Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sensuality


 * 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 redirect to sense, for now. El_C 20:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sensuality

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Incomplete nom. The following discussion was in the talk page. Tizio 11:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

ffs, as a reasonably educated person, I read the current version and wonder what dodgy non-english speaking philosophy student wrote this. We're on the case and will convert the page in the next week.

211.30.203.243 09:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)ianwakeman-moss freeserve co uk
 * Good call. This page is about as sophomoric and incomprehensible as they come. Although I might add that it has been several weeks and no change has been made. -69.47.186.226 02:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, after another attempt at deciphering this page, I'm thinking it's better off being deleted. Even if we could winnow out whatever useful information is in the article, we'd be left with a shoddy Wiktionary definition--and I'm guessing Wiktionary already has a better one. I see no point in keeping an article this incomprehensible. I'm nominating it for deletion. -69.47.186.226 03:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, looks like some post-new-age waffle to me. As stated above, even if this can be pared out, it would still not be much more than a dicdef.  Lankiveil 12:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete, weakly, and without prejudice to a new and rewritten article. All this seems to say is that etymologically, sensuality refers to the property of having senses, but in contemporary usage it is more or less equivalent to sexuality or lasciviousness.  A disambiguation page could serve up this information just as well. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep a perfectly reasonable topic. Needs cleanup, not deletion. DES (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete/Possible move to Wiktionary - per WP:DICT. Oli Filth 17:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Sense. Sandstein 21:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Sense for now. I suspect there's enough written on the topic for it to be a reasonable article at some time, but this isn't it - unreferenced, for one. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as it exists, its a dicdef. DGG (talk) 23:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to sense, per Tony Fox. This could be a good article but the current version has nothing particularly worth saving. --Dhartung | Talk 16:13, 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.