Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relationship anarchy


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Relationship anarchy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable neologism. I'm not seeing anything in reliable sources about this; lots of blogs and forum hits, but nothing that could be considered reliable. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC) It may be a relatively new term, but I wouldn't say that it's non-notable. As for sources: Could this be considered reliable? http://sex.sagepub.com/content/13/6/748.full.pdf (page 763). George Makepeace (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - As either a non-notable neologism or something made up in one day, which is a less generous spin on the same idea. Carrite (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC) // Urban Dictionary is thattaway...> Striking my previous in the light of the cites by George Makepeace below. Moving opinion to Keep under GNG based on that. Carrite (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that could be, actually; good find. I'd say it takes more than one, but I see that there's another work using the term that's cited in that one; that might do the trick.  I don't have an opportunity to look at that at this moment, but I will, and the combination of the two might well be enough to get me to withdraw the AfD. Nice work! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! If it helps, I've also found some studies done by Jacob Strandell in 2012 and 2011. Unfortunately, the latter one, which is entirely about relationship anarchy, is written in Swedish. George Makepeace (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Non-English sources are acceptable if equivalent English sources are unavailable. Grandmartin11 (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's an undergraduate thesis on the topic, also coming out of Sweden. groupuscule (talk) 04:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems to be a neologism. There are probably already other articles about the same concept. Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean: You think that relationship anarchy is not distinct enough from polyamory to warrant a separate page? George Makepeace (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem to be. Although there is very limited evidence. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — Mike  moral  ♪♫  07:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep if better sources than a single blog can be found. As posted above there do seem to be professional publications using the term, so it is potentially notable. Lesion  ( talk ) 11:40, 4 July 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) 21:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)




 * Keep Relationship anarchy is not polyamory, it is distinct from that style of relationship. It is a relatively new term but is quickly gaining usage in the polyamory and fetish communities as a way to describe relationship styles that have previously had no clear description. It should be kept on the basis that at the moment there is no central repository for information about relationship anarchy and thus it can be hard to find out about. The ability to have a central article such as this, that can be expanded and added to by anyone, is of great importance when discussing concepts such as new relationship styles. As a practitioner of relationship anarchy myself, I cannot stress how helpful it would have been to have had this resource while I was learning about it. By having this article we also encourage more people to write about the subject and eventually will no longer be considered an underground movement. Much of the writing about Relationship Anarchy is currently in Swedish and therefore not accessible to English speakers. CharlotteM85 (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please review your motivations for wanting to keep the article, and ask yourself whether these correspond to Wikipedia's aims or represent your own personal interest. See, of possible relevance WP:COI and WP:ADVOCACY. Lesion  ( talk ) 18:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * While I have vested interest in this subject, there is no conflict. I believe that it is a legitimate inclusion alongside other relationship styles in a place that is a written compendium of knowledge. It could be a decade or more before it is included in academic discourse, yet there is much discussion on specialist interest sites of this practice. This practice has been happening for decades, but only recently have communities put a term on it via the internet. CharlotteM85 (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. A few academic sources were suggested above, but I assume you meant common usage of the term in academic publications. I think this article is potentially notable to stay and grow on wikipedia, but someone would need to use these better sources instead of the current blog that is used. If you are interested in this topic, please consider doing this as a lack of reliable sources is the main reason people are "voting" to delete it. Lesion  ( talk ) 18:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep We have two Swedish bachelor theses on the subject (Jacob Strandell, 2011; Ida Midnattssol, 2013) (non-English sources are acceptable), and an article mentioning the term on SAGE, amongst other things. George Makepeace (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - I find these citations to be compelling — this is indeed a term used in academic sociology. I stand corrected. Passes GNG, and an encyclopedic concept. Carrite (talk) 17:03, 19 July 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.