Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexuality in older age

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sexuality in older age
I added the VFD tag because i think this is supposed to be a joke. Is there something to this? please delete unless there is actual valuable content. freestylefrappe 06:17, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Not an encyclopedia article. Delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 13:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Cleanup and keep i think the author might have followed a red link from Human sexuality and written a stub, as opposed to having made a joke. Nateji77
 * Keep. I agree with Nateji77.  I just added some links on the subject matter to help anyone who can clean this up.  DS1953 14:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Can't imagine how this ended up on VfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Human sexual behaviour     17:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep'Vorash 19:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Interesting. JamesBurns 03:55, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean/up expand. I'm sure this topic has potential for an encyclopedia article. Capitalistroadster 08:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, the topic has potential, the current content doesn't however. --W(t) 08:41, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
 * Keep -- and expand / cleanup. - Longhair | Talk 08:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand, its notable and deserving of an article -CunningLinguist 23:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename, title is ambiguous (could refer to old people, or earlier periods in history?) Radiant_* 10:45, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: This page is listed on Template:Sexuality so it it is to be removed or renamed that template should be amended (or abandoned and merged into Human sexuality or Human sexual behavior &mdash; those three seem rather confused.).  I agree that the name is ambiguous and a rename could be useful but the topic no doubt has some potential.  --Douglas 14:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep if it's totally re-written - current content borders on BJODN. Blackcats 07:36, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do edit this page.