Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-nude photography


 * 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 keep. John254 00:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-nude photography
This is one of those funny, weird articles where you think there might be a pretty good article until you look at what we've actually got. This was created in September, 2005 as Non-Nude Pornography and shortly afterwards passed a deletion debate with a unanimous keep. There are some serious problems with the article.

The article never seems to have had any references, and this was tagged up in October, last year, but nothing has been done about that.

The article makes various vague unsourced statements such as Detractors of non-nude photography claim it is unequivocal softcore pornography, and prefer to call it "non-nude pornography", and Fans of NN often consider it a hobby, and cite a number of reasons for participation. This is all a bit airy-fairy, and is clearly just a result of editors inserting their personal opinions into the article and negotiating a "neutral" version by consensus--no verifiability so it's just down to whoever edited it.

There are some apparently sourceable statements, for instance: ''NN sites with underage content have occasionally been condemned by child advocacy groups, or subjected to increased scrutiny by law enforcement. This negative media attention about underage photography has prompted many NN sites to implement an 18+ rule.''

If there is law enforcement and media attention, and I've some reason to believe that this could be true, surely this statement can be sourced.

So, it's a bit frustrating, really. Here we have an article on a reasonably important subject that has been around for nearly two years and hasn't got a single reference.

I suggest that we put the editors who want this article to continue on notice: source the thing properly, improve it, make it verifiable and ensure that it really is neutral. Or else perhaps we would be better off without it. --Tony Sidaway 00:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep It is an article that needs citations and a little cleaning up, but it is relatively well written and the subject matter appears valid. In short, it seems like a perfectly fine B grade article.  I don't see the issue for deleting, only for improving, and "this article needs work" doesn't sound like a valid reason to delete an article.  Pharmboy 00:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * For now I'm neutral on this. I didn't even know this crap existed until I stumbled across the article and saw in what an awful shape it was in. But as the primary editor of the most recent rewrite of the article in question (including the author of a few of the above quotes) I just want to say that while at the time, I thought the article seemed notable and simply needed cleanup, now I'm wavering. Though the existence of a vast amount of nude sites is not in question, I doubt that the subculture has received a significant amount of media coverage necessary to prove notability. I'm awaiting further work on sourcing before I come to a conclusion. VanTucky  (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral for now per VanTucky. The subject is obviously notable, but it seems that nobody wants to clean up the page and help assert notability. I don't see an argument for deletion here, just one for cleanup. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 00:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Glamour photography. Should any of the material turn out to be verifiable, merge it. Otto4711 00:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the idea that this subject is directly analogous to glamour photography is pure nonsense. This is a well-defined term and it exists for a much different purpose. If we're going to delete and redirect, make it soft-core porn or lad mag or something that makes more sense. VanTucky  (talk) 00:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral - but if this is kept, and then not cleaned up, I'd move to delete it next. --Haemo 01:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Question is there any kind of documentary or other work defining this genre or whatever you call it? Conceptually, I recognize the idea of NN-photography, but I do not know if it's defined as anything in particular. FrozenPurpleCube 01:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume you're wondering if the term is a neologism? I would say no. Thousands of sites use the term, which has distinct parameters as outlined in the article. VanTucky  (talk) 01:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not asking whether or not it's a neologism, I'm asking whether or not there's a source for a definition of it. Usage may be widespread, but documentation of the genre is another matter.  Not that it's uncommon for genres to be loosely defined, there are disagreements about SF and Fantasy genres too.  FrozenPurpleCube 02:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Needs cleaning, but is a valid topic. Arundhati lejeune 01:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep something about porn I didn't know. WP is great. When I read this article, I thought of Pin-up girl and "Cheesecake" or "Beefcake" but alas our pin-up girl article is more a list of famous exemplars and short on the content. Lots of books and articles have been written on the subject of provocative but not nude "sensual" photography, so sourcing seems quite possible. To delete for lack of sourcing, it has to be well-nigh impossible to find WP:RSes; here, I doubt that premise. Carlossuarez46 03:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Yes, it lacks sources, but it is a well-written and informative article about a subject which seems deserving of coverage. JulesH 08:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to be a valid topic (the nominator agrees, so this seems like "process" to me).  The article needs work but if we decide to delete articles purely on no/poor referencing then we'd lose a massive chunk of our content - maybe we should do that, but as things stand right now we don't.  violet/riga (t) 08:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. But, make it Non-Nude PORNOGRAPHY, and not what it currently is. ViperSnake151 14:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Even though the term "Non-Nude Pornography" may seem a contradiction in terms, it may be appropriate here and I would support that, with my Strong Keep above. Pharmboy 22:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that non-nude pornography is the appropriate title; our article Pornography defines "pornography" as "in its broadest state, the explicit representation of the human body or sexual activity with the goal of sexual arousal and/or sexual relief. It is similar to erotica, which is the use of sexually-arousing imagery used mainly for artistic purpose." The normal meaning of the word explicit in this context would seem to contradict "non-nude". The title is a bit odd, because I would assume non-nude photography to be photography that doesn't have naked people in it which is basically 99.99% of all photography. How about Non-nude sensual photography? Carlossuarez46 06:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep the subject itself is notable. IMHO, a deletion debate should be about whether a subject is worthy of inclusion, not the current state the article is in.   Pats Sox Princess  22:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Keep and retitle as suggested for what is apparently an important subject --it may sound strange at first, but the present title is non-descriptive.
 * Weak keep per Pats Sox Princess and violetriga, and per my comments on other AfDs -- good start to a notable article, which is verifiable, although nary a cite in sight. Bearian 00:48, 26 July 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.