Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nudity and children


 * 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. - Caknuck 15:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Nudity and children

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Essay. Original research. Granted that parts of it are referenced, pulling it all together into this article is original creative work. Rambles off into la-la land and probably always will. Magnet for editors on a mission. Herostratus 20:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 *  Transwiki - To Wikibooks or Wikiversity. --Remi 20:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree that article reads like an essay and not able to be changed enough to follow content policies. FloNight 20:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, we have a template that is used, rather than deletion, for essay-like, but sourced articles.  Given that large parts of it are sourced, the accusation of "original research" is no more stinging than that pointed at the thousands of articles here in various categories of unsourced. Carlossuarez46 22:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I do not like this article, but it is sourced. There is no reason for deletion.Biophys 02:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no reason whatsoever for the accusation of original research. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, I think it rambles a bit, could use more focus and better sourcing (and perhaps balance), and almost seems like an excuse to display the images (which don't relate closely to the text in all cases), but it's a legitimate topic. Maybe work with the editors of other nudism articles to show how this topic relates to those. Some odd omissions, e.g. the photographic work of Sally Mann, Jock Sturges and David Hamilton should be covered. --Dhartung | Talk 04:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve, particularly the unsourced material and editorializing. If absolutely necessary, merge with Nudidy or transwiki it.  Content, particularly cited content, should not be lost unless unencyclopedic.  "Magnet for editors on a mission" applies to a lot of controversial or limited-interest material.  Watching the article, not deletion, is the best way to handle that problem. Dfpc 18:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * comment: I am doing a wholesale rewrite, please see my comments in the article talk page or go straight to it on my user page sandbox. Comments welcome, including "I like the original better" if you feel that way. Dfpc 04:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to "nudity". Much of the article conserns general attitudes towards nudity. Some parts are redundant with child sexual abuse. -Will Beback · † · 19:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * comment: This (and other topics) were originally split out from the nudity article as that was getting too big (see the first section at talk:Nudity and children). It is still a very large article, that could possibly do with things splitting out, not having additional things merged into it. Thryduulf 22:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * comment. OK, there's also Issues in social nudity, which would be a good merge target. -Will Beback · † · 22:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 'comment'. Thryduulf is not quite correct.  The article split from Issues in social nudity on 2006-09-17.  See diff in issues and social nudity and the first version of what is now nudity and children both dated 2006-09-17. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dfpc (talk • contribs) 23:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep as per Dhartung. This is a sourced article on an encyclopaedic topic, that it is not stylistically brilliant is not a reason to delete. Likewise if being a "magnet for editors on a mission" were a valid deletion criterion then George W. Bush, Iraq War, Islam, September 11, 2001 attacks, paedophilia, pornography, homosexuality, abortion and many others would have gone long before now. Thryduulf 22:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this article should definitely stay and remain on its own because it does address an important aspect of social nudity. Legislation has been passed in the past restricted participation of children in social nudity and it is important to have an opportunity to make arguments behind such legislation and also document trends in different parts of the world regarding the subject. Moving this back into the nudity article would make that article, which is already getting very long, even longer. Thank you for your consideration. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 23:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC) (This comment copied from talk:Nudity and children by Thryduulf 22:56, 28 April 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.