Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Ageism toward Adolescents, United States

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Although there are users who, in good faith, argue in favour of keeping this page, it cannot be overlooked that, as almost every delete-!voter has pointed out, WP:ESSAY only refers to essays on the subject of Wikipedia. To quote, who correctly sums up the relevant policy, general essays with little or no direct relevance to improving our encyclopedia are not appropriate. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Ageism toward Adolescents, United States


Essay is largely redundant to WP:Ageism. The essay is written more like an article than anything else. Alpha_Quadrant   (talk)  01:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This essay should not be deleted, since (a) it is not redundant to WP:Ageism but expresses the opposite point of view, and (b) expresses a distinct point of view with a wealth of scholarly references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmales (talk • contribs) 03:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete blatant soapboxing and misuse of Wikipedia project space. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Repeat: this essay, unlike the emotional, second-hand-sourced WP:Ageism that should be deleted, fits well within the standards of wiki essays, and is unusually carefully documented. Those asking for its deletion provide no scholarly reasons for doing so other than their own personal biases. I would be happy to respond to any specific challenge to this essay whem someone decides to provide one. Mmales (talk) 05:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Obvious soapboxing; the project space is not for this kind of thing.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 15:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep both these essays. They are just that, essays, and they put forward somewhat different POVs which is fine. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  20:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not an essay. It's a polemic, tl;dr soapbox rant full of personal opinion with virtually no connection to Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete-This is not a Wikipedia essay; rather, it is simply an essay on a topic simply using Wikipedia as a host.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, completely inappropriate for Wikipedia space. -- Klein zach  01:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As an aside, — Mmales (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete project space essays are meant to be entirely or mainly about Wikipedia. Apart from one paragraph in "Arguments based on convenience and tradition" where Wikipedia is used as an analogy this essay doesn't mention Wikipedia at all. Ageism doesn't suffer from this problem,, as it is mainly about how ageism issues apply to Wikipedia. Hut 8.5 18:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia welcomes essays on the subject of Wikipedia. General essays with little or no direct relevance to improving our encyclopedia are not appropriate. I'd advise Bduke to re-read WP:ESSAYS and indeed its counterpart WP:NOTESSAY. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * First let me say that I am not an adolescent, for from it as I am over 70. I do however think the question of how adolescents are treated is very important for us on wikipedia. There is the issue of whether they can fully assume the responsibilities of being an admin and there are legal issues. For example, my wikimedia chapter has had to say in its rules that people under 18 can not be an officer of the association or be on the committee, since the committee has certain legal responsibilities and adolescents can not by law assume those responsibilities. Since we do not ask people how old they on wikipedia, it is an issue that affects us more than almost any other activity. It is very much an issue of direct relevance to us. I am therefore prepared to allow more latitude than the guidelines you quote offer to encourage thinking among wikipedia editors on this issue. I welcome a wide choice of comments. Of course it would be better if they were improved to reflect more the wikipedia context, but that is not a reason to delete. So I am with ignore all rules on this one. -- Bduke    (Discussion)  20:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not an essay on ageism on Wikipedia: it is an essay on ageism in contemporary Unites States culture, which so happens to contain a single sentence which mentions Wikipedia as an example. A lot of people seem to forget that IAR is about ignoring rules which prevent one from improving the encyclopedia: allowing child rights activists to use Wikipedia as a free Web host does not improve our encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The notion that the author is motivated as a child rights activist is interesting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by that, please? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It means that it is possibly true and something I had not considered. I am starting to lean to "Substantially rewrite strictly focusing on relevance to Wikipedia, or move to http://youthfacts.org/ (the author's website)".  