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 No consensus. Johntex\^talk 02:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of relationships with age disparity[edit]

I have to admit, this one has me at a little bit of a loss. It appears to violate WP:NOT by being an indescriminate collection of information, as well as being unencyclopedic and impossible to ever make anything approaching complete thereby being POV in what it includes or leaves out. It is also POV and original research in the sense that the user who created the page created his own definition for what constitutes an age disparity (or at least does not cite a source for this definition). I believe that by nearly any measure this does not belong. Indrian 03:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to just hate the concept of lists. Lists aren't encyclopedic and were never meant to be, its just another tool for organizing the encyclopedic entries contained within Wikipedia. We use categories for the same purpose. Lists are almanacical, or almanac-like. Almanacs contains pages of information sorted by one of the variables. Since lists can be sorted by one of the variables they are inherently useful. I rarely use the index or footnotes in any of the books I read, but I don't call for them to be eliminated since they are useful to others. You seem to be confused and think that lists are not allowed in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:List. Lists have become so important to Wikipedia that there is now a featured list. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain more why you consider it "indescriminate"? It was written to be very discriminating and the inclusion criteria are listed and clear. Is it that you don't like the topic or are upset because you think that the entries are indescriminate. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your deliberate ignorance annoys me. If I hate lists so much, why have I contributed to several? Your assumption of me basing deletion decisions on likes or dislikes annoys me. I have stated how I believe this list violates several wikipedia policies, and you are violating wikipedia policy by not assuming good faith that this is in fact my motivation. You are free to disagree with my interpretation of the policies, but you cannot deny I am making a valid argument based on policy. You are being civil, so you are not rising to the level of a personal attack or anything so awful, but you are being impolite nonetheless, and I would appreciate it if you stuck to rational policy arguements rather than making value judgements and lecturing me. Oh, and if you had read Wikipedia:List, or more specifically, Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists), you would see that it is explained that the creator of a list on a slightly unusual topic should be prepared to justify it to the community. AfD is merely a way to reach that community. You need to not take the process so personally; I will certainly not if the majority votes to keep. Indrian 03:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course your choices for nomination are based on your likes and dislikes, as are mine. If there were objective criteria for deletion then the software would be able to detect what was worthy of deletion and nominate articles on its own. I did read Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) that is why I sent you the link. You cited WP:NOT as your rationale not Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). If your going to use Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) as your rationale, cite a passage in it, don't just throw the link back at me.

• Delete, per the well-argued reasoning of the nom (particularly the completely arbitrary criteria). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The inclusion criteria are very clear but also very arbitrary (why not 1/2+7?). Hence indiscriminate. ~ trialsanderrors 06:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So is every top 10 list and top 100 list. Is that really the best challenge you can come up with?

• Delete No useful information, or navigation potential from the list. It engages in a bit of "guilt by association" (by mixing adult-only relationships with adult/minor relationships). It has great potential for attacks on living people. It has no citations whatsoever, despite the nature of some entries. That seems to be a violation of policy. Here's a dubious example: "Woody Allen and Soon-Yi Previn, 35 years. She was his stepdaugher and 22 years". Now, to my knowledge, Woody was involved with Soon-Yi's mother (Mia), but was not legally married to Mia, and Soon-Yi was never a step-daughter. If she was his legal step-daughter, he would be guilty of a serious criminal offence. Further, there have been conflicting reports as to whether Soon-Yi's exact age is known. Now, my understanding of facts, may well be totally wrong. I would love to check the sources, to verify the information, but of course, no source is cited. --Rob 06:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a novel idea: click on the link and read the article. All the info comes from a source called Wikipedia. If you know there is an error ... correct it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RS, WP:V, WP:CITE, and especially WP:LIVING. Wikipedia can *not* use itself as a reference. That creates circular logic. Article X relies on Article Y, which relies on Article X. We need to rely on *external* reliable sources. It's not my obligation to fix articles screwed up by others. This article violates policy, and therefore needs to be deleted. I won't run and around and research every name on the list. That's a waste of time. It is essential to understand that the onus of proof is *always* on those wishing to add (or retain) information to verify it, and never on those challenging it (particularly so, with living persons). --Rob 06:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list, not a Wikipedia article. It lists the information within Wikipedia articles and sorts the data. It does not need its own external references because it doesn't include anything novel. Its a navagation device, like a table of contents, or an index. Adding sources would be redundant. Did you try clicking on a link as I suggested before? All the references you show, concern articles not lists. So, are you challenging the age of the individuals involved? or are you challenging my math in calculating the age disparity? What do you want referenced? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) .

