Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List 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 delete all, after dismissing several WP:ATA arguments, mostly "keep" opinions that do not address the crucial WP:DIRECTORY/WP:IINFO issues. Apologies for the acronym salad. Sandstein (talk) 09:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

List of nude celebrities

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Also nominated are the related sub-articles and category.


 * List of nude celebrities: A
 * List of nude celebrities: B
 * List of nude celebrities: C
 * List of nude celebrities: Y
 * List of nude celebrities: Z
 * Category:Lists of nude celebrities

Although this page is "sourced" about nudity in film the derivate articles and subsequent articles are, literally, just listings of when celebrities have appeared nude in one form or another including nipple slips on the red carpet. This listing serves no real purpose and although I commend the main article for its attempt at an article the ultimate aim of this series has no basis for articles. –– Lid(Talk) 14:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The article certainly has justification, and it’s the same as one of the main justifications for Wikipedia itself: to provide an alternative source for and/or to counter all the false, speculative and commercialized material on the internet. Whether or not you think the subject is tasteful is irrelevant; it is notable and has public interest – as has clearly been demonstrated. It is our job to provide information, not to moralize. LoNC 14:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Before anyone complains about the lack of sourcing for the movies, I would like to quote the applicable policy, which in this case would be that relating to film plots, which states that: “Plot summaries do not normally require citations; the film itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the film.” LoNC 14:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment taste has nothing to do with it, in fact I commended you on the talk page for the article quality. My issue is that it serves as nothing more than a crufty directory, which is not protected by policy and has nothing to do with censorship misnomers. –– Lid(Talk) 15:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I’m not denying that the article may attract cruft, but difficulty of maintenance is not in itself reason enough to delete an article. Furthermore, the complexity of the formatting will probably discourage less serious editors, rather than had it been a simple bullet-point list. The directory issue I’ve addressed below.LoNC 16:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - per LoNC. mattbuck 14:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's nothing wrong with the article, although I suggest that the list is removed from the article and most importantly, the article name. -- Zachary crimsonwolf  14:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 *  Question before deciding Delete see reasoning below Can those claiming that this is notable please explain why they think it is so. As of now it looks like a clear example of WP:DIRECTORY and I am leaning towards delete but I am willing to "vote" for keep if it can be explained why this is notable. TonyBallioni 15:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a valid point, but in my opinion this is not a directory, but has independent value as a list. I’d like to draw attention to the following passage in that policy: "Cross-categories...are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon." Nudity is a significant attribute of celebrity; there are those like Halle Berry, whose decision to appear nude in the movie Swordfish significantly boosted her fame and profitability. On the other hand there are stars like Sandra Bullock and Renée Zellweger whose market value depends exactly on their insistence on not appearing nude on film, thereby maintaining a wholesome public image. This is why I believe the list can be valuable, because it can provide reliable, verified information on a subject normally burdened with speculation, innuendo and lies. LoNC 16:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete reasoning while LoNC does make some points this article is a clear example of WP:DIRECTORY and should be deleted. Also this topic is not notable enough to merit its own article. If a notable subject has done a nude performance and that performance is notable it should either be added to the performance's article or to the celebrity's article. This list has no place in Wikipedia. TonyBallioni 17:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is an indiscriminate list, as nearly every actor has been nude in public or on screen, or partially nude.  Every single little instance of bare breast doesn't need to be on a list.  This could also very easily become unmaintainable, as the creator might realize...it's already divided into 26 sub-lists, and it's only on B.  --UsaSatsui 17:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * How would you divide it then, if not into 26 lists of 1 letter each? mattbuck 17:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 0 lists, of 0 letters each. It's not worth inclusion.  Assuming it were, though, I'd do one page.  If it gets too big, split into 2.  And go from there.    --UsaSatsui 18:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is work in the top 1 percentile of Wikipedia. How about we drop this obsession with deleting everything we don't like, and start focusing on improving the bad articles, there's plenty to take from. Lampman 18:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Response I'm all for improving the bad articles/articles that need improvement/cleanup, but this is a deletion discussion, listed on the deletion log, the purpose of which is to determine whether to keep or delete an article. The fact that there are articles on Wikipedia that need improvement is not a justification for keeping articles that shouldn't be on Wikipedia at all. Calgary 19:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Re-response I know that, I'm just suggesting that some people reflect on how much easier it is to destroy than to build up, and maybe refocus their efforts a little. Lampman 20:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as indiscriminate list. Looking through what it contains so far, I see celebrities included on such dubious grounds as being photographed naked on private holidays, and accidentally exposing themselves in front of cameras. In other words, many of the people on this list made no voluntary choice to appear in nude pictures; as such, it probably violates WP:BLP as well, by being an unreasonable and potentially damaging intrusion into people's privacy. Terraxos 19:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * To those who support keeping the list, I have to ask: would you feel differently if you were marginally famous for something, and nude paparazzi shots of you made it onto this list against your wishes? I would imagine so. Terraxos 19:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd think that I'd care more about sites which actually HAD the pictures. mattbuck 19:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That’s an interesting approach you’re recommending, that we should only write about people what they themselves would like to read. I’ll get to work on George W. Bush then. But seriously, while taking pictures of someone in a private setting without their consent is a violation of privacy, reporting about that event is not. Suppressing reports about it though, can be censorship, and you’ve badly misunderstood WP:BLP if you think it’s about censorship. It’s not; it’s about stricter demands on verification. LoNC 19:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete The appropriate title for this article isn't "List of nude celebrities", but is "List of celebrities who have appeared nude in some capacity". In order for a list to be warranted, the subject of the list itself must be notable, and the subjects who appear on the list must