Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On-again, off-again relationship


 * 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 keep.  Sandstein  08:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

On-again, off-again relationship

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a really shaky and poorly-written WP:DICDEF for a term which only seems to prevalent have use in tabloids and fictional books and not in regular society. The 'what links here' is limited to fictional characters and actors and public figures, and has likely been removed a countless number of times from the latter in many articles due to justifiable WP:BLP concerns. The first source is a dicdef of something else entirely, while #2 doesn't even use the term in full throughout the article. Every time I see it I hope that better sources have been found, but there hasn't been improvement that I've seen.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is poorly written but I feel that WP:DICDEF may not apply because of its notability as a common TV trope for couples in popular, long-running TV shows (Ross and Rachel, Carrie & Big, Sam & Diane, etc.). —МандичкаYO 😜 00:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Psychology Today is not a tabloid ("How Healthy Are On-Again/Off-Again Relationships?", "The Truth About On-Again, Off-Again Couples"). There are scholarly articles ("On-Again/Off-Again Dating Relationships: What Keeps Partners Coming Back?" in The Journal of Social Psychology, "A qualitative analysis of on-again/off-again romantic relationships: 'It’s up and down, all around'" in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships), articles by the BBC ("5 on-again, off-again celeb couples we truly can't keep up with"), the Huffington Post ("8 Great Things About On-Again/Off-Again Relationships"), etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Corrected to prevalent use in tabloids; certainly wasn't trying to call PT that by any means.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - I see no reason to delete but the article surely needs expansion and rewriting. An important article by the title, but the content is rather trashy. Redditaddict69 (talk) (cont)   02:12, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, then blow it up and start over. -- Molandfreak  (talk,   contribs,  email) 04:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Clarityfiend. Andrew D. (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. <i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i> (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per Clarityfiend. Then RW. --Theredproject (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Clarityfiend. With extra clarifications and cites. Jimthing (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.