• Keep. I thought it was an interesting subject for an article, and it's not like it's merely a list of name after name without useful information. As for indiscriminate, I agree the cut-off is somewhat arbitrary, but it could always be changed. David L Rattigan 07:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Charlesknight 08:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for much the same reasons as David L Rattigan. It does need some work, though. The formatting needs to be standardised. The final category "Less than 10 years" seems a bit pointless. It's open-ended, so presumably a relationship with an age disparity of only 6 months could go there. The smallest disparity currently shown is 6 years, hardly eyebrow-raising. I'd remove the final category, have a minimum disparity of 10 years as a criterion for inclusion, and rename the list "List of relationships with a significant age disparity" or something like that. But to remove the list altogether would be to decrease the sum of human knowledge about interesting things, and I could not possibly support that. JackofOz 08:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you go to edit the category of under 10 you see this "NOTE TO EDITORS: Please restrict to cases where one party is less than 18, or the woman is at least 5 years older than the man". It previously appeared in the text and was moved to the edit mode.

• Delete per nom. GassyGuy 09:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It seems to me that it is in keeping with the purpose of an encyclopaedia to organize information for the readers. The fact that the guidelines for selection are somewhat arbitrary is unavoidable. We run into that all the time when we discriminate between what is notable and what is not, and the criteria used in this article are analogous. Now I do not know whether the purpose of this article is best served by means of an article or by means of a category. But the accusations of "POV" and "OR" do not ring true to me. Would you say the same thing about an article on pornography? Haiduc 11:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think its an interesting subject. I do think the article needs some work done, however. The last category. "Between 10 and 5" needs to be removed; its not a big enough difference to warrant mentioning. --Geoffrey Gibson 12:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Yet another list with vague and arbitrary criteria governing what can/should be included in the list. Who determined the cutoff of 10/5? Strictly speaking... one spouse being 2 years older would be an age disparity. Where was it decided that it suddenly becomes encyclopedic once the 10/5 diparity was reached? Why different criteria for men and women? The guidelines are simply too arbitrary and are inherently POV and possibly constitute original reseach--Isotope23 12:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Tex 12:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unencyclopaedic listcruft, and a troll-magnet with the potential to get Wikipedia into legal trouble. Proto||type 13:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think it is interesting enough to keep. Bubba73 (talk), 13:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Delete, Delete. This is a completely bizarre article list that rests completly upon the editors' POV, violating WP:NPOV. Why ten years? Is there something vital about that age difference? Why not nine? Why not three? To top it all, it's misogynistic by reducing the difference if the female's older. Ugh.
  
  Not to mention the fact that "relationships" is a very broad term.' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 13:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What point of view? Its done using math I learned in grade school, subtract the little number away from the big one. Try it. Are you sure you know what "misogynistic" means? Is it misogynistic to keep seperate male and female lists for all the Olympic records? And finally the numer 10 is no more arbitrary than using 10 in top ten lists...you have to choose some number.

The point of view is that you hold AgeX-AgeY=DifferenceZ>10 to be of some signifiance and something worth noting. As for misogyny, it indicates discrimination and prejudice against women, although sexism is perhaps a better word in this context. Regardless, it is completely idiotic to lower the limit for women, simply because they're women. No, your stupid analogy has no bearing on this; separate Olympic records is due to differing physical ability which plays no part whatsoever in age disparity between married couples. And sign your comments, for God's sake. Four tildes, right by the 1/! and Tab keys, just like we learned in grade school! Try it~! ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 14:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), sign your posts with --~~~~ so people know who is making a point... and both of you need to take a breath and try to be more WP:CIVIL.--Isotope23 15:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete, for the love of God. All those voting keep: Explain how this list will be completed. -

Kookykman|(t)e

What list is ever complete? That's why we have an edit button. Aside from new entries, its almost complete already. Relationships listed in Wikipedia where somone is 10 years older are rare. If you know of one missed add it.

