Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/May-December relationship

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 no consensus. Discussion about merging can be continued on the appropriate talk pages. –MuZemike 05:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May-December relationship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was proposed to be deleted. I just thoguht I might be better to include the whole community for opinions, in case the issue is with the articles' current situation, not with the concept itself.--Coin945 (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete nonnotable neologism. Loggerjack (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pet WP:NOTDIC. Bazonka (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Age disparity in sexual relationships, as May-December romance already redirects to that target. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest that since May-December relationship was created today, in response to a request for article creation, it is irrelevant that May-December romance points elsewhere. That redirection does not reflect a decision on the part of the redirector that this article was an innappropriate target for redirection, as this article didn't exist when the redirection was created. Geo Swan (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yup, redirect - as SO points out, that's what the other term redirects to. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I am frankly surprised to see this called a "non-notable neologism". Neologisms are newly invented terms. A term invented over 700 years ago can hardly be called a neologism. As for non-notable, I am sure dozen of Masters and PhD theses have been written about the term.

  I am trying to write my comment in a way that will be least embarrassing to those who were unaware that this is one of the oldest and most notable idioms in the English language. But I encourage the closing administrator to discount the opinions of the participants here who voiced a delete opinion, who were unaware this is one of the oldest and most notable idioms in the English language. Geo Swan (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Age disparity in sexual relationships. Neither article is very long. The Chaucer material in particular would complement what's there. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me, but what does the length of the articles have to do with it? While these two topics are related, they are distinct. Geo Swan (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's not really enough material for a standalone May-December article at present. If you can dig up more, I'd reconsider my lvote. Also, rename as Age disparity in personal relationships, as it also discusses marriage (definitely not the same as sex). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note Check these out. After stuffing these sources (and maybe more) into the article, it should be fine:
      1. On a February 1995 Jenny Jones Show program about May-December relationships, the producers arranged for a nineteen- year-old black woman go on a date with a forty-six-year-old white man so as to stretch the boundaries of the topic to include interracial dating.,
      2. As for teen boys, she says, May-December relationships with older women do occur, but these often involve condoms because the older women demand them.,
      3. May–December relationships seem to provide instant recognition and affirmation by peers, with few detractors among the broader LGBT community. Older men have to be willing to be mentors and not sexual partners, regardless of their attraction.
      4. Of all May/December relationships, however, a mentorship is the one least likely to last: Sugar Baby eventually outgrows Daddy, and even rebels against his teachings as a form of manipulation. Their break-up is likely to be stormy ,
      5. Now you may be asking the obvious question, what about the May-December relationships where the man is older. Well, most studies conclude that this is a more successful match. Personally, I think it has to do with maturity levels. ,
      6. Moreover, the “anything goes” atmosphere of these districts provided effective cover for the May-December relationships that blossomed among middle- and upper-class women and men during the cabaret era. ,
      7. May-December relationships have a low incidence of separation and divorce. It seems as though there is a very individualistic investment of personalities in such a relationship that separates it from marriages of people in the same age ...,
      8. Little more than a decade (before 1962), Lolita would have been a bizarre improbability, since May-December relationships were regarded as vaguely improper. Romance between aging Ezio Pinza and Mary Martin in South Pacific was probably somewhat...,
      9. Not all May-December relationships (those with a large age gap) are bad; some are actually genuine. Not all of them are based on control. ,
      10. Undeniably, economic advantage plays a part in May- December relationships. But it's not the only dynamic. My friend Michael, 26, moderates an electronic mailing list for "mature men." He's attracted to "Santas," guys in their 70s. .
      11. [www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=1&ved=0CC8QqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2FEntertainment%2Fdemi-moore-ashton-kutcher-tough-road-december-relationships%2Fstory%3Fid%3D11707817&ctbm=nws&ctbs=ar%3A1&ei=Y5LcTrujJoqCmQW7rI3RCw&usg=AFQjCNEKO6pBxD8MWxBapytpLq69-Nb9NA&sig2=gIT4I1UUqXE1hYIbrl_uaQ "Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher have been the poster couple for healthy older- women May-December relationships," said Ian Kerner, a sex therapist in private...],
      12. Such “May-December” relationships became a common feature in Hepburn's movies. In nearly half of her films, her romantic partners were more than 20 years her senior--Coin945 (talk) 09:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But this is just demonstrating usage of the term. We already have an article on the topic of age disparity in sexual relationships. And your own list of sources demonstrates that this is not a distinct topic - any way I could imagine splitting it out would be "woman is young, man is old," per Chaucer, but in your sources we see the term applied to relationships where the woman is older and to male-male relationships. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have convinced me. There is no way to differentiate between the two concepts. They are one in the same. I support a merge.--Coin945 (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Roscelese I agree with you that the references Coin945 has marshalled here don't demonstrate that "May-December relationships" is a distinct topic from "Age disparity in relationships". But I suggest that this is because while these references would be useful in the Age disparity article they don't belong here, as a May-December relationship, in its original meaning, is one where the elderly partner is a fool who cannot imagine their young partner being unfaithful, even though the young partner is unrepentantly unfaithful. Happy relationships between partners with an age disparity are not May-December relationships; unhappy relationships where the older partner is not deceived about the younger partners infidelity are not May-December relationships; unhappy relationships where the younger partner is sexually unsatisfied, but is not unfaithful are not May-December relationships. Arguably relationships where the younger partner is the unfaithful partner, but they feel guilt and remorse over their infidelity are not really May-December relationships either. You may suggest this is a narrow topic. And I would respond it is a topic that has hundreds of years of sholarly and other high-brow commentary on it, and this makes it notable.

