Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polyamory

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 of the debate was SPEEDY KEEP. The result on this one is going to be obvious, and this is clearly a subject on which an encyclopedic article can be written. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polyamory

Creating AfD page requested by anonymous user User:69.14.93.161 on the Article for Creation page. Stated reason for nomination: "Please consider this article for deletion. The text of the article states that polyamory is a neologism, and as such it is not appropriate for wikipedia. Additionally, the article makes several assertions which are either opinion or not backed up with factual citations, categorizing it as original research." In creating this page, I express no opinion on the nomination. Kickaha Ota 04:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm not sure whether the word "polyamory" still counts as a neologism, but the word is both included in some dictionaries [1] and has been mentioned in mainstream media (e.g., [2]). We are therefore not attempting to define a neologism - this has already been done, and we refer to the verifiable sources. Mdwh 04:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a notable topic and an acceptable article. The alt.polyamory newsgroup has been around a long time. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Not a fan of the lifestyle, but this is a massive article that is, if anything, overly sourced, and is a valuable part of the language, describing a fairly important human behavior. Captainktainer * Talk 04:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Discussion page on this article goes back 3 years. I think that satisfies the statute of limitations for a 'neologism' to still be neo. --DarkAudit 05:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Trying to assume good faith, but it's difficult here. Tag it as OR, but deleting it would be dumb. Danny Lilithborne 05:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and I echo Danny's concerns about the good faith of this nomination. (The anon's request, that is - I have no problem with Kickaha Ota's implementing that request.) --Calair 06:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep The external links alone indicate reasonable usage.--Kchase02 T 08:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Not a neologism. Books 1 - 100 with 947 pages on Polyamory which is a very high number for Google Books. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, does not appear to be a speedy candidate. Obviously worthwhile in any case. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, its a neologism in that the word was created in the past 30-some-odd years, however it is well-established, and, as noted above, is in dictionaries and the mainstream media. As Calair and Kickaha Ota said, I also have doubts about the good faith in this nomination. Granted, that's irrelevant, since as the vote stands now, the deletion will not happen. — Xoder|✆ 15:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Just for the record, I didn't express any comment on the appropriateness of the nomination; I'm not sure whether it's appropriate for an AfC reviewer to take advantage of the opportunity to get first licks in on the merits of the nomination while creating the page, so I decided that I won't do it when processing AfCs (though other reviewers may reasonably choose to comment). In any event, the outcome looks certain in this case. Kickaha Ota 17:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, recently added to the on-line dictionary at Merriam-Webster ( www.m-w.com ), dozens books listed on the subject at Amazon, there's a six-or-seven year old site of reviews of books on the subject at ( www.polychromatic.com ), etc. --Joe Decker 15:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a well-established lifestyle with plenty of documentation, books have been written about it, and the term was just added to Merriam-Webster. I also have doubts about the good faith of this nomination. --Bikergeek 15:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The word may be a neologism, but all words are neologisms at first, and it's not particularly new. More importantly, even if the word is new, the idea it represents is not. Izzycat 16:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all of the above. Artw 17:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all the above, though I reserve judgement on the good faith or lack thereof of the nominator. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all of the above. Polyamory has been pushed into the public eye a great deal recently but the concept has been around for a very long time. I withhold judgement on the good faith issue for the time being - as the article doesn't seem likely to be deleted at this time, anyway. --Growly 20:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all of the above. --Silverroses 21:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Reading through the article, there is a great deal of information that needs to be cited, and this article would likely be a great candidate for cleanup in that regard, but this article does not merit deletion per the deletion policy because the issues that it does have can be fixed by way of editing. Not only are there several forums and web sites that mention the term, but it is defined by Merriam-Webster and McGraw-Hill's “Understanding Human Sexuality”, 9^th Ed., and information on the subject is available from a number of other sources, as well. The concept is “new” in that it is not what one would consider to be a core word of the English language, but there are several such words in use and defined, consider bling-bling, google (as a transitive verb), and others. Most assuredly a keep article. —fd0man 21:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, "new" (but used by textbooks, researchers, etc.) word for an idea that is most definitely not new. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 00:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. It is obvious this nomination for deletion will fail; we should close it early. I would do so myself but my opinion is too strong on the merits of the existence of this article. moink 01:12, 10 July 2006 (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.