"Almost complete"? How? You've documented almost every person in the world with a spouse 20 years younger than them? - Kookykman|(t)e 16:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread the header to the list "where one person has an article in Wikipedia" Challenge: Find someone not includedand write back. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Tychocat 13:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete please. -- Hirudo 14:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. All relationships have an age disparity. Usually somewhere between 1 second and 80 years. -- GWO
• No Vote This AFD was spammed to my talk page for reasons that I still don't quite understand. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, per GWO. It's "List of <insert arbitrary criteria>"-cruft and celeb gossip. If you like this stuff, buy Hello! or Heat (magazine). They have crosswords in them too, and sex quizzes (so my gf tells me). Anything that occupies some of that free time, so that you don't get the idea to create articles like this. - Motor (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All that is needed is a few well chosen examples in a relevant article. Chicheley 16:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article is just all over the map with information that is suspect to say the least. Doesn't seem to be particuarly useful or constructive in any meaningful context. Also seems to me a magnet for gossip and rumors with little substance.--Auger Martel 16:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom - judgemental and POV. Agree with Motor - this is a list that belongs in the glossies. What's next, 'List of people with cellulite - they're just like us?' Pshh. GWO makes a good point - what's the criteria for a significant age disparity, anyway?! By the way, same situation as Hipocrite. Not sure where this user gets the idea that I'm an inclusionist. --^Triana_C 16:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment...ROFL, Classic ballot stuffing gone horribly awry. "...as an inclusionist, please take a side." I wonder which side he was hoping for?--Isotope23 19:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't give them any ideas... seriously "cellulite is an important cultural phenonemon and social taboo, and taboos are interesting to look at because they say something about the culture <continues>..." - Motor (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• *rolls eyes mightily* you know, if the Keep arguments were stronger, I might have been swayed. But I stick with my original comment. There are a lot of these weird lists here though; 'Entertainers who committed suicide in their 50s' is one I came across a few days ago. Bizarre to think that someone even found the time to categorise things like this. ^Triana_C 03:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The only violation of WP:LIST here is that the cutoff isn't defined, and there are no shortage of ways to solve this. The simplest might be to move the article to "List of relationships by age disparity" or some such thing. Also, it would probably be better to replace the word "relationship" with "romantic relationship" or even "marriage" (my mother and I have a relationship with a 25 year age disparity). If you're still concerned about having a glut of 1-5 year disparities at the bottom of the article, there's nothing that says we can't divide this by the decade, as in Category:Entertainers who died in their 20's, Category:Entertainers who died in their 30s. That way the boundaries are defined.

Frankly, I found this list both useful and interesting, although that's coming from someone who also finds Category:Entertainers who died in a road accident and List of suicides interesting. If you don't like celebrity articles, don't read them. I think this can be improved to the point where it will meet WP:LIST, as well as more general verifiability standards. --djrobgordon 16:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. What list is ever complete? So if a list isn't complete, you remove it? What a nonsensical reason. Concerning the title, yeah, you're technically correct; every single relationship has "age disparity" but I'm sure the authors and readers would be thinking along age disparities which are significant. User:Gareth Owen: A name change would remove your reason for voting – your vote is powerfully thought out. OK, you might be able to say that choosing how many years is significant is original research but a source could be found. A possible solution is to create "list of relationships with x years age disparity", now that removes any bias. If there is any sexism, big deal, remove it. Skinnyweed 16:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This list is nothing but a lawsuit and vast wasteland of unverifiable information. Not to mention the blatant solicitation for votes that the main objector has been spamming people with [1] all day. Not a good faith action in my book. Decent articles don't need to have votes solicited to be kept. They stand on their own merit. pschemp | talk 16:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• How can subtracting two numbers bring about a lawsuit? Any lobbying was for people to vote, not to support or condemn the article. What are you considering unverifiable, their ages? It comes directly from the Wikipedia article linked. If the ages are wrong correct them. My campaign for people to read the article and vote is no different than a "get out the vote" campaign in presidential politics. The dissemination of information is what Wikipedia is all about...right? If I violated a rule somewhere quote it to me. Lobbying and "get out the vote" is only restricted in votes for admin status, if I remember correctly.