  Should this preclude a merge and redirection? Hell yes! Merging related but distinct topics can be quite disruptive. It erodes the usefulness of several of the features that make wikipedia articles more valuable than plain old world-wide-web pages.

  So long as these topics remain in their separate articles I can choose to put one of them on my watchlist, and leave the other one off. If I am only interested in one of these topics, but the articles are merged, I am going to get a lot of "false positives" on my watchlist. I am going to be advised the article has been changed, only to find, when I check, that the change related to the other topic -- the one I am not interested in.

  Merging related but distinct topics also seriously erodes the usefulness of the "what links here" button. When articles are focussed on a single topic, then the articles that link to them, which are shown to you when you click on "what links here", also have some kind of genuine relation to the topic of the article. But when we agree to shoehorn several related but distinct topics into a single article we can no longer count on the links shown by "what links here" having a useful relationship to what brought us to that article in the first place. Geo Swan (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The definition in the article ("A May-December relationship is one in which the age difference between the two adults is wide enough to risk social disapproval") differs substntially from that in the above paragraph. Does this suggest that the phrase is not sufficiently well-defined to merit an encyclopedia article? It appears that if the article is to survive it needs some substantial tightening up. PamD 17:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, well sourced, referenced, discussed in significant commentary in numerous secondary sources and academic and literature sources. — Cirt (talk) 04:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Age disparity in sexual relationships. No one doubts that the terms exists and is used in verifiable sources, but we're an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Different terms meanigng the same things should be described in the same article.This article is just an WP:EXAMPLEFARM of uses of the term, nothing more.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (to Age disparity in sexual relationships) or keep. These relationships have been discussed in more then enough reliable sources, and so it becomes more then just a dictionary definition. I entirely agree with Geo Swan in saying that there's no way this is a neologism, and even less a non-notable one. However, I also tend to agree with Yaksar's "different terms" comment, hence the merge first. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- In my opinion the topic of May - December relationships is related to, but distinct from the topic of Age disparity in sexual relationships. In my opinion some of the material introduced into this article, since the {{afd}} nomination belongs more properly in Age disparity in sexual relationships. My understanding of "May - December relationships" is narrower than that used in some of the recent uses.

  Prior to the {{afd}} the article cited a BBC comedy entitled "May December". I think I may have seen one episode, or part of one episode, of this series. If so it clearly didn't qualify as a "May - December relationship" as the concept was used by the original 13th Century poets.

  In those original stories December was a pompous, deluded fool, incapable of imagining that his young wife was cuckolding him, and in those original stories May, while young, was capable of unapologetic deceit in her cuckolding of her foolish old husband. In my opinion, references to modern stories where the elderly partner is not a deluded old fool, and the younger partner isn't a determinedly and unapologetically unfaithful betrayer may as well go into other articles on infidelity, not in the article about "May - December relationships".

  In my opinion the original stories merit coverage in this article; critical commentary on the original stories merits coverage in this article; modern stories that faithful reflect the foolhardiness of the elderly lover, and the unapologetic infidelity of the unfaithful partner merit coverage in this article. And all other references should go in other articles. Geo Swan (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article needs considerable development, both addition and subtraction. The concentration upon the recent references is a little ridiculous; there are hundreds of literary examples--a suitable variety should be added. The tile is correct. Age Disparity in Relationships is very very broad, and deals more with the Real world; this deals more with fiction. It could possibly be called Age disparity in sexual relationships in Fiction, but that's going the long way about: there's a common english phrase, and this is it. Geo asked me to comment, and I decided to write mine without look at his, and so I did until the end of the preceding sentence. I see he has said somewhat the same thing, though my understand of it is a little broader than his: it has developed somewhat between the middle ages and the 20th century: it does not necessarily imply the older man being a fool. In a broad sense, it's one of the classic themes in literature. That television should trivialize it is hardly surprising, but the whole range of meaning needs to be discussed. It's time we took this sort of topic seriously. DGG ( talk ) 06:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note In regards to this clarified definition, I suggest we dig for more sources by narrowing the search terms. Apparently (due to the concept being clarified by GeoSwan etc.) I don't actually know that much about May-December relationships but I'll start the ball rolling with this. --Coin945 (talk) 06:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. "may december" cuckold at GoogleBooks
2. May-December Romance at TV Tropes (for what its worth... :P) - lol!! "Generally, the man is the "December" (elder) and the woman is the "May" (younger), though it can happen the other way around. May lead to cases of Ugly Guy, Hot Wife if the years haven't been kind to him."
3. [1]
4. [2]
5. [3]

• Merge and redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Age disparity in sexual relationships, as this is simply a poorly written example farm on the same topic. —SW— ^babble 00:36, 10 December 2011 (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.