Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Childism


 * 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   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Childism

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Delete: The title seems to be a coinage of a single person and is not found elsewhere with any scholarly credibility. In addition, the topic of the article itself is not scholastically significant, its meaningful associations already described in articles on ageism, adultism, and pedophobia. Even the title is semantically inaccurate. (Discrimination of children would more accurately be called "anti-childism." Childism suggests the privileging of children, just as adultism is the privileging of adults.) Wolfdog (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "coinage of a single person and is not found elsewhere with any scholarly credibility" - It's used by many people, of course; I'm not sure what you mean - do you mean to imply that because one person invented the term we should not have an article about it? We don't need "scholarly credibility" for inclusion, we just need notability - see wp:NEO. But we have plenty of "scholarly credibility" anyway; a scholar.google.com search yields many results. As an example see . "topic of the article itself is not scholastically significant" - again, doesn't matter, but it seems "scholars" spend time on it in any case. "its meaningful associations already described in articles on ageism, adultism, and pedophobia" - this isn't an argument for deletion. However, if one of those articles describes "childism" in detail you could have Childism redirect to the appropriate section of that article. You don't need an afd for that. WRT Semantics - you might be right, I think, but once again, it doesn't matter: the term is used the way it is used and the article absolutely should use it the way it is used. Wikipedia doesn't fix things. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually a quick scan of the Google Books and Scholar search results linked above appears to show at least as much use of the word "childism" to mean taking a child's or child-like point of view, as to mean prejudice against children. The topic of this article should either be covered in the ageism article, of which topic it is a subset, or, if found notable enough for a separate article, under an unambiguous name such as prejudice against children. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete In the first place, the article is a single-sentence definition. In the second place, a Google search indicates that the term may be used in several very different and in fact contradictory meanings. The definition given here is one such meaning, namely prejudice against children, but it has also been used to mean promoting the interests and rights of children (comparable to feminism). I see the term as defined here has been added to Wiktionary but I wonder if that was wise, since there are other meanings and other usages besides the one listed here. In any case this is not an encyclopedic article, and as Phil Bridger suggests, if an article about prejudice against children is needed it should be better titled. --MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 20 December 2010 (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.