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no issue of "lawsuit," or "unverifiable information" or "blatant solicitation" - This is how things get done here. Somebody who apparently has little clue about the above basic issues, and shows a lack of WP:AGF himself, should by no means be considered an authority on what constitutes a "decent article." -Ste|vertigo 17:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• What you call "get out the vote" efforts aimed primarily at garnering so-called "inclusionists" or "deletionists" to support your opinion may not be against any rules, but it is still tacky and shows an inherent weakness in your argument.--Isotope23 19:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:SPAM#Internal spamming: "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view." This AFD has been poisoned. I agree with another comment made further down this thread -- any "keeps" from editors brought here through spam should be discarded by the closing admins, unless they happen to make particularly compelling arguments... and that certainly hasn't happened yet.- Motor (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I stand corrected... apparently it is tacky and against the rule.--Isotope23 22:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Information is information. In this case, its with regard to Age disparity in sexual relationships--something of a social taboo. Taboos are interesting to look at, because they say something about the culture, and a list of prominent examples of the taboo arent any sort of violation. The only real problem with this article is that it doesnt link to Age disparity in sexual relationships and vice versa, which makes it appear to be a kind of topical orphan. Regards, -Ste|vertigo 17:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Article should distinguish between historical or important people and recent people. Its a bit disconcerting to scan from Deborah Caprioglio to Muhammad and Aisha. Its tacky to mix busty Italian movie stars with religious figures. -Ste|vertigo 18:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Or... take those historically important people and mention their relationships on Age disparity in sexual relationships, in relation to the time they lived and with reference to how it would be viewed today, making a really good article that discusses how the perception of age differences has changed through history and across different customs. But, naturally, that would mean losing the important "list" quality that makes for such excellent Wikipedia articles. - Motor (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Having detected both the sarcasm in your tone as well as how misplaced that tone is, I will simply agree with your agreement with my suggestion of separating historical examples from trivial ones. If that makes this article a study in triviality, then I would be the first to delete. Its not that bad actually. Im sure a list would work if it was integrated to the main article, but see no reason why a little redundancy is improper. -Ste|vertigo 19:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes... redundancy, triviality and celebrity gossip make for a wonderful combination in an encyclopedia article. - Motor (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If you want to start a jihad against trivial articles, be my guest. Start with Category:Actors, and get back to me if you need some ideas. This isnt about celebrity, its simply about a social phenomenon of age disparity, listing some "notable" examples without being too exclusive about who constitutes as "notable." You might also consider how, in the two years youve been editing here, how much your concept of an encyclopedia article has changed - since Britannica of course. -Ste|vertigo 01:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, actually I've been here three years. My view of people compiling lists of trivia with strange arbitrary criteria hasn't changed much... my attitude to getting involving in deleting it has. Can we stick to the subject? There already is an article about the "social phenomenon of age disparity"... you linked to it earlier and we discussed it. You don't seem to have added anything to your argument. - Motor (talk) 06:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Interesting enough, well-enough-organized, extensive enough, and doesn't duplicate an existing page. The existence of this article doesn't seem POV to me, nor do most of its entries. The article is not perfect (of course), but it can be edited and improved rather than deleted. Bob schwartz 18:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Also, this was... spammed, I suppose... to my own talk page as well. CameoAppearance 18:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Changed my mind and my vote, see below.[reply]
• Keep well-researched, useful, thoroughly encyclopedic list. Those voting delete should be ashamed of trying to destroy such excellent content.  Grue  18:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, should my shame at opining delete be greater or less than that of someone who is rendering an opinion here just because they were user talk spammed here in an attempt to garner sure-shot Keep opinions?--Isotope23 19:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, it's such a generic comment that it makes me suspect that he didn't even bother to read the article before voting. - Motor (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Funny, because I think the same about delete voters. They see the word "list" and their immediate reaction is OMG LISTCRUFT DELEET IT PLS!!!  Grue  08:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yet... oddly, the delete votes here are all backed up by good reasons, whereas your comment could have been generated by a script just from reading the title. You are one of the inclusionists that was spammed, aren't you? Unlike some of the others who showed good faith by disclosing that, or abstaining... you didn't feel the need to mention it at all. - Motor (talk) 08:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Grue is a frequent contributor at AfDs. While I disagree with Grue's view (but would be interested in Grue expanding on the reasoning), I don't doubt that it is genuine. Andjam 08:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I know he is... I've seen his comments enough. It doesn't change the fact that his comment was generic, made no reference to the article contents and was solicited. This is supposed to be a discussion about this article. - Motor (talk) 09:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It seems to me that it is a unique enough entry that badly needs some sort of discussion on the topic. I don't think it should be deleted, just modified, and perhaps have the list reduced as well. Apatomerus 19:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, another vote solicited from the Category:Inclusionist Wikipedians that is generic for "list related" articles. - Motor (talk) 09:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually, the topic is already discussed at Age disparity in sexual relationships if this is indeed kept it needs to be renamed to list of sexual relationships with age disparity & expanded by dropping the ridiculously arbitrary 10/5 year criteria that has been set for this list.--Isotope23 20:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have changed the excessively arbitrary criteria to a simpler and if anything overinclusive straight five-year cutoff. I have also added ((verify)), since it doesn't cite sources. Obviously it will be hard to complete, but not impossible, and in any case that's true of many lists. But it's definitely verifiable; also neutral (it no more expresses the POV that age discrepancies are interesting than the existence Age disparity in sexual relationships does: both assume that the reader may be interested in their content, and it's certainly verifiable that some people are); and isn't inherently original research as we define it. It's a perfectly reasonable organization of preexisting information.

