Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quad (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 No Consensus. --VS ^talk 08:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quad (relationship)

Non-notable term, no external links or sources. KJS77 Join the Revolution 18:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of making the article. Give me a chance to create it. If thats the case why hasn't the article Triad (relationship) been deleted Lord Balin (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There, now I've added external links, and references. Lord Balin (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It really does seem improper to nominate an article for deletion fiften minutes after its creation and argue, even in part, that there aren't any sources establishing notability. If "quad" doesn't turn out to be a common enough term, we can still merge the content into a related article. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dicdef. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need to find sources before keeping an article. The glossary of the "Polyamory society" really doesn't cut it, even if that site is notable, mentioning in a glossary isn't useful, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. --Rividian (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and work on it. Ridiculous to delete this so early. If I were not often involved in trying to keep such articles I would simply close this as premature, and I urge some other admin to simply do so. It was nominated fourteen minutes after creation!. There should be several thousand references from ordinary literature to this, its not only something that occurs in extremely obscure circles. Triad is even more common of course, The formation of such relationship has undoubtedly also been discussed in psychological literature. Balin, Please follow up my hints for sources. It is perfectly true, as KJS said, that considerably more content is necessary. DGG (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are the sources? There might be thousands of sources about my cat, for all I know, but the argument that they might exist is worthless. core policy says we cannot have an article if sources aren't found... it doesn't say we can have one if people claim sources will be found one day. --Rividian (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Keep but merging content into polyamory or similar subjects may be preferable. (is this perhaps a sort of permutation of a love triangle?) Of significant help to the merit of this article would be the inclusion of famous literary or film portrayals, discussions of it's significance, and so forth. The reason love triangles deserve their own article is because of such things. philosofool (talk) 23:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWell what about the article Triad (relationship), and dozens of other articles just like it in Wikipedia...small articles to be sure, but kept articles nonetheless. Shall we delete all of them as well. As a member and editor of the WikiProject for Sex and Sexuality, and as a polyamorist, I wanted to expand on the article about triads relationships and create one about quads. And yes i am trying to find more info.Lord Balin (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you vote on your own article, and does it count? KJS77 Join the Revolution 00:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone and anyone can vote at AfD, whether or not their vote "counts" is supposed to be based on the strength of their arguments. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I say keep the article. There are many small articles, or stubs, that have few or no references, or external links. Should we get rid of them all? And no I don't really think this should be merged with Polyamory, if it gets expanded apon that is. User:Conron us (talk) 01:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If no sources can be found when requested, then yes. It's what our core content policy says, in no uncertain terms. --Rividian (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I cite the following articles as examples of articles without references: PolyFamilies and Threesome. Wikipedia is full of them, and we as editors should be trying to help by editing these articles.....not byt deleting brand new ones 15 minutes into there making.
  - They can't be truly improved in an encyclopedic way if references don't exist; articles exist to summarize already-existing sources. We aren't a publisher of original thought. I doubt "PolyFamilies" would survive an AFD, Threesome obviously would. But just because other unverifiable articles exist doesn't mean we have to allow infinite ones to be created. Again, I'm talking about a core policy here. --Rividian (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest this article be merged into Polyamory, that should settle things up.Lord Balin (talk) 03:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Agree with Lord Balin, should go in Polyamory. Sashaman (talk) 05:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources do exist (here's Salon.com for example). It may be that the term isn't the separate topic outside of Polyamory, in which case a Merge would be possible, however, nominating an article for deletion 15 minutes after it was created seems very, very hasty. Give it time, it can always be merged. --GRuban (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Casual mentions exist but are there any sources about the term, per WP:NEO? --Rividian (talk) 01:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't have to be about the term, it can be about the relationship, and there are certainly those, for example "Four better or four worse for marriage of four" Daily Telegraph. Give it some time, we can always merge to polyamory later, without the "find it now or die" pressure. Merging doesn't require an AfD, all we need to decide here is that deletion is inappropriate. --GRuban (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It can be improved in someone's userspace until there's evidence it's not a neologism. There's no reason this has to be an article until it's proved it's more than a dictionary definition. --Rividian (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More appropriate for a dictionary, plus I'm skeptical that this is a legitimate term rather than just slang. Also, to the author of the article: if you don't want your work to be deleted, cite it as you write it. You shouldn't make an article unless you already have sources, in which case you should cite those sources as soon as you create the article. --Mai Pen Rai (talk) 06:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the stuffy old telegraph has an article on it, i'm sure there will be others. deletion so soon after creation is unfriendly and not in the cooperative nature of WP. Let the appropriate talk pages decide on a merge or not, and if no improvment nominate for AfD in some months.Yobmod (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: here the Guardian national newspaper discuss it (using the term) [1], and polyamory sites explain it too [2]. Did anyone search for cites when they delete !voted?

- Did you not read where I said WP:NEO calls for sources about the term, rather than ones that just use it once or twice? --Rividian (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Isn't the second source "about the term"? And doesn't it's use in national newspapers hint that maybe it is an established term?Yobmod (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - My dear God in Heaven, did I wrong you Rividian in another life? Why this great and all seething desire to delete this simple little article. Lord Balin (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I take this stance on many neologism AFDs, this is not the first and it won't be last. The solution isn't to say I'm being mean and try to make me feel guilty, it's to show the article can be fixed. --Rividian (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - But why work so hard on AFDs at all?. I am a Yeoman Editor, and have been on Wikipedia since November 2005, have edited almost 5,600 articles, and created more then 50. I work exclusively on editing and correction, and not on deletion. That I leave up to the administrators. Lord Balin (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Because if an article violates policy, it must be deleted. May I ask if you are implying otherwise? –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - What does this have to do with anything? Either the article can be fixed to address the policy concerns or it can't. How much time you or I spend at AFD is irrelevant. --Rividian (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MergeI think both this article and Triad (relationship) should both be merged into Polyamory.Lord Balin (talk) 01:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.