Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ageless

Ageless

[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)

Tagged as WP:OR and WP:FORUM since 2008 and unreferenced since 2017. Personally, I just think the whole thing is confusing. At least sister articles Ageing, Immortality and Eternal youth seem to have direction on what they want to say. Alternatively redirect as antonym to Ageing. --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Lenticel ^(talk) 07:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, purely OR and not very good OR at that. CoconutOctopus talk 08:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The edit history is confusing because in 2008 Anetode history merged unageing and ageless, neither of which should have been an article in the first place considering that the noun agelessness (per project:Naming conventions (adjectives)) was emphasized in the article since 2005 and itself was available as a rename target for almost a decade and a half, only created as a redirect (to this, ironically) in 2018.
Is there a distinct concept of agelessness separate from immortality? Well, yes. Decent sources on Ancient Greek mythology will tell you that Tithonus was immortal but not ageless. Even in its best form, this article never touched upon that, collecting random modern pop culture referents instead. We already deal with agelessness of that form in eternal youth, though.
I'd say go back to one of the several redirects in this article's merged and confused history, but although it has been redirected to eternity in 2005 and by Shoemaker's Holiday (and Edgarde and WLU) to immortality in 2008 (and 2010) because 'Rather indiscriminate discussion. Redirect to "Immortality", where all issues can be handled better', it has never actually redirected to eternal youth. It doesn't have a good redirect to go back to.
agelessness definitely is covered by eternal youth, given that the Tithonus article uses it for starters, and should redirect there. This edit history is a merged almost unfathomable mess (successive edits are to unageing and ageless for 3 years) and isn't really useful for anything as the article just gathered random James Bond, Tolkien, Doctor Who, and suchlike over the years (as well as loads of random stuff about veganism conferring agelessness, Demi Moore [sic], and holy figures that supposedly lived for centuries). That said, a redirect to eternal youth per where agelessness should properly point, would be cheap, and the one thing that no-one thought of in almost 20 years. Not even Yamara, who added a hyperlink to it to this article's introduction in 2008.
Uncle G (talk) 10:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mostly just unsourced examples (original research). TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 01:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per all of the above. Cinadon36 16:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]