  I will note that I came here because Mr. Norton contacted me on my talk page due to my self-categorization as a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians. I don't think that makes my opinion worthless, but it should be noted by the closing admin. See his contribs: he contacted somewhere around forty inclusionists. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a bit of devil's advocacy, but why don't you consider a 5-year cut-off to be excessively arbitrary criteria? Why not 4 years, 3 years, or 10 years? Why is 5 a magic number of years where an age difference suddenly becomes a "discrepancy"?--Isotope23 22:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not a magic number. It's picked for the sake of convenience. Alternatively, the article could be changed to List of articles by age disparity, and all marriages included, but it's unlikely that anyone is interested in even a five-year gap. It's just a nice round cutoff to approximately balance the competing interests of length/maintainability and usefulness. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep as valid almanac content, just interesting and non-indiscriminate enough after cleanup. But note that the talkspamming violates the WP:SPAM guideline, which says "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view". Accordingly, I submit that "Keep" votes by those so contacted should be discounted. Sandstein 21:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Sandstein 21:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But how do we know they weren't planning to come here anyway? Some certainly would have. JackofOz 23:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No vote Just noting (as I see others have) that I was spammed with a link to this debate.[2] —Mira 21:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Difficult to determine what is included, regardless of criteria. Difficult to maintain accurately. Not really encyclopedic. Also not keen on vote stacking behaviour and tendentious behaviour of key defender but that's no reason to delete, I'm just sayin.... Merge the key info somewhere but delete the list. ++Lar: t/c 21:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, interesting almanac type list, if is no more cruft-ish than other articles. And yes, he spammed me too, but I saw this before I got the spam, but wanted to refrain from commenting until some others had. --rogerd 22:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, It simply isn't useful and the criteria for inclusion are so arbitrary that it could not possilby be considered NPOV ever (I cited sexism on the article's talk age, but I agree that fundamentally it simply is not a workable list). Theshibboleth 23:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete The article has possibilities, but far too many problems to be a useful article. --Kerowyn 23:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep please this list has possibilities and is interesting too Yuckfoo 23:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete (or failing that, give it a severe pruning) Age disparities can be notable, for example with J. Howard Marshall and Anna Nicole Smith, or Muhammad and Aisha (the article on Aisha has a Aisha#Young_marriage_age_controversy section on her young marriage age. But most of the disparities are not noteable. Much of the article is original research, which states that original research includes "new analysis or synthesis of published data". Also, I doubt whether this list can be complete. As far as having "documented almost every person in the world with a spouse 20 years younger than them" (to quote Kookykman), Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is one of the most frequently mentioned people in the past few weeks, yet this list doesn't note that he's reported to have had sex with a 14-year-old wife when he was 38. But thanks for your invitation for me to "please take a side". Andjam 01:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Many of the arguments on this page are long-winded and redundant, so I shall endeavor not to do the same. This article is meant to educate the reader, and also to serve as a collection and congealing of knowledge and information spread among hundreds of other pages. Any argument about usefulness is as POV as anything else. The information included in the article is factual. If you have an issue with the facts, CORRECT THEM. If you don't like the 10/5 issue, make your opinion known, but don't vote for deletion. If every article was deleted from Wikipedia simply because it was in error, or someone disagreed with the design, layout, or information included, Wikipedia would be just another unheard of website. Socrates said that "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." This page, while not necessarily knowledge unto itself, is nonetheless a collection of information from diverse other places - just as Wikipedia itself is. Milton 03:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, user was wikispammed by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) because he is in Category:Inclusionist Wikipedians. See here. I'd also like to note that, almost like User:Grue's, it is virtually generic and makes only the most minor reference to the article contents. - Motor (talk) 08:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I apologize that I failed to diligently comment on every entry on the article. Perhaps a few copied and pasted samples will make it less generic? Maybe I should summarize a little? Or perhaps I should simply comment on your own diligent discarding of many keep votes as "generic and spam-oriented" as you have. That certainly isn't generic. Please don't turn this discussion page into a list of "very intelligent keep votes" and "generic and spammy delete votes." Milton 18:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you like... but when I comment on AFDs I read the article first, then I try very hard to find information... often going to considerable lengths... and then make my decision while listing what I did to justify that decision. At the very least, I recreate the work and reasoning of someone else and verify that what they have said is correct before stating my agreement with them. I don't respond to spam requests, and I don't use cut and pasted, pre-prepared speeches that quote ancient philosophers. Perhaps I'm working too hard to this "discussion" lark, but that's just me. - Motor (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to congratulate you on being original in that last comment, and also in forming your arguments. By not descending to baseless accusations and unsupported arguments, as many others on this page have, you've shown your genuine opinion. I read the article completely, and made my point thereafter, I assure you. --Milton 19:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you did... your detailed and accurate references to the article's content and use of quotes from ancient philosophers, just screams diligent and careful judgement of the material under discussion. The suspicion that you were WP:SPAMed as an inclusionist, showed up, copy and pasted an argument from a pre-prepared list, modified one line to include an argument that was mentioned in the discussion and posted it in an effort to add another "keep" vote and try to stalemate it all into a no-consensus is completely unfounded. Your follow up comments further show that you have given careful consideration to the material. You are a shining example of proper AFD conduct, and I urge others to examine your contributions and see for themselves. - Motor (talk) 07:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motor, yes my argument was pre-prepared, I admit: after reading both the article and the discussion on this page, I sat at my computer and took the time to organize my thoughts into an intelligible vote. Motor, I disagree with your assertion that Socrates doesn't matter since he lived so long ago. Thanks for your very kind comments about my AFD conduct, I was very surprised, after our recent discussion, that you would take the time to compliment my comments, and furthermore finally admit that your entire "Inclusionist spam means no vote" asininity is ridiculous. It means a lot. Have a good day, buddy.

