Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personal relationship skills


 * 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   delete. The argument that the selection of topics that are written about in this article constitutes original research by synthesis appears persuasive, and the "keep" opinions do not rebut it, with the exception of the opinion by VisitingPhilosopher, who however only provides sources for a small part of the content.  Sandstein  10:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Personal relationship skills

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an essay, not an encyclopedia article, based on WP:SYNTHESIS. . This should never have gotten out of AfC.  DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm inclined to agree with DGG.  It's highly cited, but it reads like a self-help essay. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete an unencylopedic article, per WP:NOTESSAY.  Alex discussion ★ 12:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with DGG's observation that this should never have gotten out of AfC, but it was not a single point of failure. It also passed a DYK nomination before it was [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_85&diff=519894948&oldid=519155922 reconsidered] and ultimately [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Personal_relationship_skills&oldid=519897065 rejected.] It does have a certain beguiling appeal, but if an encyclopedic article can be written for the topic (and I believe one could because there is a literature that addresses it), this is not that article. What we have here appears to be a sort of "portal page" rather than an encyclopedic article, i.e., it is a collection of annotated links to other articles. The "See also" sections of some of those articles already serve the navigational function adequately, and the annotations here do not constitute substantive encyclopedic coverage of the topic. The selection and organization of materials and the substance of the annotations appear to be a product of original synthesis. E.g. (1), headings such as "Kindness" and "Cheerfulness" appear to reflect an idiosyncratic or amorphous view of what is meant by a skill. E.g. (2), the article cites a corresponding [//en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Intimate_relationship_skills&oldid=1580653 article at Wikiquote], written by some of the same contributors, as an authority in the "History" section; but Wikiquote is not a citable source, and it is not even clear how some of these citations support statements in the article or pertain to the article's topic. (Cf. discussion at Wikiquote about dealing with amorphous synthesis of material related to the topic.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I checked the article and looked at the sources before coming here, after seeing a notice about the article on the pscychology project talk page. The sourcing here is terrible, and several of the statements in the article are not in agreement with the cited sources. I read deeply in the professional literature in psychology, and this is simply not an encyclopedic topic. In general, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, so this article really isn't written with Wikipedia in mind. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 05:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The voter above observes that an encyclopedic article could be written on this topic because the subject has such a large body of literature. I propose that the current article is reduced to a skeleton "stub" of such a proposed article.  The reasons which the article has passed several review stages before are to be found in the Talk archives of the page.  The Wikipedia list article criteria are to be the basis of the remodelled proposed page.  The list policy criteria are that several notable sources are available as citations for the list, all containing the skills list.  For example - "Discovering Psychology", fifth edition, Hockenbury.  This text book lists such skills as: Coping (P495-525), Communication (p287-291), Critical thinking (P17), Enhancing well-being (P616), Raising psychologically healthy children (411), Providing effective social support (P517).  I believe the skills which are perceived as "amorphous views" should have agreed notable terms identified instead of deletion. There is an objection to the current cross-links to wikiquote, these links can be replaced by the valid citation sources (as currently listed on wikiquote). ~ ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ talk ◊ contribs 01:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * If you plunge in and do that rewrite, and list yourself on the article talk page as a page-maintainer, you could bring me around to your point of view. Right now, the article isn't written for Wikipedia. I'm busy rewriting other articles in the scope of the psychology project, which is why I think deletion is the way to go for this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 05:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * As requested I have plunged in to start the re-write. Currently renamed amorphous terms to pyschology text book terms and reduced verbiage to one line or no explanation for each skill; moved various side-bars to the bottom "external links" section.  I have also listed myself as page maintainer.  Let me know if this is heading in the right track. ~ ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ talk ◊ contribs 02:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, please. It behooves the encyclopedia to give this article a chance. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 02:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have to agree with Ningauble. In a sense, this might have to be incubated some more, as right now it's so amorphous it might have to be blown up and started from scratch or redirected for now. The concept of such an article or "hub" is not bad, but it needs so much editing! Bearian (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Regarding the comment above - it appears to me the problem talked about is being corrected now, blown up and started again. Stylistically the article deviated from policy before.  Sticking to Wikipedia policies... The article qualifies as an article under Wikipedia list policy evidence link. The name of the article is appropriate to the Lead and is not a neologism evidence link. I see that the article now adheres to these policies: WP:HOWTO WP:VER WP:NPOV WP:N WP:NEO WP:SYN WP:ADVERT WP:ESSAY WP:OPINION WP:ORIG WP:LISTPURP WP:ENC WP:MOS WP:NOTPAPER WP:CITE WP:LEAD MOS:LAYOUT: evidence links. How did this happen?... Regarding the comments above over AfC, note the article is much changed since AfC. AfC reviewers worked hard on it (e.g., Sionk). I see that after AfC the article went through a 5 times expansion to qualify for a DyK. Those edits look like they came in after offline development evidence link. – I see the over-exuberance of that 5x expansion has been removed again (with the recent changes to the article). So the article is now heading back on track. If VisitingPhilosopher shows signs of continuing with the improvements and also patrolling the page, then I would vote for a strong keep.  -- CathMontgomery (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep and clean up/improve. I got one of those notifications about this AfD because CathMontgomery mentioned me in passing, above. AfC is only a first line of defence and editors should accept any article that stands a reasonable chance of surviving in the bear pit of Wikipedia's mainspace. In this case, the topic is clearly a notable one, much discussed and written about. The fact its structure and conclusions are questionable isn't a reason to delete it. Sionk (talk) 12:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact its structure and conclusions are questionable may be considered precisely what marks it as an essay of original synthesis. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

