Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of relationships

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The result was Withdrawn per improvements. It's nice to see that every once in a blue moon, people who say "keep but improve" actually follow through on the "improve" part. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of relationships

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very small, almost content-free "outline". Content is fine at relationship and almost 100% redundant. I see no way to expand this without being redundant. It was pared down from a linkfarm in 2009 and almost entirely untouched since. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Delete.The Wiki is not a dictionary (WP:NOT). Nor does the article provide verifiable (WP:VERIFY) sources of reference and or citation. The article appears to be original research of little notability (WP:N). An online search for the topic shows scant material on the subject nor does it appear to be obscure information of notability. This stub (WP:STUB) has remained relatively the same since 2008 (local date is June, 25, 2011). I would recommend WP:EAD :) . --User:Warrior777 (talk) 06:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The article has undergone extensive revision since it nomination for deletion by Transhumanist making its relevance more clear. In its original form it was vague at best [1]. I get it. The Wiki however is not an index but I'm sure the content might be included elsewhere.

Keep But rename to List of types of relationships. Obviously there is ample coverage about relationships. And this is a fine list article since it links to various other articles about relationships. Dream Focus 08:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Dream Focus 10:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - and please keep the title. This outline is part of the set of outlines at Portal:Contents/Outlines, one of Wikipedia's content navigation systems. The Transhumanist 09:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the outline has been overhauled. Here is what it looked like before. The Transhumanist 09:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the outline's scope includes all aspects of relationships. If the page is renamed, the content will most likely be altered to fit the title. That is, all the non-type sections would probably be removed by someone - those sections make up almost half the outline. The Transhumanist 09:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - I agree with Warrior77. it's not properly verified and doesn't look like it'll pass notability.Bread Ninja (talk) 10:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a navigation page. See Portal:Contents/Outlines. The subject is "relationships", which is obviously notable. The words "Outline of" aren't part of the subject, they are just a format designation, like "List of" or "Index of". It's not an article about an outline, it is an outline article, about relationships. Outlines are a type of list, the guidelines for which are presented in WP:LIST and WP:STAND. The Transhumanist 10:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per The Transhumanist - HIGHFIELDS (TALK • CONTRIBUTIONS) 12:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article has been substantially improved since the nom by editor The Transhumanist. This outline format seems a most excellent way to present wide fields of knowledge, making it far easier for our readers to navigate than alternatives like cats. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks like it was pretty bad before. Looks like it's not so bad now. Yay. Yaksar (let's chat) 23:35, 28 June 2011 (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.