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You "had not considered" that an editor named "Mmales", whose main articlespace edits are to the article on youth activist Mike A. Males, might have some sort of iron in the fire here? I would consider this to be an elementary prerequisite to engaging in discussion here, let alone opining to keep the page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I did largely read the essay, and also its references, and I noted with the edit counter tool that the user account was created years ago and had several mainspace edits. Only recently did I review the mainspace and WP:Ageism edits, which made me think that he needs to be referred to WP:5P.  He should find the link in the welcome I've left him.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, largely based on the highly respected sentiments of Bduke. Where there is good faith and some relevance, we should not be so quick to delete.  While there are problems (poor focus on relevance to the project), it is an essay, and it has some relevance to the project.  Its relevance is as an informative background to Ageism, which is an important project-related subject.   should be advised to redirect its focus to project relevance.  It should speak in large part directly to the subject of Ageism at Wikipedia, or to criticism of the essay Ageism.  Userfication should be considered, though not a side-step to issues to relevance, but out of concern that this essay is not yet considered to be recommended reading.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Bduke and SmokeyJoe make a good case, but it's based on the idea that Wikipedia is all about social networking. We have to keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. 'Ignore all rules' doesn't imply 'Ignore the encyclopedia'. Keeping this particular page would establish a poor precedent. -- Klein zach  23:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it is not based in any way on the idea that Wikipedia is all about social networking. It is based on the idea that attitudes to adolescents is important to wikipedia and should be discussed here. That is very far from social networking. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  00:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Kleinzach, I do not see the social networking aspect. I cannot see how the Mmales might be gain social advantage from this essay.  If anything, I'd say "delete" due to being essentially unrelated to the project.  I don't, because it is not entirely unrelated to the project.  With regard to setting precedent, can I be clear that I don't support keeping it as is.  It needs to be focused on relevance to the project, preferably quickly.  I don't see this as an IAR case; I see it as a fixable problematic page with respect to certain rules.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I don't think either or you are addressing my encyclopedia point. Surely ageism should be covered by mainspace article(s) not Wikipedia essays. -- Klein zach  01:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * On my part, I don't think your WP:ENC point makes sense. But then I think WP:ENC is a particularly unhelpful essay in all cases except for the most obstinate problem users.  Some of WP:ENC's referred "nots" do have merit.  Your point that some of the content might have a place at ageism also may have merit.  I'd like to hear again from Bduke, and more so am hoping that Mmales will respond.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was not going to comment further, but since SmokeyJoe has asked me to, I will comment briefly. There are several issues here. The new emerging issue is that this essay contains material that could be in the article on ageism, or in a sub-article on ageism in the US. That is certainly a point and I would encourage the editor, as indeed SmokeyJoe has, to get familiar with WP practices and do that. However, it remains that ageism is a particular issue for wikipedia as I explained above. Age for example is often used as a reason to oppose giving someone the admin bit. I think we need to discuss this issue and more than one WP essay may be the way to do it. So I encourage editors to keep this essay but prune it down and improve it to deal with how broader issues of ageism affects WP. It is not either/or. We could have an essay with this title and and use material to improve one or more WP articles. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * When you say "based on the highly respected sentiments of Bduke", are you suggesting that Bduke's argument in this discussion is "highly respected"? Because "completely specious" would be my take on it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It was awkwardly put. Bduke's sentiments were a unexpected, but over the years I have only been impressed by his opinions.  I can't say exactly why, but I think respect for senior intelligent people is part of it.  The position is a bit out on a limb, but it feels like a bit of wisdom that is not entirely explained by knowledge.  I certainly can't agree with "specious".  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It’s hard to respond to criticism that my essay is too much like an article on one hand and too soapboxy on the other. None of those arguing for deletion criticized the scholarship or accuracy of the piece. Other than emotional insults, I’m still not sure why they want it deleted.