• Who said Socrates "doesn't matter"? Accusing me of trolling because I point out certain inconvenient facts about the mass-spamming that happened, and conduct of some of the inclusioninsts summoned? And finally, there's still not a single point that is relevant to this article in any of your posts. No doubt the admin who closes AFD will still obediently headcount it though. So congratulations. - Motor (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I too was wikispammed by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Redneckgaijin 16:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. POV. The explanatory sentence starts out fine with "The older partner is listed first" but "followed by the magnitude of the disparity" smacks of sensationalism. "followed by age difference" would be less *gasp*like in tone. The explanation is effectively forgotten when the entry has "x was older" even though the older partner is listed first. Women are given almost three times the "was older" notation than men. I counted three with men, eight with women. That strikes me of the entertainment magazines trumpeting in surprise that the woman's older. And does 10-5 years really constitute a remarkable age disparity between two adults? ..Jaguara 06:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Given free reign, this list will eventually grow to encompass a staggeringly large fraction of humankind (or its notable subset), if we consider times and places in which age disparities have been normal. (I note in passing that I've had a relationship in which I was 5 years older, and another where I was 5 years younger. One of my Wikipedia axioms is that I Am Not Notable. [wink]) --Victor Lighthill 07:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Even though this article appears destined for no consensus keep, I feel that it needs to be stated that this list is just plain cruft. It's information, sure, but it's an indiscriminate collection of information. Aplomado ^talk 07:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This list can't make a good encyclopedia article, it will only ever be an arbitrary collection of notable people who happen to have dated somebody older or younger than them. --Robert Merkel 08:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While not exactly academic material, it seems a lot less trivial than many other articles. Haiduc 10:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, user's vote was solicited, and the comment is entirely generic. - Motor (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to be dragged into anyone's sparring, but neither am I going to accept being branded as a shill. I had already commented on this matter (see above) and only waited before voting to see what arguments were brought pro and con. My vote is the result of their consideration. Haiduc 10:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No-one branded you as anything... I merely pointed out the facts. Incidentally, your other comment was also entirely list generic with no reference to the content of this article (I encourage others to check for themselves). In addition, you also removed two of my comments from this talk page with no justification at all, and which I had to restore. - Motor (talk) 11:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to apologize for inadvertently removing your comments, but I checked my edit and found nothing of the sort. I will assume that your accusation itself in an innocent error. I still object to what I see as an attempt to devalue my comments, but at this point this is academic. Haiduc 10:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't check very carefully, did you? - Motor (talk) 11:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motor, just because a keep voter has the linkspam on their talk page does not mean that they came in here mindlessly bleating "Keeeeep, keeeeep!". Haiduc, why do you keep coming on back in to debate this when you protest that you don't want to be in the argument? "Inadvertently removing" comments.. how? It's not like you clicked the wrong checkbox and pressed "delete". -- Jaguara 23:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, and I didn't say that they did... you will find quite the opposite if you over my comments. I made a point of noting those who were spammed *and* then showed up posting generic "keep" comments, not just anyone who was spammed. I do, however, expect the closing admin to look at the contribution history of User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and take it into account. - Motor (talk) 07:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think the list needs neatening and the boundaries between sections better defining. However, this is the kind of thing which people frequently note about relationships, so I think should be kept around. Mrjeff 13:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and GWO; an indiscriminate collection of trivial information. