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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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.
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)