Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Age disparity in sexual relationships (2nd nomination)


 * 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. AfD is not cleanup. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Age disparity in sexual relationships

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable phenomenon lacking significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. This article has been a mess for years, consisting primarily of sexual slang terms sourced to unreliable online "dictionaries." The rest of the article collects unsourced original research and a couple of references to reputable news organizations that fail to establish a case for "age disparity in sexual relationships" as a notable societal phenomenon differentiable from human sexuality. Uncle Dick (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a notable and important topic. I agree that the list of slang terms is trash, but I'd guess they are there to avoid each having its own article. WP is not perfect, even less so with anything involving sex.Wolfview (talk) 05:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:UGLY and Wolfview. This is a notable topic - just ask Ashton Kutcher or Joan Collins - and it's not unsurmountable to correct the problems listed in the nom. moreno oso (talk) 05:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Article fails WP:N, fails WP:V, and fails WP:NOR in the form of synthesis. The article has no sources at all about the topic as a whole. The few sources that are there are popular press articles or dictionary entries about one or another of the listed slang terms. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Additional note: ... or change to a list article per Dream Focus' suggestion below, something like List of slang terms for age disparite sexual relationships.  That's a good idea because as a list either the individual terms are notable and sourced well enough for inclusion, or not, but there would be no overall discussion of the idea of the terms as a single concept, which is where the problem of synthesis comes from in this article, since there are no sources for that content.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. An suitable article could be written on this topic, but i very much doubt that this article could evolve into that article due to current content. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  — P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 13:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. "Non notable"?! This topic was one of the primary subjects for much of the Romantic era literature for well over a century. There are better ways of dealing with a poorly written article than by deleting it. Owen&times;  &#9742;  17:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be better to summarize any relevant content at the article on Romanticism. As it stands, this article makes no claim for notability on the basis of its use as a literary trope. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The literary aspect is just one of many. I mentioned it because it should be easy to dig up plenty of references from there. Some aspects of this topic indeed relate to romanticism, but it doesn't belong there. Owen&times; &#9742;  20:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and rescue. Blatantly notable topic in popular culture for thousands of years. Bearian (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete but allow its re-creation in a different form, topic is notable, current content isn't, either way its a topic we should be covering in a way that we arent. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. I had !voted to delete in my comment above, because this current article is all synthesis, no references to the concept in general. There could be an article on this topic, as a couple of editors have noted - if it were rewritten from scratch using reliable sources, with the main idea of the article as a thesis supported by sources.   Maybe someone can come up with a new approach before the AfD is done, if so, that would solve the problem and I'd change my recommendation.  Otherwise, the current article should be deleted, because as it is now, there are no sources for the central concept, so if the non-sourced info is removed, there would be nothing left but a list of a few slang terms. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Ultra-Lite original essay intro followed by compendium of Urban Dictionary-style slang. Ugh. Carrite (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename it List of slang used for age disparity sexual relationships. Some of the terms have their own articles, and others are referenced already.   D r e a m Focus  09:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename per comment above. The term "cougar" especially is notable and common. There was even a recent study on it.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I added some info on two studies and a book. I do think the word "sexual" can be dropped from the title though.--NortyNort (Holla) 04:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable topic. But needs a lot of cleanup. Dew Kane (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, but seriously, the main part of the article shouldn't be slang words. There is legitimate encyclopedic content to be written for an article like this. Roscelese (talk) 04:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Topic has encyclopedic value given the societal trends of the last 2 decades. The proponent's rationale that the article has been a mess for years is just a variant of the to-be-avoided WP:RUBBISH mentality and, thus, a non-reason. If there is WP:Original Research in the article the correct procedure to follow is to be WP:BOLD and fix it; going on a delete frenzy is not the way to deal with that. A review of the sourced citations shows that a serious attempt has been made to include an abundant variety of reliable sources. I further note that the WikiProject Sexuality has assigned "Medium" importance to this article,,, not bad. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.
 * 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.