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. I believe that the Keep voters have convincingly demonstrated that the concept is covered in reliable sources and deserves to be covered somewhere on Wikipedia. However, there isn't full agreement on exactly where this concept should be covered. Many different merge/redirect targets were proposed, and others argued that it should remain in its own standalone article. In the end, no clear consensus emerged on where this content should reside, therefore it defaults to staying where it is for the moment. It should be noted that the content at Anarchism and issues related to love and sex#Relationship anarchy is currently an exact copy of the content of this article, so something should be done about that soon. I'd encourage further discussion on the article's talk page about the best place to host the content of this article instead of starting more AfDs, because it seems clear that there is consensus for this content to appear somewhere on WP. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship anarchy

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Relationship anarchy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Multiple times this article is redirected at sexual identity however no discussion has brought so here it is. Does this deserves moving? YT0 ☎ (she/ey) 20:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. YT0 ☎ (she/ey) 20:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. YT0 ☎ (she/ey) 20:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My main objection to the specific redirect that is that this is clearly not really a sexual identity at all. It is a type or structure of relationship that people of any sexual identity might, or might not, choose to adopt. This makes it qualitatively different from all the other identities listed in Sexual identity#Identities (even "sapiosexuality", which is utter nonsense but does at at least try to frame itself as if it were a sexual identity).
As for the references, not all of them are great but ref 2 is a whole published paper about this very subject and some of the others are OK too. There are other sources that could be used. In books, I quickly turned up this (fairly substantial coverage) and this (not as extensive but still something). In Scholar I quickly found this and this. I didn't look very hard to find this stuff and I'm sure that quite a bit more exists. Given that so much of the coverage comes from Sweden, I'd bet that somebody who speaks Swedish could turn up even more still. I'm not pretending that this is a major topic with mountains of scholarly coverage but there is clearly enough material to justify and support a short article. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note that Swedish Wikipedia has had an article on this topic since 2009 and there are articles in several other languages too, some more extensive than this one. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't consider any of those sources suitable for use in an encyclopedia. The Swedish article is sourced primarily to Dr Andie, a blog. The other links are dead. Then there's the term paper that cites the author's own bachelor's thesis (both unusable). The only source we have is doi:10.1177/1360780418811965, which does not give us more information that could be neatly summarized within another article, whether it's sexual identity or, alternatively, Non-monogamy#Terminology. Per your Google Book links, it would suffice to cover relationship anarchy as those sources did, as a proportional subtopic within consensual non-monogamy or polyamory. Your Scholar links are undergrad student papers—we do not permit those on Wikipedia, nevertheless as establishing independent notability. Every Google Scholar hit for relationsanarki that I could access similarly did not provide any substantial analysis with which we could justify a standalone article. czar 00:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If merge, where to?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There appears to be a consensus not to keep this article and to either merge or redirect, but there's no consensus on the target. Editors suggesting mergers or redirects should discuss the potential target more so as to obtain consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully more input can occur whereby a merge or redirect target can be more clearly discerned, and so a hopeful consensus can be achieved about whether to merge or redirect. North America1000 04:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Three editors named Non-monogamy#Terminology as satisfactory. And the term's already covered there so no need for merger. The other options are more of a stretch. czar 04:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: In the discussion, you have cited that link, another user has stated to redirect to the Non-monogamy article, and one other user has opined with a merge !vote. While you may feel that there is nothing to merge, another user feels differently, and I feel that more discussion is warranted so an actual consensus can be formed, if possible, rather than a "two against one" situation where one of the two for redirection discounts the opinion of the one for merging. I don't view that scenario as an actual consensus. Furthermore, three users have opined with keep !votes as well, although the first one is a bit on the weaker side in terms of evidence. North America1000 07:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is nearly that complicated. czar 14:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's fine, and I don't find it particularly complicated either. No offense intended, but you seem to be applying all of the weight of the discussion toward redirection, while downplaying or ignoring other commentary, in favor of your own point of view. This is not how consensus is formed on Wikipedia. You refer to the other potential outcomes as "a stretch", but this is a bit ambiguous. Ultimately, it is much more important for discussions to be closed accurately based upon a close inspection of the evidences presented, relative to various guidelines and policies, and based upon an accurate determination of WP:CONSENSUS, rather than siding with one "camp" or another and then performing an executive decision based upon personal preference. North America1000 16:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing by SPA you mean a sock puppet account, but I am amused to see that is none of the expansions listed at the linked page. If you did not mean that, then which of those expansions was intended? Vttale (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean sock puppet account. I should have linked WP:SPA. When you click on SPA the very first line says "On Wikipedia, SPA may refer to a single-purpose account." which is what i was referring to. A single purpose account is not the same as a sockpuppet. It is merely an account which seems to be focused almost exclusively on one article or area. It doesn't discount their opinion but is useful context Vanteloop (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Um what? I'm accused of being a "single purpose account" on the basis that I've been an infrequent contributor in recent years? That's not what the term means at all and I strongly resent that accusation. This seems like a deliberate attempt to discount my voice not for any valid reason, but instead simply because I voted in a way that the user happens to disagree with. Eivind Kjørstad (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also https://www.reddit.com/r/relationshipanarchy/comments/qlkwmy/wikipedia_has_flagged_ra_page_for_deletion/ czar 05:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not on the basis of being an infrequent contributor, on the basis the account has been used for a single purpose since January. I do not think you vote should be discounted and I have said as much in my original reply. I do think it is important context, especially given the canvasing that has gone on in regards to this article. Vanteloop (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would not describe either of those users as being SPAs. Neither account was recently created for the purpose of promoting a POV. They are both infrequent contributors who, while they may be less familiar with our specific policies than some, are clearly participating in the AfD process in good faith. I see no reason to discount their !votes. We let anybody !vote on AfDs, even IPs, excluding only those who are being intentionally disruptive. This is as it should be. Infrequent editors have a right to give an opinion on the odd occasion that they feel moved to give one.
I also see that Reddit thread as fairly benign by Reddit standards. The OP is clearly assuming bad faith in an unhelpful way but the people underneath (of which there are only a handful) don't seem to be buying that line. It has been up for 10 days now and it hasn't lead to an influx of angry SPAs. If it was an attempt to get a brigade going it seems that the RA people are level headed enough not to go along with it. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As i said above: 'It doesn't discount their opinion but is useful context'. I am not doubting the editors are voting in good faith neither have I argued that their votes should be discounted.
If the accounts were simply 'infrequent' accounts I would not have said anything - it's the fact that the only mainspace articles either account has edited since January (at time of original comment) have been this page. That's the 'important context' I referred to. Especially given the proof of canvasing we've seen from someone who is obviously aware of this discussion. Vanteloop (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See de facto merger for an illustration of the argument: diff. Pinging SmokeyJoe who was unsure about the target. — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:00, 17 November 2021 (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.
More