Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Half-Your-Age-Plus-Seven Rule

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 merge & redirect to Age disparity in sexual relationships. El_C 18:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Half-Your-Age-Plus-Seven Rule

Half-Your-Age-Plus-Seven Rule (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Several reasons for deletion: Original research. WP:NOT Urban Dictionary. No reliable sources. Why not "half your age plus six" or "square root of two times your age divided by three"? Deprodded by author without explanation. eaolson 03:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong delete. Original research and just stupid. So stupid it could go to BJAODN. Crazysuit 03:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is actually an old and well established maxim, variously attributed to India, France and the Chinese. It's not a bad joke, nor is it something just something made up in school one day. Nick mallory 04:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, possibly merge. I've heard of this rule, at least as far back as the nineties -- maybe even the eighties. It's sort of the romantic version of the five-second rule (which I have also heard variations on, ranging from five to a high of thirty -- for expensive chocolate, mind). I did a quick Gsearch, there are indeed many variations, ranging from plus-five to plus-ten, altho' seven seems to be the most occurring constant. I did find the equation in a problem on a paper on a university website, but I doubt that it could be used as a reliable source, any more than a math question stating "a train leaves Chicago at 1:00..." as a reliable source rail travel in Illinois. Still, if a reliable cite or two can be found, it may be included in an article about May-December romances (whatever that might be; I don't know if such a beastie exists). In any event, I don't think there's enough info to warrant a stand-alone article. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 05:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's used in a teaching plan for computer programming at U of Florida[1] and economics at Colorado[2]. It's also used by columnists at the student papers at MIT[3], Amherst[4], McMaster[5]. It is used in the book Fabulous After Fifty by Judy Steinberg[6], and the blog WTF, carried by radio stations CJXY[7], CKNG[8], CKDK[9], and CFNY[10]. So it's not a question of OR, but whether one can find any decent cites that would support policy. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 06:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Age disparity in sexual relationships. While I have heard of it and don't dispute the term's existence, I don't really think it's notable enough for its own article. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That's the article I was talking about. Tks. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 10:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per above, but loose the valueless (IMHO) Famous relationships that have violated the rule bit. Pedro |  Chat  12:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge & Redirect to Age disparity in sexual relationships--Victor falk 12:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge any information that can be cited, but do not just copy-paste this into the target article. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge or Delete but remove the "Famous Relationship..." Section -FlubecaTalk 15:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The delete and merge arguments fail to cite guidelines or policies for why a mathematical rule that satisfies WP:N and WP:A as this one does should be merged. The widespread notability of the rule is attested in the article by references now included to a published book, where it says how young of a man a mature woman can date, by the student newspapers at 3 well know universities where it is looked to for guidance on older students dating younger students (no, a 21 year old senior may not date a 16 year old freshman per the rule), in a Honolulu newspaper, and on CNN (showing that the marriage of Anna Nichole Smith violated it), the Manx Radio at the Isle of Man, and BBC Scotland. These are just recent references accessible via Google. It was used in my algebra class in the 1960's. Not OR, not something "made up in school one day." Edison 17:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. Realkyhick 18:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per above or Delete and add to BJAODN.SpecialAgentUncleTito 19:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC) See changed vote
  • Keep, plenty of sources, and anecdotally I've heard this 'rule' a lot. It may be psudoscience akin to the Three second ruleFive second rule, but that doesn't mean it's not worthy of inclusion. --Darksun 20:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article now has multiple references to verify its claims and establish notability for the concept. A widely used rule of thumb commented on by third party sources and notable people and publications. TreeKittens 23:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Changed Vote: Keep. Article has been updated with many reliable, third party sources, that verify its claims along with established notability. SpecialAgentUncleTito 01:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep I wouldn't have thought so, till I looked at the sources. guess it s notable after all.DGG (talk) 02:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Age disparity in sexual relationships (changed comment). On close inspection, all of the newly added sources are rather trivial or conversational references to the rule as far as I can verify. They are sources for the various claims, and could usefully be used as references for the section in the proposed merge target, but they do not (imho) constitute the significant coverage in reliable sources required to make the rule notable enough for its own article. If more significant coverage is later found, the article can be separated off again. TreeKittens 04:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per above talk. Bearian 19:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I see no harm in holding this 'rule' separate from the Age disparity in sexual relationships, although of course mutual linking is to be recommended. It's a very old axiom, and I'd always believed it to be of Chinese origin, so it's rather a pity no one has as yet come up with the original citation. Bill Martin 21:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The cites are to college papers and a book for women of a certain age, and news channels looking at Anna Nichole Smith. I always noted the utility of it: a newborn baby would get a 7 year old "spouse" who could at least babysit and change diapers, while a 100 year old would get a 57 year old "spouse', who could similarly babysit and change diapers. Also seems to work well to null out the "ick" factor of age disparity in dating/mating: nothing wrong with 22 and 18, 40 and 27. Certainly finding the earliest citation would improve the article. Edison 05:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: The problem is, that doesn't make it a "rule" in any meaningful sense of the word. It's just a pithy saying. We don't have articles on Wait 30 minutes after eating before swimming, even though that was a rule I heard constantly growing up. Nor do we have Early to bed, early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise. I'm not saying that no one has ever said this, I just don't think it makes for a valuable encyclopedia article. eaolson 05:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's certainly something I hear about at my Uni in the UK and I personally feel the level of sourcing is sufficient for inclusion Earl CG 11:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete ber Crazysuit Will (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge The CNN reference is just a brief personal reaction/comment in which a meteorologist acknowledges that Smith and Marshall violated the rule. It's not a serious discussion of the rule. This brief casual mention does not support notability. Besides, when I am 100 years old, I wouldn't date some 57 year old kid. ;-) --User101010 03:29, 28 July 2007 (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.