Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relationship maintenance


 * 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. MastCell Talk 18:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Relationship maintenance

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is simply a large essay, mostly OR, has no links to it, and would require a complete rewrite to make correct, if its even notable enough Jac16888 13:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR. --Hornet35 14:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete perhaps not OR, as there are a ton of references at the bottom, but it's written almost to imply that the majority of the article is a word-for-word copy of some of those sources: "In 1993, Kathryn Dindia and Daniel J. Canary presented four principles of Relational Maintenance:" ... "Canary and Stafford (1994) divided relationship maintenance behaviors into two distinct types:" and etc. This also seems like it's trying to give medical advice (relationship counseling could be considered a medical field; psychology, etc.), and even if it can't be interpreted that way, it's definitely written like a guidebook. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 14:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, essay. Realkyhick 17:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete. According to Wikipedia Original research (OR) "is unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories." This article uses quotes and citations from respected Communication Scientists and can be found in various professional and scientific journals. Relationship Maintenance is a valid theory (research originating back to the 1980s) that Communication Scientists use to help explain the forces that keep a relationship together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nate1055 (talk • contribs) 18:06, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete. The style of this article is not a guidebook. The purpose of this article is to present a Communication Theory. The authors do not write in a way that is in support or against the theory as it currently stands. Nor do the authors present any new research that is not covered in the governing references. The tone of this article is to present the theory of Relations Maintenance is an accurate and concise manner. The complaint that “it's written almost to imply that the majority of the article is a word-for-word copy of some of those sources” is inaccurate. The line between plagiarizing and reporting is very tenuous. The authors attempt to give credit due to the scientists who conducted the research and accurately report their findings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nate1055 (talk • contribs) 18:19, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.V.E.i. (talk • contribs) 19:36, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as complex copyvio from a variety of sources including and . Just try googling some of the sentences. DWaterson 23:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete. Noted on Copvio. Will make correct citation or will remove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nate1055 (talk • contribs) 12:41, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - you may not vote more than once. DWaterson 20:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, but this isn't a vote remember, heh. Although it should be noted that, they have made one edit on the article in question, plus these 3 here, thats it--Jac16888 20:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh alright, "assert an opinion on the matter in a voting-like manner" :-) DWaterson 17:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Not really trying to vote. I just want to show that there is some value to the page and want it to stay up. I am willing to respond and change to any criticism. The copyvio was correct and it has been changed. That does not change the value of the information. I believe the OR and Guidebook comments have been successfully addressed as well. If there are more specific comments, especially on the essay format or the way we speak, please point out some instances and I will change to meet Wikipedia's standards. Thanks for the feedback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nate1055 (talk • contribs) 10:50, August 29, 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 02:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. The article has changed substantially since the nomination, and looks encyclopedic now. At worst, this should be transwikied to Wikibooks, not deleted. utcursch | talk 06:06, 5 September 2007 (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.