Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of obligatory nude recreation sites


 * 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. No independent sources were brought forward during the debate, either for list items or establishing criteria for the list. WP:LISTN requires the latter. Absent that we're left with the GNG; which still requires reliable independent sources discussing the topic, especially when almost none of the listed items are themselves notable. Mackensen (talk) 05:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

List of obligatory nude recreation sites

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Despite a lengthy list of cited sources, this article is essentially 100% WP:OR. None of the sources are independent sources, all are primary sources intended to demonstrate that the hotel/resort/whatever meets the primary editor's extensive list of homegrown requirements for exclusion/exclusion/allowable exceptions. As the criteria are entirely that editor's own, there is not a notable topic here. As there is no sourced material here, the two year old merge suggestion is a non-starter. (Prod removed without explanation.) Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment only. Please always check the edit summary for PROD removal explanations. I didn't leave much of an explanation, but I did leave one. I think the content might be mergeworthy. Also, I was swayed by SummerPhD's admission on the talk page of the article that SummerPhD expected the PROD to be removed, suggesting perhaps that even SummerPhD saw some merit in a full AfD debate. Xoloz (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read the generic "keep" edit summary. As I explained on the talk page, this article's true subject is obligatory nude sites according to criteria established by User:DNBR, including every hotel, club and resort DNBR is familiar with. There are primary sources for some of these. There are zero independent reliable sources. I suppose it is theoretically possible that DNBR is a noted authority on the subject. If so, they are hiding the reliable sources discussing this. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep All lists have some criteria as to what to include/exclude. If the problem is listing the precise details, I'll delete those. Each site is primary sourced that it is "obligatory." If there's any question in the future about whether or not something should be included, it can be debated on the talk page. Also, will unlink all sites that don't have their own separate Wikipedia article. DNBR (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is not that inclusion criteria were listed. In fact there should be clear criteria. However, criteria that are WP:OR are a problem. Is there a reliable source that discusses criteria for "obligatory nude recreation sites" and lists examples? Unlinking all of the non-notable entries does not correct that issue. Typically (with narrow exceptions that don't apply here), "list of..." articles are limited to notable entries. My aunt is not included in "List of people from New York city" and "List of science fiction films" doesn't include the one made by the guy in my 10th grade lit class. Otherwise, lists quickly become indiscriminate collections. This limitation cuts the current article down to five entries that I can see. Two of those are "quarters" of towns that seem to be neither "recreation sites" nor is nudism "obligatory". In the end, Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. There likely is some demand for a guide listing obligatory nude sites of various sorts, but that does not mean the topic is encyclopedic. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * According to the AANR-West web site FAQ : WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CLOTHES-FREE VS. CLOTHING-OPTIONAL? There’s a relatively minor difference between these two types of clubs. Clothing-optional clubs allow visitors to remain dressed, believing that some people take more time to adjust to social nudism. At clothes-free resorts, you’re expected to be nude, although no one expects you to disrobe until taking a tour of the facility and deciding to stay.  The "quarters" in the France section are both recreation sites, and quite obligatory. (Outside the naturist quarter, clothing is optional or required.) Right now, there are about 75 entries on the page. While there's no doubt some are missing, I can't imagine it would exceed 100 worldwide. Finnish saunas weren't individually listed, as they are very common through the country. There's a similar (though somewhat longer) list on Wikipedia of IMAX venues, and many are not particular notable by themselves. I would never include an entry that wasn't open to general public, either directly (most common) or though naturist organization that anyone can join. DNBR (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You have just redefined the criteria for the article. The new title would be "List of recreation sites where people are expected to be nude, other than Finnish saunas, that are directly open to the general public or through an organization that anyone can join". I don't expect to see reliable sources discussing this as a category. Yes, there is a list of IMAX venues. The number of entries is not the issue. We could easily create the article "List of French restaurants" or "List of stores that provide free gift wrapping". The first might survive, if limited to notable entries (73, based on the category), as there are likely sources that discuss the topic. A complete list of them would not, as Wikipedia is not a guide. The list of stores, on the other hand, hasn't a prayer as there are no independent reliable sources discussing the topic. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete&mdash;DNBR, I have to agree with SummerPhD here. If you can find a couple of reliable sources that discuss this class of resort (where several resorts are listed as examples), then you've established notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - A list article such as this would require at least one strong source that published a list of "obligatory nude recreation sites" or that has discussed the subject collectively. From WP:LISTN "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group." This article does not seem to meet that criteria.- MrX 15:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - While I hadn't heard of "obligatory nudity" previously, this does appear to be a thing. An excellent example of a sourced list. Carrite (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So, should I add Aunt Edith to List of people from New York City? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 10:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - It needs some work doing but to be honest it's Encyclopedic and it also passes WP:GNG. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  15:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not to put words in your mouth Davey2010, but do you mean that the individual entries pass WP:GNG? That may be, but I have yet to see a single reliable source that demonstrates that the list itself is notable as required by the guidelines, which state "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group."- MrX 16:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:LISTN, as noted above. Also shades of List of gay bathhouse regulars here, in that the Wikipedia is being used as a nudist recreation guidebook. Tarc (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - It's encyclopedic with valid sources, and I see no comparison to lists of people, especially to millions living in a large city. Let's compare to other Wikipedia lists of sites, and not people. Jzyulds (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Its pointless trying to invent a list of non-existant places.
 * Firstly, the title is bad English - a nude recreation site is Wikipediaese- a site for recreation? Is a Nude site for recreation- one that has been denuded so is bare- maybe the Sahara desert would qualify. Then one which is obligatory /mandatory? You have armed guards insisting you indulge in recreation?
 * Secondly there is a total misunderstanding of the French Usage of 'La pratique de la nudité est obligatoire' (I took some of the amusing photos). To a naturist, flimsy swimwear and other clothing is seen as a way to sexualise the body- 'La practique' simply means if you go strutting your stuff in a g-string or skimpy bikini- we reserve the right to turf you out. In our opinion you are not following practice of non sexual nudity but engaged in you own sexual fantasy.
 * Three- the impressive list of WP:OR references is nothing of the sort- some refs are broken, some don't actually refer to the topic, most are advertising spam. Remove them and you will be in the lower single figures.
 * Four- there is no such thing as obligatory nudity- exceptions are always made for those accompanied by a genuine naturist- medical reasons- shynesss- age. Anyone who has been to any site would realise- anyone who hasn't and views nudity with suspicion makes up wild fantasies such as this.

It is a fundamental principle of wikipedia that we only report on what exist- this basically doesn't. It is a fundamental principle of wikipedia that we demand notable secondary sources- this doesn't. I reserve the right when bored to remove broken links and primary sources and blank sections. Just delete -- Clem Rutter (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Advertising spam? Most naturist web sites have only a handful of pages. I linked to whichever page that stated nudity is obligatory (usually the rules and regulations or code of conduct page). Just because they're a business, and a few people make their living in the naturism industry does not in any way make it spam. Yes, some web sites change from time to time and modify their links, and I try to catch them. However, I don't have time to do this on a daily or even weekly basis. If someone notifies me of a problem on a citation link, I fix it. DNBR (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2014 (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.