be notable. In the case of this article, however, you have almost the exact opposite, as it makes a point of excluding pornographic actors, nude models, and anyone else whose career focuses on them exposing their bodies. In this case, what you end up with is a list of people who have appeared nude in some form of media, but are still not notable for their nudity. In addition, you have the problem of the scope of the article being far too broad. Even a list of actors who have appeared nude would be close to unmanageable, yet the term "celebrity" extends to virtually all members of the entertainment media. One could argue that the term "celebrity" would narrow the possible number of people who could be included on the list, but in the opposite ends up happening, as "celebrity" is a highly subjective term. Yes, Pamela Anderson is clearly a celebrity, but it Gillian Anderson a celebrity? I don't know, maybe, maybe not. Furthermore, the article actually goes a step further, to include people who have appeared nude in some form of medai, as well as people who have appeared nude outside of the entertainment media. What this ends up coming down to is a list that is inconcievably vast, which has the potential to include any entertainer who has ever been seen nude, while giving little regard to notability or subjectiveness. The information may appear to be well organized, but in the end the inclusion criteria alone is not, and this is a prime example of an indiscriminate collection of information. Calgary 19:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Gillian Anderson, not a celebrity? Considering that The X-Files is a legendary science fiction show that is still airing today on the SciFi channel, i disagree with you. Just because the media decides to cover anytime that Pamela Anderson gets married doesn't make Gillian Anderson any less of a celebrity (or make Pamela any more of a celebrity). dposse 20:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Response I never said Gillian Anderson wasn't a celebrity, I was simply comparing her to Pamela Anderson in order to demonstrate that the lines asto who is or isn't a celebrity is rather blury. By some standards Gillian Anderson could be considered a celebrity, by some standards she couldn't. I'm saying that the term itself is ambiguous. Calgary 21:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Terraxos. The list is indiscriminate and poses some WP:BLP problems as well. LaMenta3 19:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Terraxos and Calgary. JohnCD 20:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm in agreement with Lampman. Everyone here seems to jump to "delete the article" rather then fixing it. dposse 20:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment As a question what are we meant to fix the article to? –– Lid(Talk) 13:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete the lists but merge the list intro somewhere. Calgary makes a very good analysis why a list like this (not to mention WP:NOT) is not a good idea. – sgeureka t•c 21:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The list is likely to be of interest to a lot of people. Not sure regarding how the list is put together, but this discussion isn't about cleaning up the presentation but whether the topic should exist at all. StuffOfInterest 21:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Comment I think your keep comment would be benefitted from reading WP:INTERESTING and re-phrasing the reasoning appropriately. –– Lid'''(Talk) 13:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Calgary above. The title of this article makes very little sense, as everyone in the world has been nude at one point in their lives. shoy  (words words) 21:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. RMHED 21:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. We really ought to try harder to be an encyclopedia. You do that by having encyclopedic articles. Articles not about encyclopedic topics aren't encyclopedic. This is trivia, which I'd define as a bunch of related facts that don't actually give us any information about the universe that would ever help us understand it better beyond just knowing the trivial facts in the article.Noroton 23:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Change to Keep: On second thought, any list worth keeping in Wikipedia can generally be justified as illustrating some article that is worth keeping, and in this case that article is Nudity in film, and probably a few others. That makes it encyclopedic and not trivia.Noroton 23:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The list is not List of persons who have appeared nude on film, a list that would at least has discriminate criteria. It's "list of nude celebrities", which uses indiscriminate criteria for "what is a celebrity?" and "What is nude?".  I mean, at some point or another, most people are at least one of those.  --UsaSatsui 21:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Rework the idea. If nobody wants to rework it, delete it. As it is, it's often too hard to determine whether or not a given person is a "celebrity". If you're too strict in your definition, the list will surely be too short because there are so many examples and not enough can be represented. (Playboy alone has created a lot of 'em.) And if you're not strict enough, it will surely be too long. And for a list like this, I don't think there is a "just right" because the line is just too fuzzy. Problems like these limit the usefulness of a list, and if it's not useful, why have it? But if you can establish a precise criterion for what defines a celebrity, then maybe the list would be more useful and I would be more inclined to keep it. For instance, find a list of top 100 celebrities chosen by a magazine or something, and then make a list of people on that list who have appeared nude. That's just an example; the point I'm making is we need a good definition of "celebrity" to work with. Then there would be much less debate on who should be on the list and the list would become much more useful. - furrykef (Talk at me) 06:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don’t think we should get caught up on the word "celebrity"; that could easily be changed, to "famous people" or "notable people". In any case, the criteria for inclusion should be the same as for Wikipedia in general. The exception is of course those who are known primarily for this activity, as that would be tautological ("people known for taking their clothes off who have taken their clothes off"). Besides, these already have their own lists (see here, here or here). The point is that even if an article has the potential to be very long, that is not a valid argument for deletion. Some might say that managing an encyclopedia of over 2 million subjects is too vast a project, and yet here we are...LoNC 13:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think changing it to a list of notable people would be worse, expanding it beyond any topic whatsoever. I can understand not having an article for "people known for taking their clothes off who have taken their clothes off", (although we have lists for people known for taking their clothes off), but what would be the logic of having an article of "people who are not known for taking their clothes off, who have taken their clothes off" Lists are meant to be an organizational tool, and can be very effective, but what is the organizational value of listing people by something that they are not notable for, and something which is not strongly associated with them? Calgary 23:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I’m not saying they’re not notable for it, to varying degrees they are, in some cases very much so (think Madonna, Paris Hilton etc.). I’m just saying it’s not their primary claim to fame; their defining characteristic. We have plenty of those lists, listing people by activity, belief, sexuality, medical condition, cause of death etc., and these all serve a purpose. I’m sure the people on the list of bow tie wearers would argue that there’s more to them than that!
