Talk:Erotic attraction

Prod Discussion

Prod Contested — I think this prod was too quick. The article was only created 29 minutes before being nominated for prod deletion. I don't see POV, but the article does need citations, and a lot of work. This is an attempt by a new editor to create an article in good faith, so lets give it some time to be developed per WP:BITE. I think there is something here worth developing. If it doesn't get improved in a reasonable period, then nominate for AfD. There are essentially two parts to this article. 1. Concept of erotic attraction and aesthetics. This topic has references and has been discussed by Freud, Havelock Ellis and significant others, so this is a valid topic. There seems to be a difference between erotic attraction and sexual attraction. Not sure if it's enough for a separate article, but it could always be merged and redirected. 2. There is a WP article on Triangular theory of love, so that information should probably be deleted. Prod tag removed. — Becksguy 15:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain why I used prod. The article was new (in fact, I was looking at the list of new articles to weed out the rubbish) and it had very little going for it, there wasn't much content, it overlapped with an existing article and it read like a personal essay rather than an impartial description of the matter. I was going to put speedy delete on it but I realised that was too harsh as it would not give the author a chance to improve it. I didn't want it to fall under the radar so I put prod on it thinking that it gave the author, or anybody else, fair notice that the article was no good and 5 days to try to improve it. I am not going to put prod back but I am going to put some other tags on it so that people know what they need to fix. These can be removed if the article improves. Personally, I can't see this article having a future but I am happy to be proved wrong. --DanielRigal 15:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Great. Very appropriate tags. I don't know if it has a future either, but I thought the author (and article) deserved a chance. If the article doesn't improve, I will join you and agree to delete, because your comments (and tags) about it's faults are good ones. It's an essay with zero references. How long is a reasonable period to wait? Thank you. — Becksguy 20:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

OK. I think we have waited long enough. Nobody is coming to rescue this article from incoherence. I propose we redirect it to sexual attraction. Any objections? --DanielRigal 15:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, not by me anyway. Redirect away. — Becksguy 15:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)