Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of movies featuring May-December romances

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

List of movies featuring May-December romances
Delete. Dubious definition SD6-Agent 01:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC) Keep This type of list entry is of considerable value to screenwriters, aspiring screenwriters, critical theory students, film buffs, etc. The entry, however, could use some work, both in content and formatting. As far as "positive contributions to Wikipedia" -- Wiki is a reference tool. Wiki has at least 162 movie list entries, based on the category link in the article. How is this list entry less relevant than the other 161 film-list entries? David Hoag 05:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Kill it with fire. Redwolf24 01:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Set aside the issue of the slang in the title, the intro even says such romances are "ubiquitous" in pre-1950s movies... which makes the list nigh unmaintainable.  Beyond that, there's the issue of "What positive contribution does this make to Wikipedia?"  I believe the answer to that question is "none."  The Literate Engineer 05:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't believe any of the 162 film-list entries make a positive contribution. 162 articles that actually said something about 162 categorizations of movies would be a positive contribution.  162 lists, though, are just 162 wastes of server space.  The Literate Engineer 06:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree. Lists like this are valuable to film professionals. Comparative archetypes are very valuable, but it can take a long time to create such lists. There are actually books of "movie lists" used by film writers; however, those books are quickly outdated. A list of romantic comedies, for example, is arguably of greater value than a list of Oscar-winners. The latter is simply a laundry list. Wiki has episode lists for many popular television shows. Are they worthless or valuable? Wiki has lists of first basemen. Shortstops. Name the position in sports and there's a Wiki list for them. Is that worthless or valuable. Just because something may not be of interest or value to you doesn't mean it's not of value to someone else. I could care less about seeing a list of forty famous shortstops; however, that doesn't render the list of no value. David Hoag 06:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, useless and unmaintainable list. --Angr/undefined 05:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, makes a valuable contribution to wikipedia by enabling users to find movies featuring May-December romances. I can't believe how little deletionists seem to care the ability of people to actually use wikipedia for research. Kappa 06:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. See nothing wrong with this. Unwieldy length doesn't seem a valid reason for deletion. Agentsoo 10:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: For my part, I can't believe the eagerness of my learned friend Kappa (two votes above) to look on the bright side of any article. Look, if we're going to have an article like this with a metaphorical title, the need for an immediate explanation of that title should ring alarm bells -- a metaphor should help explanation, no? But OK, let's not argue against the notion of a year-cycle metaphor (or complain of "hemispherism"), but instead examine how it's applied. December: this isn't the coldest month in the northern hemisphere, but it's the one with the winter solstice, and all the leaves have been shed by many trees. When I think of a May-December romance, I think of the pneumatic Anna Nicole Smith and her wizened nonagenarian (Image:Anna_Nicole_and_hubby.JPG). In movie terms, I'll stretch that a bit and count Harold and Maude. But Roman Holiday? I suggest that one important issue might be whether the age difference is one that raises eyebrows (or worse) within the fantasy world of the movie itself: by contrast, when we coolly consider Cary Grant's late films, his successes with the chicks may seem somewhat surprising, but within the films, they don't. Lists of the usual are impossibly big; this must list the unusual. So what's the unusual factor here: age differences that raise other characters' hackles within the movies, or age differences that improbably don't even raise eyebrows within the movies, or something else again? At this point, I'm inclined to vote "delete", but I'd be happy to see and vote to keep a carefully rethought list. -- Hoary 10:25, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 10:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is the kind of list that can only happen on wikipedia :-) . Wikipedia is not paper. Kim Bruning 12:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It might come in useful...although Hoary is kind of right; but then it's not the list that may be up for deletion, but (some) of it's contents Lectonar 13:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but change the title to May-December romance, define and then list movies having that attribute. Mmmbeer 15:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per mmmbeer. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:45, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pintele Yid 18:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, mildly interesting although I am a little queasy about the possibility of a POV motive behind it. Do not like the title. I think the list ought to indicate the approximate ages of the characters involved. I want to put a stake in the ground saying that whatever the outcome we definitely do not need one hundred and thirty-one other articles on May-November romances, July-March romances, October-June romances, etc. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, unmaintainable list. If it's kept, someone please rename it. --Tothebarricades 20:05, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: First, it violates the naming convention, as we must use the most common name. Second, it is a list that cannot be maintained.  Third, it is inherently POV, which kills lists dead.  Why inherently POV?  Well, if I date a woman 10 years my junior, and I'm 40, is that May-December?  What if it's 20 years, and I'm 50?  What if it's 20, and I'm 30?  At what point is this a May-December relationship?  The metaphor refers to death's-edge and youth's-bloom (i.e. Harold and Maude), and yet the list gleefully flops all over.  I can never believe the inclusionist trolls who are so injuried in their personal egos that they cannot tolerate anyone asking for quality in articles.  Geogre 20:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If you're 30 and dating a woman 20 years your junior, you really need to get your judgement checked. --Carnildo 23:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV, unmaintainable list. --Carnildo 23:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: this is a list of films that feature relationships where one party is older than the other? What's the point in that? Although I agree that the topic might be worth discussion, a list is not, in this case, the correct way to go about it. Why does this list exist when we don't even have a May-December romance [it's a redirect] article? Flowerparty talk 23:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It probably needs to be cleaned up, but could be useful for research and discussion . Giddytrace 00:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment re name. Googling to see if I could find the origin of the phrase "May-December," I found www.maydecember.net, a "dating service for individuals seeking age-gap relationships." The home page shows... what would you say? A man in his seventies and a woman in her fifties? The slogan is (gack) "Years apart, coming together." Well, the Internet is always educational. So should this be moved to List of movies featuring age-gap relationships? You know, I don't believe I want to sign this comment... Not me, no way 02:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: arguably "May-December romances" is more in the common vernacular than "age-gap relationships." The latter sounds like a rather contortionistic euphemism. David Hoag 15:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, wikipedia is not toilet paper. And I thought from the title that a "May-December romance" meant a romance that lasted 8 months.  So this also has a stupid title, and therefore if it does (sadly) get kept (more listcruft), the title has to be changed. Proto t c 11:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to a less misleading definition, maybe like "age-gap relationships". --Vizcarra 22:13, 4 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.