me 12:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to infatuation. -- The Anome (talk) 13:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to infatuation.--Penbat (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect probably, but the current description is so vague that I can't tell if it should redirect to infatuation, limerence, Relationship obsessive–compulsive disorder (ROCD) or erotomania (all of which need major work btw). I just deleted a sentence on Obsessive love that said it should be "differentiated from relationship obsessive–compulsive disorder (ROCD) that commonly includes doubts regarding one's own feelings towards an intimate partner, preoccupation with the partner’s feelings towards oneself, doubts about the rightness of the relationship and preoccupation with the perceived flaws of the partner," because that was an inaccurate and unsourced definition of ROCD. It looks like it was based off the Wikipedia article ROCD which gives an equally poor, unsourced definition of ROCD. ROCD is just regular OCD where the intrusive thoughts (obsessions) have a relationship-oriented theme. I think that might be where Obsessive love fits best. It looks like there have been multiple unsuccessful attempts made to adequately source this article. I wasn't able to find anything that meets WP:MEDRS in my own search, which would be needed for the article's current tone. It seems to me that redirecting it makes sense since it's doubtful it can stand on its own. I'm also fine with deleting it completely. Permstrump (talk) 08:45, 14 December 2015 (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.