Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Age fabrication


 * 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 tending to "keep". Randykitty (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Age fabrication

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This is a procedural nomination after a deprod. The nominator is the IP address User:2600:100C:A208:620D:A417:16B0:EA3B:F5CE. The original PROD reason is This article has a numerous lack of reliable sources and BLP violations, including Original research. I nominated this as it had been added to the AfD list without a nomination being created and because the IP had reverted the deprod. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 22:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment from the AfD page creator: There is a broad-concept article here, IMO, but it's buried in being a list of entries. The topic seems notable, and we have several specialized articles and sections like Age fraud in association football—this can be an overview linking out to areas that cover it. Because of the nature of the topic, BLP is definitely a concern for anyone who wants to take this on. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 23:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable topic. If there are concerns about verification or the reliability of specific sources, tag them or improve them. Deletion is not cleanup. Jfire (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * How it the topic notable? There's not a single reference in the entire introduction section.
 * How can this article possibly meet the requirements of BLP? --Hipal (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not uncommon for a lead section to go without references if the contents are found elsewhere in the article. See MOS:LEADCITE. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 06:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * But the contents do not appear to be elsewhere in the article. --Hipal (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete The lede--and thus the article--is original research. There is no citation "Age fabrication is prevalent."  Fifty-three examples is not the same as a foundation reference on the topic.  Imagine if you saw a new article, "Popularity of red houses," supported by articles about a red house in Chicago, a red house in Hong Kong, and a red house in London, but no article about red houses in general. Rhadow (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's trivial to find sources that show this is a notable topic:
 * If there are some specific statements that are not supported by such sources, fine, tag or remove them. That doesn't invalidate the fact that there's a notable topic here, about which Wikipedia can survey and summarize what is said in reliable sources, as it does with every other article. Jfire (talk) 03:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Focusing on notability doesn't address the V, OR, and BLP problems. There may be evidence to have an article on a related topic, but I don't see how those refs help with this one. --Hipal (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "Age fabrication is prevalent" doesn't appear anywhere in the page. I'm not sure what Rhadow is referring to by quoting that. What are the actual V, OR, and BLP problems you see here? The living persons listed in the article are Charo, Traci Lords, Kangana Ranaut, Katie Redford, Katharine Ross, Anastacia, Paloma Faith, Toni Tennille, and Gary Hart. At the time the article was nominated, all had citations with the exception of Gary Hart; I just added a citation for him. Are you questioning whether age fabrication exists at all, or whether it's an encylopedic topic? Do you believe that that statements like "[Age fabrication] is usually done intention to garner privileges or status that would not otherwise be available to that person" is OR? Sure, it could use a citation, but it doesn't strike me as SYNTH or OR, certainly not something that justifies wholesale deletion of the article. Jfire (talk) 05:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * See Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive338, and the many concerns on the article talk page.
 * Briefly, what type of "age fabrication" is this article about? I don't know because there are no refs in the introduction to this list. Yes, I'm treating this as a list article given it's history and state. In order to meet BLP criteria, I agree with the concern on the talk page that "If they are going to be included, there has to be sourcing specifically saying they fabricated their age, not that it was misreported."
 * I also agree that "Rather than enumerating the hundreds of examples of age fabrication, we should be documenting the reasons why people take the decision (the ageism of Hollywood, competing in youth sports tournaments, marrying before the age of consent etc)" --Hipal (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Focusing on notability doesn't address the V, OR, and BLP problems. There may be evidence to have an article on a related topic, but I don't see how those refs help with this one. --Hipal (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "Age fabrication is prevalent" doesn't appear anywhere in the page. I'm not sure what Rhadow is referring to by quoting that. What are the actual V, OR, and BLP problems you see here? The living persons listed in the article are Charo, Traci Lords, Kangana Ranaut, Katie Redford, Katharine Ross, Anastacia, Paloma Faith, Toni Tennille, and Gary Hart. At the time the article was nominated, all had citations with the exception of Gary Hart; I just added a citation for him. Are you questioning whether age fabrication exists at all, or whether it's an encylopedic topic? Do you believe that that statements like "[Age fabrication] is usually done intention to garner privileges or status that would not otherwise be available to that person" is OR? Sure, it could use a citation, but it doesn't strike me as SYNTH or OR, certainly not something that justifies wholesale deletion of the article. Jfire (talk) 05:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * See Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive338, and the many concerns on the article talk page.
 * Briefly, what type of "age fabrication" is this article about? I don't know because there are no refs in the introduction to this list. Yes, I'm treating this as a list article given it's history and state. In order to meet BLP criteria, I agree with the concern on the talk page that "If they are going to be included, there has to be sourcing specifically saying they fabricated their age, not that it was misreported."
 * I also agree that "Rather than enumerating the hundreds of examples of age fabrication, we should be documenting the reasons why people take the decision (the ageism of Hollywood, competing in youth sports tournaments, marrying before the age of consent etc)" --Hipal (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: I'm seeing three somewhat different discussions going on. One about whether intentional misstatements of your age is a notable concept overall, one about whether we need a list of allegations of individuals who have done so, and yet another about whether this version of the article is (and can be) anything other than original research. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * delete - good example of original research and WP:SYNTH. Artem.G (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Move to draft for sourcing of the primary contention that age fabrication is itself a notable phenomenon, which it obviously is given the prevalence of fake IDs used to gain access to alcohol. BD2412  T 06:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep - All of the objections so far fall squarely into WP:SOFIXIT. The sourcing (and even the most cursory searches) show it's obviously notable, and the issues aren't all-encompassing enough to TNT. Strongly oppose moving an 18-year-old article to draftspace. If someone here wants to improve it, go for it. Moving an old article to draftspace without someone committing to improve it is just a deferred deletion, and if someone's going to commit to improving it, you can just do it in mainspace, right? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:35, 1 March 2023 (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.