My essay was prompted by the posting of Ageism (here called the “first essay”), which began by arguing that when it comes to the age of a younger candidate to be an administrator at Wikipedia, “debates about ageism are a straw man tactic that distract [sic] us from this real question,” which is “are they [sic] mature enough to be an admin?” If that was the first author’s real point, he should have stopped there. Yes, individual qualities are more important than demographic categories. No responsible person argues that, say, men or certain races should not be administrators or authors because they belong to a demographic group with high rates of crime, traffic crashes, or other ills.

Unfortunately, the first author then goes on to spend 90% of his essay attacking adolescents for crime rates, traffic crashes, and other issues that have nothing to with whether a particular individual adolescent could serve as a responsible Wikipedia editor. The first article is poorly sourced, with Fox News and Washington Post cited for two key points, and sources for crime trends (which show dramatic declines among adolescents and peaks in young adulthood, not adolescent years). In the lengthy first article, there are at most two scholarly sources cited; the rest were either unreliable popular sources or did not support the first author’s assertions.

My response essay cited 43 sources, the large majority of which were scholarly, original source data, original research, and legal citations. Those who claim it’s redundant of the first essay, or that it’s just ranting or a polemic, clearly didn’t read either essay even superficially.

It is clear that the first author was using a trivial, easily resolvable Wikipedia issue as a launching pad for an unrelated, generalized attack on adolescents which had no relevance to Wikipedia. If the first essay’s generalized attack on adolescents is relevant to the project, then my generalized defense of adolescents would also be relevant. I don’t understand those who argue for deleting my essay but retaining the first essay, other than that they just don’t like what I said.

My response essay treated the only real Wikipedia issue raised in the first essay (whether the fear that editors would suffer more criticism for employing a young administrator than an older one). The only action I could further take, if adding it would help, would be: "My conclusions from this analysis suggest the first author was right: Wikipedia administrators should judge a candidate or author on his/her merits, not be distracted by debating his/her race, sex, ethnicity, age, or other demographic category." What other issues relating to Wikipedia are there cited in the first essay to address?

The second action would be to remove references to Wikipedia issues and turn this into an article focused specifically on Ageism in America. That would also be fine with me. I don’t think my essay would be at all controversial if I had been refuting arguments for racism or sexism, whether in Wikipedia administration or larger society. But I continue to argue that this essay raises points that are not found elsewhere, documents them carefully, and does not merit deletion. Mmales (talk) 04:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Mike. I think that it is a good idea for you to move most of your effort to mainspace articles.  I suggest that you start with the article Ageism.  That article is well sourced, but can you improve it?  You should look for advice at WP:COI, especially regarding the adding of references your own works, or anything you are personally associated with.  We are quick to removing anything that looks like promotion, and adding your own works as references can appear as promotion of your own works.  If in doubt, ask on the article talk page.  Starting an article at Ageism in America is not unreasonable, but I think you should first add some of the intended content to Ageism.  Ageism in America could be a spin-out article from Ageism, but duplication of content should be avoided.


 * In mainspace, you need to loose any concept of yourself "refuting". As an editor, you need to be impartial.  The aim is for the content to reflect what is already published.  Notions of "truth" sit ill with our mission.  See Verifiability, not truth.


 * You should probably steer away from altering project space documentation, including essays, until you are more familiar with our culture. Project space essays, those with begin with the prefix "Wikipedia:", are internal working documents for the refelction and learning of the community of editors.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm agreeable, but there's a larger problem here. The Ageism essay should first be deleted, as I have requested on its page and for the reasons stated above. I understand that project space essays are intended for the reflection of the editor community, and for that reason, this one-sided (and multi-flawed) first essay should not stand alone as the only source for editorial reflection on adolescent contributions to Wikipedia. Once this first essay is deleted, there would be no reason for my refutation in the project space. The generalized attack on adolescents as a group which is the sole purpose of Ageism has no relevance to the project, any more than an essay that argued that an administrator's, editor's, or contributor's race, gender, or ethnicity should be considered, as even its author appears to admit at the outset. I have no idea what the point of Ageism is other than to present unverified, negative assertions about adolescents. I am happy to then move my essay to the mainspace articles on ageism, remove its argumentative format, and work with the other points you made. But I don't think it is fair policy to permit the project space to be used to attack a demographic group while deleting the refutation of that attack. Mmales (talk) 06:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The problems with WP:Ageism are separate. You are welcome to nominate it for deletion.  You might try again to fix it.  Last time, I think your edits were reverted because you additions made it even less relevant to the project.  However, I suggest you should try to get some mainspace edits to stick before worrying about fixing or deleting project space essays.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Userfy or delete Inappropriate for projectspace. If author still wants it, he can keep it in userspace.  -- N  Y  Kevin  @011, i.e. 23:15, 29 October 2011 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.