Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Closed loop relationship

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. - Mailer Diablo 11:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Closed loop relationship

Neologism, between 14 - 30 relevant Google hits. Deprodded. Accurizer 18:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Neo/protologism, and smacks of original research. I was initial prodder. -- Merope 19:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Yup, WP:OR and neo indeed. Themindset 20:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• The article cites no sources. The only sources that I can find are the web site mentioned in the article and a New York Times article published on 2006-08-03, i.e. the day before yesterday. The NYT article only discusses the concept in relation to comments made by the author of the web site. There's an occurrence of "closed loop" in Michael Gallardo (2005-10-17). "When the Head Is Separated from the Body". Journal of Bisexuality 5: 131–138. ISSN 1529-9716. , but the abstract doesn't tell us whether this is relevant or not. There is one other source that describes a closed-loop relationship as simply synonymous with polyfidelity, not as this article describes it, but that source includes a lot of slang.

  This is a concept that has apparently, from what I can find, not yet gained traction in the rest of the world outside of its creator and promoter. Original research. Delete. Uncle G 11:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This article needs to be expanded and made more meaty. If something is mentioned and discussed in an academic journal, we cannot classify it a neologism. The article in question goes into more detail about the relationships and their impact. We should not use google as a tool for deciding whether or not knowledge is encyclopaedic, and those who would delete this page should at least go through the trouble of reading the issue of the journal in question. CaveatLector^Talk 19:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What academic journal is it mentioned and discussed in? Neither you nor the article have cited one. Are you being confused by the fact that I found a mere occurrence of the phrase "closed loop" in a journal article? That doesn't mean that the article is even about this subject. Uncle G 19:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Forgive me, but I felt I had seen the citation from the Journal of Bisexuality in the article itself. However, its in your comments. It's rather interesting, because the paragraph that consists of the article here is actually directly lifted from the article. We should insert the citation note accordingly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CaveatLector (talk • contribs) 2006-08-05 21:21:46 (UTC)
      • Actually, the text is directly lifted from the description of the Yahoo! Groups group, that appears to be directly associated with the web site mentioned above, rather than independent of it. Uncle G 12:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Actually, the Yahoo! Groups text would therefore be lifted from the article from the Journal of Bisexuality, considering that I actually took the time to go and read the article. Perhaps you should do that as well before continuing this discussion. CaveatLector^Talk 22:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment One article = original research. Accurizer 14:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Comment The WP:OR page says no such thing, and the very notion is quite ridiculous. Not sure where you got it from. CaveatLector^Talk 22:34, 10 August 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.