Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Age appropriateness

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 keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 00:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Age appropriateness[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This is an essay rather than an article - difficult one to call but I feel it doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY and has been tagged as such for 4 years. Boleyn (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - perhaps redirect to Suitable age and discretion although that page also has some problems too. I can't find a better target, although there are a few other possibilities. It seems to me that this should really be part of a larger article about considerations of stages of maturity. I believe that is how Britannica treats it. It is a little more than a WP:DICTDEF, but I don't think this qualifies for an article of its own under WP:WORDISSUBJECT. A merge with Suitable age and discretion would also be possible, but here the poor state of this article mitigates against a merge. The content is not in a fit state to do so, thus redirect would be better. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Ratings systems are widespread in practice and frequently documented and "age appropriateness" is often the only or primary factor considered or described by the rating systems. This article should be kept and filled out with content from articles such as the Canadian Home Video Rating System, the Korea Media Rating Board, Motion Picture Association of America film rating system, Movie and Television Review and Classification Board, the Office of Film and Literature Classification (New Zealand), British Board of Film Classification, the Australian Classification Board, and the Eirin as well as the specific articles about specific age based ratings such as R18 (British Board of Film Classification) (these articles where not in their current form when the article under discussion was created; the "Canadian Home Video Rating System" article, for instance, had no citations as of August 14, 2007‎). Hyacinth (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the article read like a very short essay, what was the presumed thesis which the essay was attempting to prove? Hyacinth (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- this is a concept used in education and film ratings, rather than suitable age and discretion, which is used in law; they are not exactly the same concept. Tone can be fixed outside of AfD with normal editing. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject of extensive scholarly analysis (> 12000 Google Scholar hits, many of which appear to involve detailed and substantive analysis of the concept). To be sure, the state of this article not great. In that respect, it's symptomatic of the pathetic state of Wikipedia's coverage of education (and the "soft" social sciences in general), which of course is the result of Wikipedia's unfortunate success in driving away so many good-faith content creators away. (Another factor is, of course, how badly we handle these fields in which concepts, terms and definitions are themselves in constant dispute, in ways that don't allow one to sort coverage neatly into piles marked "concept" and "word" as guidelines like WP:WORDISSUBJECT presume -- a failing that is both a cause and effect of the lack of knowledgeable editors in these fields -- but probably not directly applicable here, since there seems to be plenty of Wikipedia-friendly scholarship available.) It's certainly possible that in the future when Wikipedia's coverage has become less pathetic, a consensus might be reached through the wiki process to address this subject under some broader topic within the field of education. But in the meantime, putting articles up for deletion because they aren't already good enough isn't going to improve things, and is not an appropriate use of the deletion process. -- Visviva (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2020 (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.