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This seems like the sort of thing that could only really work in some sort of Wiki-database. As a manually-edited list, it seems hopelessly underinclusive and unmaintainable. Kickaha Ota 18:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, rework and rename Although the subject matter is potentially the subject matter of a Wikipedia article, it suffers presently from three inherent defects - a) potentially excessive length due to the fact raised that all such groupings have an age disparity; b) apparent non-verifiability at present; and c) What is a 'relationship' and how do we ascertain whether two (or indeed more!) people are in one? [[List of marriages with age disparity [of a given number of years, feel free to decide]]] might be a far more encyclopaedic entry as it is easier to verify and there is no ambiguity about that which is being treated. Jammo (SM247) 20:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Personally what I'd like to see instead of this is just a real article about the phenomenom, with things like significance and social acceptance in certain cultures, and with a few (half a dozen at most) examples. Lists like this belong in the Guiness Book of Records, not Wikipedia. -- Hirudo 20:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per everbody else that voted keep. Luka Jačov 00:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. There is little need for a list like this as almost all marriages have an age disparity of at least one day (my mother was born 38 days before my father.) But on the whole, this is a point of interest as there are some sizable age disparities (eg. Hugh Hefner is at least 50 years older than even the oldest of his live-in "girlfriends.") Scott Gall 06:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, cases like Hugh Hefner are worth discussing... but there already is a specific article on Age disparity in sexual relationships in which such notable case can be discussed. This isn't about removing such information from Wikipedia. It is about discussing it in context, in an article, with other relevant information... and not just compiling a pointless list of age differences that is effectively a list of celeb gossip. - Motor (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I find it encyclopedic... my paper Encyclopedia Britannica has lists in it, like a list of all institutions of higher learning in the world; and Wikipedia is not paper. I found this list to be useful and stimulating, just the sort of thing I like to find in Wikipedia. I don't find it indiscriminant at all, except perhaps the 5-10 year portion; there is an obvious unifying theme.snug 10:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. I too was talk-spammed. As an inclusionist I lean against deletion in most cases, but this article had me really, really tempted- there's a lot wrong with it. The gender disparity in the list should be addressed. The criteria for list inclusion should be tightened seriously. The minimum age disparity should be at least 20 years (a generation). Marriage of minors should be moved to a different list entirely. Sources should be provided. The list should require committed relationships such as marriage for inclusion. That said, the list makes a good reference of examples for an article on the social effects of May-December marriages and the like, so it shouldn't be junked entirely- just MASSIVELY reworked. Redneckgaijin 16:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep This is a frequently discussed topic in celebrity gossip, at least. The less than ten years section definitely needs to go and I'm not entirely sold on the 10-19 category, either. Ace of Sevens 16:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable topic. (Also see above.) Skinnyweed 23:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The topic is worthy of note, but the list needs some serious work. A 5 year age difference is hardly notable. Even 10 or 15 years probably isn't enough to justify inclusion on a list, given the sheer number of such relationships. However, a very large age disparity is unusual, and due to the unusualness, is notable. The list needs to be winnowed quite a bit, but the topic itself is worthy of inclution. NoIdeaNick 04:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on "generic" keep opinions: there is no reason that anyone has to look at an article before making up their minds as to whether it should be deleted. Deletion should arguably be determined by the topic of a page, not by its content; if someone first started up Grammy Award for Best Album Notes - Classical (yes, that was random) with the content "faksighewigu84", it would be reasonable to say "replace with a quick summary and keep" (if it weren't speediable, anyway). Likewise, if someone started ajg399399999 with a brilliant article on [insert topic here], it would be correct to say "merge anything useful and delete" even without having to read the actual content. Whether people have read this article is irrelevant.