 * As I see it, one of the main purposes of this list is to separate real images from fakes, in other words to separate true information from false, which should be one of Wikipedia’s main objectives. This does not only provide valuable information for the reader, but it also offers a level of protection for the subjects, in keeping with WP:BLP. This information is better placed in a list than forced into each separate biography article. LoNC 15:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per LoNC. Not to argue that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but that bowtie list actually survived an AfD. It that one can make it and this one doesn't, I'd almost have to suspect us of prudishness. Eixo 18:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, I am inclined to nominate that article too after this, while it may list seventy references sixty of those are "this guy wore a bow tie". In fact the entire thing could be integrated into the bow tie article itself. –– Lid(Talk) 13:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment But it's already been nominated! What is this, "keep nominating it until I get the reusult I want"? That's how they have elections in some countries. There is such a thing as accepting the decisions of the community and the fact that you're not always right, and just move on. Endless re-nominations only disrupt the system and divert attention away from more important things. To me it just seems a bit childish and self-indulgent. Eixo 14:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment it was nominated back in January and the result then was "no consensus", given the time difference and that consensus can change over time a second nomination is not out of the question. Your implication of "keep nominating until I get the decision I want" is amusing as I wasn't even aware of the articles existence until you pointed it out to me and re-nominations do not disrupt the system, they are an integral part of the system and using the system is not childish or self-indulgent, especially in this case as I have no prior relation to the article. –– Lid(Talk) 14:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It doesn't matter who nominiated it the first time, the result still stands, and the world hasn't changed that radically in the last 10 months. Then of course, if it's nominated enough times, the laws of statistics dictate that sooner or later the result will swing in favour of "delete". That's why the people who create articles can win a hundred times, while the people intent on deleting them only have to win once. But I'm sure you're aware of that, after all it's just a way of "using the system". Eixo 14:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The result wasn't a keep for the article in the first place, it was a no consensus. You're making it sound like the last time the article was put up for deletion it was speedy kept. –– Lid(Talk) 14:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I implied no such thing. Eixo 14:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment "It doesn't matter who nominiated it the first time, the result still stands, and the world hasn't changed that radically in the last 10 months." makes it sound like a "no consensus" becoming "delete" would be a radical change for an article of people who wear bow ties. This is also horribly going off the current deletion topic and if you would like you can present your arguments again in the forum they will be used for. –– Lid(Talk) 14:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, Terraxos, Calgary, etc. Indiscriminate list/directory with sketchy inclusion criteria and possible WP:BLP issues. Also has maintainability issues, especially in terms of maintaining a balanced neutral point of view with gender, historical, and worldwide perspectives, etc. Ravenna1961 02:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I maintain it is not a directory, and this is why: The list does not mention every instance of nudity, which would serve as a finding aid for the reader and hence make it a directory. It simply names one or two examples in way of verification, and is therefore only a list. LoNC 16:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I submit Mr. Skin's Skincyclopedia: The A-to-Z Guide to Finding Your Favorite Actresses Naked and The Bare Facts Video Guide as "significant coverage in reliable sources" which make a list like this notable. Any problems with the title can be solved by renaming (e.g. List of actors and actresses who have appeared nude); and if excluding porn stars, Playboy models, etc., is a problem, it could be changed to incorporate them by reference, by saying "See also: Category:Lists of porn stars, Category:Adult models, etc." DHowell 00:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks, actually Mr. Skin is already linked in the individual lists, and the online versioin is of course more up-to-date than the book. LoNC 18:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep John254 01:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Collection of trivia. If a (semi)nude shot is something so remarkable for the US culture rename it to "List of American nude something" to avoid chaotic and unmaintainable growth into regions where now hardly anybody cares. Pavel Vozenilek 12:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per LoNC. This seems like a well-defined, well-written and maintainable list of general interest, I think many of the objections against it are unfair. Panichappy 16:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete listcruft. Greswik 20:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Calgary makes an excellent argument.-- Balloonman (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2007 (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.