Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nude weather reports


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 15:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Nude weather reports

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Some topics are good ideas for encyclopedia articles. This doesn't seem like one of them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 17:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To discuss whether this has more chances of being kept if it is broadened in scope as proposed (preferably before closing the AfD, to show that a reasonable article is possible).
 * Delete. Article topic lacks notability. SunCrow (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I have been able to adequately reference the two existing examples, and after I walk a dog I'll be adding this one-time instance—sample quotation: "Elle a interrogé une habitante [de Poil], lui demandant si elle vivait 'à Poil toute l'année'. I'll feel more confident after I find some article talking about the phenomenon in general, but it is apparently A Thing. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Broaden and rename Nude news broadcasting. It appears to be a tiny genre, with broadcasters going on the air in the buff on Naked News and elsewhere. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. In my view the article lacks sufficient notability. A few non-notable examples were provided in the article, included a French lady streaking in a field, filmed from a distance. I'm trying to avoid using the contentious word "unencyclopedic", but the article lacks lasting notability and importance in my opinion. I don't think it's even important enough to include in the "Popular Culture" section of the article Depictions of nudity. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I like 's idea of broadening and renaming, if someone wants to do the work (or "research" lol) Missvain (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks notability for stand alone article. Trivial. Kierzek (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - a bit of a bizarre choice for an article if you ask me. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Broaden as per Clarityfiend.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Frivolous, trivial subject.TH1980 (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2020 (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.