  Frankly, I don't get what anyone is supposed to say about the specific article altogether. It's basically just what the title says: a list of relationships sorted by age disparity. I find it disturbing that not alluding to this directly puts some people under suspicion of being shills or something.

  And finally, I would like to note that it is definitely good to point out that people's opinions were solicited; I don't object to that (which is why I did it for myself). But questioning the legitimacy of those opinions based on the logic that they must address the content of the article rather than its subject is unreasonable. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not important to check the content, and do a bit of research to check what other articles are available... y'know, basic research before commenting (merge is an option, you know). Right-oh. That's certainly an... interesting argument to try. As for you being disturbed, well... I highlighted only those people whose votes were solicited *and* at the same time rather obviously did not put even the slightest effort into their comments. I feel that was a good compromise, since the kind/size of spamming engaged in here is explictly discouraged. I'd also like to note that votes of the kind "Keep, the topic is worthy of note" is not any kind of argument, since there already is an article on the topic of Age disparity in sexual relationships -- and the difference can be/is discussed in context. - Motor (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Motor, by your logic, one could say that "Delete per nom" or "Delete, listcruft" or "Delete, it's gossip" are "no-effort" comments. A reason for delete/keep doesn't have to be a tome. You're on the verge of being one of these . ...Jaguara Jaguara 21:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What are you talking about "tome"? Would you like to try again, after reading back over the comments (as I asked you to do last time) and without the overstatement and attempt at an insult? This AFD was heavily WP:SPAMMED to anyone in Category:Inclusionist Wikipedians. There's absolutely nothing wrong with me pointing out those users who did *all* of the following: responded to the spam, made no effort at commenting on the article beyond a simple generic statement, and did not reveal the fact that they had been requested to come here. I *specifically* (and noted this publicly) did not criticise those users who did not fulfill the above criteria -- and I have a list of users who were spammed, and many of them did comment in this AFD, with no reply from me. But hey, why let things like simple facts get in the way of confusing this issue further? - Motor (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Highlighting people who were spammed is valuable. Criticizing them for not putting effort into their comments is not. No, it is not necessarily important to check the content of an article, for the reasons I stated. And yes, "this topic is worthy of note" is a valid argument despite the existence of Age disparity in sexual relationships, because "X" is a different topic from "List of X". —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't "highlight people who were spammed" -- as I explained above, I was more selective. Yes... criticising people who were spammed, didn't reveal it, and not putting the slightest effort into a comment is perfectly correct thing to do... and if it happens again, I will do exactly the same thing. And yes... it is necessary to examine the contents of an article before commenting, again, as I explained above since delete or keep is not the only option. And no, "the topic is of note is not a valid argument" since there already is an article on this topic (which a commenter might know if they'd done more than just look at the title)... and in this case it's not just a crappy list made up of gossip. But apart from that lot, you're absolutely correct. - Motor (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Motor - As a contributor to Wikipedia, please review WP:ATTACK, Examples, particularly number 4. --Milton 00:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Simetrical, I said I wasn't going to comment further, but your remarks compelled me to. I agree with your comment completely. I too was messaged by Mr. Norton, and I didn't mention it. I also didn't mention that I was living in Tennessee, that I was a male, or that I was a college student - any of these facts are readily available online. Thank you for your comment - you may have noticed that I accused motor of trolling earlier - while he may not be doing it intentionally, the vast majority of his comments on this page have been inflamatory and, while perhaps not intentionally so, aimed at belittling those he was commenting on. He has been attempting to reduce their comments to worthlessness, all the while behind a thin veneer of caring about the integrity of this page. Anyway, I just wanted to show my support for your statements. --Milton 21:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if people are actually maintaining it, but please cut it off at a larger age disparity. 5-10 is waaaay to small to be worth mentioning. And addd the word "significant" to the title. JeffBurdges 13:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, if the cutoff is changed to at least 10-15 years. I hadn't considered that when I made my old vote. CameoAppearance 18:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep interesting topic though the article needs expanding. -WinHunter ^(talk) 16:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.