 transcluded from here The article is not a "howto" guide. There is no guide-like tone in any paragraph. All statements encompass universal themes, there are no verbs which are instructional. The style adheres strictly to simple, broad, statements of the encyclopedic facts. Examples of instructional verbs which are not valid on wikipedia: "Be positive", "Communicate", "Give presents". Any such instructional tone is not valid on wikipedia.
 * delete. No coherent content. Random original research. Besides, Wikipedia is not a HOWTO guide. Every human activity requires skills. What about Skiing skills, Playing chess skills, knack for improvising and zillions more? - Altenmann >t 03:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have already voted Keep above, so this is simply a comment here.  I tried to direct people to the talk archives via links above, but the current feedback on this page does not reference the dialog which has already taken place; so now I will paste the talk archive on each of the policy points raised above, so my education may continue here.  If other policy points are raised, please check the Talk archive first and point out any fallacies in the approach I have taken for each policy. This article is only my third article so I would like to learn as much as I can from the experts who are giving feedback on this forum.  Your help is much appreciated.

For "how-to" guides on this subject, see [http://www.wikihow.com/Improve-Your-Relationships] [www.wikihow.com/longdistance] etc. transcluded from here There is no original thought in the article. There are references to notable sources for all of the statements made in the article. With a reference for each sentence, this article is not in the nature of an essay. There are no original opinions in the article, notable referenced sources are linked to each sentence which appears to have an opinion. Therefore the article conforms to these policies, WP:ORIG WP:ESSAY WP:OPINION Secondary sources are used to show the people and organisations holding the opinions described in the article. The opinion sources are often provided with quotes, following this policy: "The main point is to help the reader and other editors." ~ policy source: help the reader end transclusions Please excuse the verbosity of these transclusions and feel free to delete them and just leave the links if they are not aesthetically pleasing. I am grasping at the opportunity to receive the best feedback, which has been of an extremely high calibre thus far. I personally believe the comment above about WP:OTHERCRAP strays off the remit of this discussion which should focus on this term and cataloging the literature on this exact subject, perhaps a more constructive suggestion would be to rename the article "History of relationship literature" or similar suggestion. But I caveat my interpretation of the AfD rules with the fact that this is my first AfD discussion and so I look forward to being educated in how these decisions are made. I will be very pleased if this debate results in a considered and defined criteria for this article. I received feedback that the article did not have enough substantive content, so I embarked on the expansion noted above. This expansion was reviewed and assessed by DyK reviewers. The expanded content then stayed in main space for over a year. Based on the advice above from WeijiBaikeBianji, and also others who support the article in principle, I attempted to redact the article, but now it has received the comment "No coherent content." I can't please all of the people all of the time. ~ ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ talk ◊ contribs 01:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - This 'article' falls into so many WP:NOT categories that it is too many to list. What I find the most problematic is the amount of loosely based synthesis of information and sources that as a topic it seems that this subtopic does exist but this article is too broad. While I understand the authors attempt to create a helpful article, Wikipedia is not a self-help relationship advice giving website. Also, to VisitingPhilosopher, I do not believe you have correctly applied some of the policies, guidelines, and essays you have linked as saying the article meets. Mkdw talk 05:44, 30 December 2013 (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.