Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nude chat


 * 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. Wickethewok 14:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Nude chat
This article actually seems to have been at Votes for deletion in March 2004 and reached a consensus to delete. However, about 7 hours after the last comment on VfD, it was instead kept by User:Jwrosenzweig. I would have prodded or speedyed it, but I'm not quite sure where exactly this falls under process (might even be a DRV case), so I figured here was better safe than sorry.

Basically, it's a dictionary definition of a self-explanatory term (starts out "Nude chatting is...chatting on the internet while they are nude"), with what I see as very little hope of it becoming anything more. This lack of hope is evidenced by the fact that in the 2+ years since the original VfD debate, it has seen no considerable edits except vandalism and the removal thereof, and anything that does currently exist beyond the original dicdef is original research with no reliable sources. -- NORTH talk 21:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. A Google search returns 479,600 unique hits. Although alot of these seem to be links to advertisements on porn sites, it still affirms the fact that the subject is notable and prevelant. Additionally, it seems that the last time this was nominated there wasn't any particular consensus, and that's probably why it was kept. tmopkisn tlka 00:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Tmopkisn. -ScotchMB 00:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree 100% with the notability claim made by Tmopskin. However, never in my nomination did I claim that this phenomenon was non-notable.  Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and what little of this article exists beyond a dictionary definition is original research. -- NORTH talk 01:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not saying the article is in the best of shape, and it could use a cleanup and some sources, but there's no reason for it to be deleted just to create it again. I don't think a lack of sources is enough of a reason to kill an article, that's what the tag is for. tmopkisn tlka 04:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to cyber sex. The article is WP:OR and it is unlikely to be expanded having existed in its present state for as long as it has. A redirect is in order. -- Alias Flood 01:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete dictionary definition of a neologism. -- Koffieyahoo 02:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete contains nothiung whihc is not inherently obvious from the title (not even a dicdef, as such). Just zis Guy you know? 11:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to cyber sex but do not keep. If redirect is not an acceptable vote, then count this as a Delete vote. Vegaswikian 21:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Self-explanatory dicdef, has no references. --Zoz (t) 17:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect MarkBuckles 09:14, 2 August 2006 (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.