Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of youngest birth mothers


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

List of youngest birth mothers

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

We do not, have never had, and should never have, an article called List of victims of child sexual abuse. Why do we have these pages? It's encyclopedic to state "puberty starts at age ... on average, but in rare cases pregnancy has been known to occur at ages as low as..." But once it's established that a 6-year has given birth, what encyclopedic purpose is served by a long list of named 10-year-old children? Before anyone says "just remove the names, then", the names are still often one click away in the sources. These articles cannot be made compliant with WP:BLPNAME, and are WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:NOTNEWS regardless. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. In addition to the concerns brought up by nom, neither group seems to meet the requirements of WP:NLIST. Probably better off removed. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete As nom states, huge BLP issues with naming (or linking to sources naming) minors. LibStar (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete- Violates WP:NLIST and is entirely inappropriate and should not exist anywhere on the internet. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 01:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:GRATUITOUS as a list of underage rape victims won't add to people's understanding of topics like reproductive capacity or child sex abuse. Right now, it contains WP:BLPNAME content and will inevitably attract more BLP content. As LibStar says the issue of identifiable victims will persist even if the list is anonymized or pseudonymized, so long as it's sourced. Hard to see WP:INDISCRIMINATE as it's not a question of whether these cases are notable or cohere as a group, but there seems to be no encyclopedic purpose served by keeping it here. Oblivy (talk) 05:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Youngest mother redirects to list of youngest birth mothers. If the article is deleted, we should probably decide ahead of time whether we want to retarget the redirect to the person currently listed as the youngest confirmed mother, seeing as that person appears to be notable. This issue does not exist with the list of youngest birth fathers article, as youngest father is at present a WP:REDLINK and the person currently listed as the youngest confirmed father does not have a stand-alone article. TompaDompa (talk) 06:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * comment I don't think that redlink has anything to do with whether there's a BLP issue. See WP:MINORS which is an essay, but makes the case that naming underage people should be treated with utmost caution. Oblivy (talk) 07:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * One additional thought - looking again at youngest fathers, mathematically there don't seem to be any named individuals who are still under-18. But my point above about gratuitous still applies here. Oblivy (talk) 07:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You seem to be making a point that is orthogonal to the one I'm making, which is about what to do with the existing redirects. Youngest mother could be deleted or retargeted. Youngest father, on the other hand, cannot be deleted since it doesn't exist and is not a candidate for "retargeting" in the corresponding manner since it does not have a plausible target besides the list. TompaDompa (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I see your point now. Oblivy (talk) 10:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NLIST, WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NOTNP, WP:BLPNAME, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. CastJared (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Entirely inappropriate to have such lists, same reasoning as basically everyone above. Also not sure about the redirect issue: if the person is notable for this specifically, it could make sense, although it might not be great to have a redirect of a generic term to the specific person currently listed as that term, as these can change. Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * How about retargeting it to ? The youngest known case is listed there. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per CastJared; this list is unbefitting of any serious encyclopedia.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 21:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Created back in mid-May 2007 by now-long-gone (as one of her last submissions); perhaps WP:Missing Wikipedians may be interested? May have lasted 16 years on WP, but with much tighter site standards nowadays (cited above) and the controversial subject matter at hand...$No telling where/how else you'll find that after this debate.$ --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 03:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:TNT. I think in 2007, this would have passed AfD, but I think the consensus has changed so that we have deleted, for example, lots of articles about child actors and crime victims (as is here the case). Also, BLP has become a lot stricter in the intervening 16 years. Finally, the formatting is problematic and would require a total re-writing. I would not oppose a redirect. Bearian (talk) 14:24, 8 May 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.