Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imagery of nude celebrities


 * 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   no consensus. I'm torn here as both sides make valid comments. Those wishing to delete consider that this articles is unencyclopedic and original research. Those wishing to delete the article essentially disagree that the article is original research and that there are sufficient sources to meet notability. As I believe both sides make strong arguments, I must close this debate as no consensus. I would however suggest the article has a thorough clean up so it is better sourced, and all original research is removed ASAP.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Imagery of nude celebrities

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Useless junk. Almost entirely composed of OR, and should be either deleted with fire, or redirected to one of the linked subjects (such as Celebrities, celebrity sex tapes, or paparazzi (the last would be my recommendation). Only the last two paragraphs have any sort of referencing, and many of those sources are either sketchy, gossipy, or insignificant. Further, the article has been tagged as having a variety of problems for six years now. This violates our BLP policy, and either needs substantial reworking or simple deletion.  Horologium  (talk) 04:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Unencyclopedic, trivial nonsense. -  Marcusmax  ( speak ) 04:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Well, okay, there might be some merit to the topic? Maybe? But really, it's moot because of the article and sources' quality, and also BLP concerns above. Ansh666 05:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC) BTW, where can I find these images? Heh just kidding.
 * The main reason I said delete was the BLP concerns. Now, there's not that much of a reason to delete, as long as we can keep them out of the article. So weak keep until better sources are found and/or added, upon which just normal keep. Ansh666 18:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep : AfD is not cleanup, as clear in our deletion policy, and all the concerns above are related to content, not to the topic. I removed BLP violations in the last paragraph. The topic is notable: there is a a book on the subject, a book paragraph here (which in turn makes reference to other works on the topic), this looks like a paper on the topic, and this is another paper that discusses the topic in some depth. -- Cycl o pia talk  13:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. While there's a place for some sort of article related to the general subject on Wikipedia, this is an essentially unsourced essay/amorphous blob of OR; two of the three "references" are just spam for commercial porn sites and the third is a profile of a guy whose hobby is debunking fake naked pics of celebrities. There's no encyclopedic content to salvage here, and the title is not really a plausible search term. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, even just as a generalist discussion of the topic itself including academic analysis from scholarly sources and commentary from books, this subject matter could be represented in a way that is both educational and encyclopedic. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sure, there may be some merit to the topic, and whilst WP:NOTCLEANUP is a valid concern, what we have here is pure OR, with some hideously unreliable sources, used solely to promote said sources. Nuke it, start again. And, to the "not cleanup" comments: the tags have been there for SIX years, and haven't been sorted. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * the tags have been there for SIX years, and haven't been sorted. - Did I miss the memo with the deadline? Again: deletion is not cleanup, and this is basically policy. If something can be solved by editing, it has to be solved by editing -deletion is not a solution. -- Cycl o pia talk  18:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am well aware that there is no deadline. However, if tags sit somewhere for 6 years, it's highly unlikely that anyone is going to fix the issues. WP:TNT is relevant for this OR mess. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:TNT is a (debatable) essay, WP:ATD is policy. Take your pick. -- Cycl o pia talk  13:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The references cited above appear to be enough to show that the topic is notable, and an article possible. I don't really consider this OR as much as uncited summary. I'm not sure about the title: I interpreted it as "people who became notable for being nude" . I don't immediately have a better one, though.  DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per -Cyclopia. The topic satisfies WP:N and is sufficiently removed from the possible redirect/merger targets for those actions to make little sense. That said, it needs monitoring to remove occasional BLP vios and to keep out "examples" and spam links. Available RS can be used to fix problems with unsourced OR. Also, I note past instances of removal of references. Edison (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2013 (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.