Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexuality in older age (2nd nomination)


 * 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The result was keep (nomination withdrawn, reasons no longer valid). Kusma (討論) 07:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sexuality in older age


This is a speedy candidate per WP:CSD or WP:CSD, as it is just one sentence (which is not even defining its topic) and an external link. However, it miraculously survived VfD as "keep" last year (see here for the debate) but has not been expanded or cleaned up since. We should encourage creation of a real article on the topic and replace this speedy candidate by a good red link - chances are that a newly created article will be better than this. Delete unless completely rewritten by the time the AfD ends. Kusma (討論) 08:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Now that people are actively expanding / rewriting this article, it can be kept. Kusma (討論) 13:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, nearly nothing in the article. Don't see any notability in this article. I don't see any potential in this article getting expanded and cleaned up. Chances are one is 500,000, so this is of no use now, and its unencyclopedic. Ter e nce Ong 08:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Tempted to speedy. MER-C 08:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The last AfD was full of people talking about expansion but as usual nothing happened. Delete it, 6 months and still only one line proves beyond doubt that this article will never be expanded. It is really annoying that people talk about expanding articles and how we shouldn't delete articles just because they consist of one sentence and then once the AfD is over they don't care any longer. Keep per the below discussion MartinDK 08:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete organic expansion has failed in this case. Danny Lilithborne 11:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to Weak Keep since I see potential in the page. Danny Lilithborne 20:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * On the subject of annoyances: What's also annoying is when citations of sources that were added to an article during the previous AFD discussion, for editors to employ in order to do the very expansion that was discussed, are later removed from it without explanation by an anonymous editor.  It should be no surprise that the article wasn't expanded using them.  Yes, this is a stub.  Yes, there is potential for expansion.  See the potential sources found in the last AFD discussion, the citations for which I've restored to the article from its earlier version.  Attrition of a stub by a vandal is not a reason to delete an article.  Keep. Uncle G 15:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment True, and if the sources will make the article grow then I'll be first in line to admit I was wrong. But it is hardly even a stub... the one line in the article isn't even specific to the topic. It is just a general statement. MartinDK 18:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - zero content. --T-rex 17:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * List for cleanup by rewriting from scratch based on sources restored by Uncle G. There are other books and academic papers which address the topic in detail.  I'm sure there are also a zillion Cosmopolitan articles on the topic, most of which fail WP:NFT; and a zillion sex-among-seniors websites that offer nothing encyclopedic; but this topic can be covered encyclopedically.  Why will people fight so hard to keep an uncited, unverified bio of their favorite porn star, but refuse to improve a useless substub about a much more significant aspect of sexuality??  Barno 19:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Now this I can agree with. Start all over using the links added by Uncle G and then expand and make sure that happens. To show I mean what I say I will even offer to start if others help out. Alle we need is a half decent short article to get things started. As for the latter part of your comment... have you ever thought about the correlation between the number of 18 year old boys here and the amount of gamecruft and articles on porn? MartinDK 19:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I merely rescued them from the article history. It was DS1953 who added them. Uncle G 02:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I added somemore info to the article. I will work some more on it later and add some sources. MartinDK 07:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I have expanded this article. I'm not sure if it warrents a keep, but all votes before mine might need to be discounted, as the page is now very different. I have expanded the article to twice its previous size.Sharkface217 20:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Twice as big now... 2 x 0 = ?  --T-rex 01:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm not convinced by your expansion. Kusma (討論) 07:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Conditional Keep, clean it up, make it encyclopedic and useful for research. The collection we see there is not even at the level of a tabloid Alf photoman 23:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The article in its present form is admittedly very low on content. However, I think the topic is an important one that should be addressed in Wikipedia. Sexual behaviour in the elderly is a taboo and marginalised concept that deserves to be in the mainstream. The article could easily be expanded and include a discussion of the change that the availability of 'Viagra' etc. has brought to this area. It is also an area seeing more coverage e.g. in films like "Something's Gotta Give".WJBscribe 00:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This was tried last year and did not work, see the previous AFD. Kusma (討論) 07:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think its worth another shot. Is it possible to set a realistic time period for the improvement of the article? By the end of the is AfD (suggested below) is rather short notice. The very fact of the AfD will draw attention (as it has mine) to the state of the article and progress is likely. The further reading and links already show availability of material to expand the article. WJBscribe 07:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Empirically, articles that haven't reached "adequate" state at the end of the AfD have a chance in the single digits (%) of being improved afterwards. Case in point: Articles for deletion/List of important operas. ~ trialsanderrors 09:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment OK in light of comments I have had a go at expanding the article. I think the new structure demonstrates the potential for this being a very strong article. Obviously what's there needs further referencing, but thought I would make a start. What do people think? WJBscribe 10:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I think we are starting to have a decent article. You are right that we need more sources and I will try to find some later today. A simple search on Google gave a truckload of hits so it really shouldn't be so difficult to do. It is not like we are trying to do a FA class article in 5 days, just a decent article worth keeping and expanding. MartinDK 13:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not quite FA-quality yet, but good enough not to be deleted. Changed to keep, but please continue your expansion/improvement of this article. Kusma (討論) 13:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless expanded by the end of this AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 04:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Clear keep. Article has apparently been considerably expanded and reliable sources added since nomination - nomination reasons no longer apply (was: no content, no context). Sex beyond menopause is one of the features distinguishing humans from afaik all other animals (possible exception bonobo?), therefore an important topic of evolutionary biology and anthropology. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article has been expanded to the point where it is obvious this is a viable and referenced topic. pschemp | talk 04:42, 2 December 2006 (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.