Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexual Consent


 * 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   delete. Basically a poor version of Age of consent Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Sexual Consent

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Originally tried to copy-edit this article, but later realized the article does not actually talk about the subject "Sexual Content" as it is titled, it talks about the Age of consent which already has its own article. Furthermore, the information is already available in that article. The page was originally a redirect to Age of consent but, as discussed on that page's talk page that was determined inadvisable and thus, a few months later, this page was created to replace the redirect. However, because this article does not actually talk about its subject, we now essentially have a duplicate Age of consent article, which is worse than a redirect. This article needs to be rewritten from scratch, if it is to be written at all. Mpdelbuono (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete/Merge - the article is just a content fork; it adds nothing beyond what is already covered in Age of consent.  Rami  R  13:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing to salvage here. ~YellowFives 15:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Do not redirect. I also tried to fix the page and quickly found it to be a duplicate of Age of Consent. There is no unique content or sources to merge, so deletion is a better solution.  There should not be a redirect, because there are other meanings for the term "sexual consent".  There could be a page about the psychological meaning of the term "sexual consent", but there is nothing about that on this page. If that separate topic is developed at some point, it should start over from a blank page to avoid any possible confusion that could result from a page history that includes a different topic. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment In case anyone wants to have a go at tackling the broader topic, this review article might be useful. Requires a subscription to the International Journal of Sexual Health, but I can provide a copy if anyone wants. Olaf Davis (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2009 (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.