Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/May-december romance
dicdef; delete. Lupo 12:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- And the title is misspelled too. Gdr 13:21, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)
- Might be a good idea for an article, but this one is just a definition and it should be titled "May-December romance". Delete this one for now. -- Stevietheman 14:42, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, nothing useful here. Darn, now I have September Song running through my head... For it's a long long time from May to December/And the days grow short when you reach September/And the autumn weather turns the leaves to flame/And you haven't got time for a waiting game... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:25, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Which singer's version of the song? I actually like the Lou Reed one. Oh, the article? Um, delete for dictdef that can't be expanded without our heading into People Magazine territory, and there's no point in that. Geogre 17:41, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I'm partial to the Walter Huston version, from the original musical, in which the lyric actually rather menacing. Rich, powerful old guy expects to win the body if not the heart of the sweet young thing. "And I have lost one tooth/And I walk a little lame/But I have a little money/And I have a little fame." All of the song seems to be analogies with money and power. The phrase "These golden days I'd spend with you..." "If you examine the goods they bring they have little to offer but the songs they sing," whereas Stuyvesant "has a little money." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:05, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Dicdef. I don't know how it could be expanded in order to constitute encyclopedic content. Skyler 18:51, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
- Wake up Maggie, I think I got something to say to you/It's late September and I really should be back at school... Sorry, couldn't resist. Oh, delete, btw. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:04, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. An important 20th century (if not earlier) phenomenon. Rewritten. Denni☯ 03:33, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
- Keep; rewritten (consider disregarding previous votes). Many thanks to Denni for the rewrite; I moved the text of the article over to Age disparity in sexual relationships and changed May-december romance to a redirect. • Benc • 21:28, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, I see you have, but sigh ... User 66.56.110.36 had then already created a new article Older women-younger men. I would nominate that one for deletion separately and suggest merging contents with Age disparity in sexual relationships, except that this is getting so monotonous, and moreover that there is not that much to merge, apart from the unsupported statistic that 34% of women are now dating younger men in the US. Otherwise it's all there already in Age disparity, in more NPOV form. Could somebody appropriate please just delete Older women-younger men on sight without further formality? I suppose putting the 34 % statistic into Age disparity first, in case a reference for the figure is forthcoming. Bishonen 09:46, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry, I see now that Older women-younger men has already been put up for deletion under its own steam. And you say you've already moved it? See, when I go look, it doesn't look moved, and isn't carrying a VfD template either. Maybe I'm having a cache bug or something. Checking ... no, the same thing happens when I change from Mozilla to Safari. Maybe the proxy is messing with me. Is anybody else experiencing the same problem in viewing this article, please?Bishonen 10:21, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Actually, it's Older men-younger women that is listed on VfD, not Older women-younger men. Thank you for finding this third page; I've moved its content to Age disparity's talk page and changed it to a redirect. No need to list it a third time on VfD. (By the way, 66.56.110.36 created all three of these pages. In fact, I don't think any of the three pages should've been listed on VfD... the nominator should've merged them and listed it for cleanup.) • Benc • 19:49, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry, Benc, yes, I know I got confused there ....I just couldn't face writing in a third time, after boring everybody to death already. Thanks for working out which target it was that I was shooting wildly in the general direction of. Bishonen 22:05, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, I see you have, but sigh ... User 66.56.110.36 had then already created a new article Older women-younger men. I would nominate that one for deletion separately and suggest merging contents with Age disparity in sexual relationships, except that this is getting so monotonous, and moreover that there is not that much to merge, apart from the unsupported statistic that 34% of women are now dating younger men in the US. Otherwise it's all there already in Age disparity, in more NPOV form. Could somebody appropriate please just delete Older women-younger men on sight without further formality? I suppose putting the 34 % statistic into Age disparity first, in case a reference for the figure is forthcoming. Bishonen 09:46, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I'm happy with • Benc •'s reorganization of this content at Age disparity in sexual relationships and change my vote to redirect. (The phrase "May-December" is more likely to be a search query than "Age disparity"). Denni☯ 05:16, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)