Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limerence

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. John254 00:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Limerence

Limerence (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Neologism, Not Verifiable. Entire article based on one source of questionable reliability. Pianoguy (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. It's an established term, not a neologism. It's been fairly widely discussed in reputable journals. This is from The Observer [1] and this from Time magazine [2]. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - The article's pretty decent, though it could use a few more sources. But hey, (apparently) it was in Time magazine and The Observer, so I think that makes it verifiable and notable. And in any case I feel like deleting it would be a net lose for Wikipedia. -FrankTobia (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep — verifiable non-neologism based on numerous reliable sources ➥the Epopt (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• DeleteThe term is always used in connotation with the psychologist Dorothy Tennov, including both of the sources mentioned in the discussion above. The term is never used outside her books or a discussion of her books. As such, it certainly violates the original research clause, although it may not be a neologism. 4.229.171.89 (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keepThat's not what NOR means--it means we don't do OR here--it does not mean we can't report on OR done elsewhere and published. Personally, I think it's an elaborate way of saying nothing new at all, but if the sources take it seriously we need the article. DGG (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Established term with several reliable references. Jfire (talk) 07:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)\
• Keep. Despite association with one primary scholar, this is now an established term with definitions and substantive discussion available from independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 11:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as a term well-established by the mid-1980's when I was in college. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep It's a term I had heard about ten years ago from a psychologist and used in normal conversations to describe something very specific. 20:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.148.245 (talk)
• Strong Keep - deleting this article, like the above user says, would be a 'net lose for wikipedia'. this article describes a phenom. that most humans can relate to in a very deep and personal way. very informative and illuminating article... although, it of course, needs to be cleaned up.--Username22 (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This is (1) a great article, (2) has had significant work and contribution to it, (3) is well established, and (4) whoever suggested deletion is either a fool or is acting in malice and should have their authority lowered to avoid threats to other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.64.141 (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep-although this article has the flaw you mentioned, I believe that time will fix the problem, however deleting it, the problem and solution will never be addressed -- penubag  10:29, 14 January 2008 (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.