Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of relationships with age disparity (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 of the debate was delete. Proto /// type  10:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

List of relationships with age disparity
Nominating again - First discussion was spammed by Inclusionist Wikipedians group. I want to hear REAL reasons and arguments for keeping this. I'm sick of excuses. There is no cutoff for notability or way this list can be completed. '''For God's sake, Wikipedia isn't the Entertainment Network, and it isn't a collection of lists! Kookykman| (t) e 18:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * First AfD: Articles for deletion/List of relationships with age disparity


 * Comment: I haven't actually decided if this article merits deletion, but upon reading it, it looks more like celebrity gossip than a list with relevant, encyclopedic content. I would think that the relevant information about those people's relationships would belong in the individual biography articles, not in a list.  --Elkman 18:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Supermarket tabloid stuff. Golfcam 18:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Again per nom. This list is strictly POV, since as noted before, anyone who's ever been married is with someone older or younger (by one second or 30 years).  If maintained strictly, therefore, it's a list of anyone who's been married (or perhaps just dated, since the article refers to "relationships").  If it's not maintained strictly, it immediately becomes arbitrary POV as to what's older or younger.  No indication this topic has any encyclopedic interest, just voyeurism.  Tychocat 18:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Indrian's nomination in the first AfD. GassyGuy 19:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Ardenn  19:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't particularly care for the reasons given for renomination, but really, disparity is "The condition or fact of being unequal" and virtually every relationship would meet that description, unless you can find a couple born at the same second on the same day (truly meant for each other).  Indiscriminate info. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Current criteria seem to be a difference of 5 years. That's not notable. Think about it, when someone 37 dates someone 32, is your first thought really "Wow, that should be in an encyclopedia"? AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This is informative and interesting enough to merit an article.--Josh 21:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Interesting or not, Wikipedia's not a collection of various sundry lists. Novelty, perhaps, but not worthy of inclusion here. Wildthing61476 21:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Any list that would include me (my wife is six years younger) is too trivial to keep. Fan1967 21:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete completely arbitrary and indiscriminate per WP:NOT; there are and have been many cultures where a sizable age difference between marriage partners would be expected, and its absence would be noteworthy. Informative and interesting are not reasons to keep an article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - otherwise can I do a list of people about the height different between people? --Charlesknight 21:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Interesting and informative list --rogerd 22:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Indiscriminate collection of celebrity trivia without clear inclusion criteria. Dr Zak 23:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per the excellent reasons given above. Agent 86 00:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not People magazine. Danny Lilithborne 01:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Although I originally voted for keep, I do not believe this can be saved in light of reading it again and the fact that no effort has been made to make it encyclopaedic. It is gossip in its present form and it will not change. SM247 My Talk  01:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete No doubt interesting to the people that made it, but this is the wrong site to post it to. Osomec 03:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per above; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per indiscriminate collection of information. What a boring list. MLA 06:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete just an impossible list--I don't see how it could possible be complete nor do I see how it could have a NPOV. Theshibboleth 11:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. All relationships have an age disparity. -- GWO
 * Comment: The observations that there's always an a disparity of age may only support that the article should be renamed "List of relationships with UNUSUALLY GREAT age disparity" (which may or may not be suitable for inclusion). Being unusual to the point of remarkable might make a subject worthy of inclusion; support from eg the list of giants at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantism#List_of_.22giants.22 ? although obviously the arbitrary nature of determining a cut-off point is problematic.
 * 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.