Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of photographers known for portraying males erotically (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   delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

List of photographers known for portraying males erotically
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

List of reasons to delete the linked article:
 * There is nothing in the article, aside form it's title, that explains what it is, why it is, and of what use it could be.
 * There's no background subject text to connect to other than the topics of erotic depictions as a whole, or the history of erotic photographs. There are no articles which discuss the gender differences in erotic photographs.
 * It might as well be "list of photographers known to have depicted male nudity", given it's state.
 * It is indiscriminate
 * Does it deal with artistic studies of figure, or glamour photography, or pornography? The net is too wide.
 * It is untenable
 * If made comprehensive, this article would include more photographers than most categories, it would become so large as to be unnavigatable
 * It is completely uncited
 * There is no complementary "list of photographers known for portraying females erotically" (not that that list wouldn't share many of the same problems) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and this list qualifies as that. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 05:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and above. みんな空の下 (トーク &#124; I wanna chAngE!) 07:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete While I agree with the reasoning in the nomination, I think that the points in the first two bullet are answerable. However, as this article has existed for quite some time and no editor has made an effort to deal with these obvious deficiencies, the article should be deleted.  TheMindsEye (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments on the nomination. 1. There is nothing in the article, aside form it's title, that explains what it is, why it is, and of what use it could be. True. / 2. It is indiscriminate[.] Does it deal with artistic studies of figure, or glamour photography, or pornography? The net is too wide. True again. / 3. It is untenable[.] If made comprehensive, this article would include more photographers than most categories, it would become so large as to be unnavigatable[.] / I shouldn't have thought that it would become so very long, unless there have been many hacks working in "beefcake" and male porn industries and some editor or editors diligently added them. 4. It is completely uncited[.] Yes, this is a problem. It's a problem shared by most lists. (And this is not another "other-crap-exists" argument; rather, it's an expression of an "other-crap-too-should-be-improved" PoV.) It's a problem ignored in much categorization too. Related to gay erotica, I often see people categorized as "LGBT" or "gay" this or that, with no mention or sourcing in the article. 5. There is no complementary "list of photographers known for portraying females erotically"[...] Very true, but to my mind not a problem at all. Face it, iconolagny (being turned on by "sexy" pictures or other imagery) is largely male, and males are largely hetero, and thus we have centuries (millennia) of art (or porn) of women in flimsy or no clothing. It's the male stuff that's unusual. -- Hoary (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Suggestion. As I look at the first AfD, I get the impression that the preservation of the article had little support, and that the main proponent of preservation (the creator and/or main editor) was open to the idea of conversion to a category. However, as noted above, the subject area isn't clear. If it can be clarified and if somebody can do the sorting (not me, as I know next to nothing about these matters and confess to a lack of interest), then conversion into one or more categories seems a good idea. -- Hoary (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone, in this AFD or the previous one, would object to an article dealing on the topic of male erotica; in fact, there were quite cogent argument arguments for that in the previous nomination. However, such an article would still be orthogonal to this list. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 06:34, 31 December 2010 (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.