Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smooth and Cut Naturists


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 16:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Smooth and Cut Naturists

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Defunct non-notable organization, no references to provide any proof of notability, there are zero Google hits in Google news, searching the entire history of their news archives. Prod tag was removed. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, nonnotable naked org. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have placed the following on the discussion page: This is to answer the verification request about this new page created called Smooth and Cut Naturists. SCN is well known in the UK as a genuine naturist [nudist] website. The SCN Club featured in many editions of the UK publication Health & Efficiency over the past decade and a review of the website was recently featured in the same publication. Google UK has "SCN" and Smooth and Cut" at the top of their listings and our website has now accumulated in excess of three and a half million hits. The American Association for Nude Recreation (AANR) library has a complete set of our publications called Ultimate Nudity. I hope this is enough to prove the validity of an entry for Smooth and Cut Naturists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisCharles (talk • contribs) 23:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete An organization's website is not an independent source to satisfy notability. Appears to fail WP:N and WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This article has no independent sources, and has no encyclopedic purpose. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I have read what you have to say but should point out that the initial letters SCN are associated by many people in the UK with the well respected Smooth and Cut Naturists organisation and website at www.smooth-naturists.co.uk which gets many hits daily and is top of Google's listing for "SCN". There is mention of SCN in the publication Acorn at http://www.acornsoc.org.uk/theacora.htm and, as previously mentioned in Health and Efficiency back issues.

Wikipedia would not be complete without listing SCN.

If you still think you should delete this important entry I trust that it is for genuine reasons and in no way showing prejudice against naturists/nudists which would be illegal here in the UK.

Chris Charles —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisCharles (talk • contribs) 12:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - non-notable and the comment above looks awfully like spam to me as well. Don't worry, no one's trampling on your rights, it's just non-notable so doesn't need a wiki article -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel greatly insulted that you regard my genuine article as looking "awfully like spam" and "non-notable". Please know that I am a genuine well respected Englishman giving an explanation (where none should be needed) that SCN is an important organisation/website in the UK and I am very disillusioned that Wikipedia are intending to delete my article. What is the point in an incomplete encyclopaedia? If you cannot accept genuine submissions, what is the point of us taking the time and trouble to write them only to be insulted?

Chris Charles, Dorset, England, UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisCharles (talk • contribs) 22:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Chris Charles - I'm sorry you're upset about this, and thought I'd take a moment to explain why the article is being considered for deletion. We're not at all saying that your creation of the article wasn't sincere or wasn't in good faith. I believe that the organization existed and I believe it was important to people, as you've said. But Wikipedia doesn't try to have articles about everything that has existed, or everything that had a membership or mattered to someone. We only cover those subjects that are notable, which here means, straightforwardly, those subjects that have been covered substantially by reliable, independent sources. We'd need evidence like newspaper articles about this organization to prove that the article meets that notability guideline. When commenters here say that the subject appears "non-notable", that's what they mean. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: I was the PRODder; though I understand that the organization is important to people interested in the subject, notability on Wikipedia is a simple matter. The topic of the article must have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. I would expect some Google News hits for the article title if this kind of coverage existed. Having found none, and no references in Google Books either, I support the article's deletion. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gonzonoir - I am greatly appreciative to you for explaining the position in a less blunt manner! As you say, my short article was produced in good faith as SCN was, and is, a significant and well known club and website here in the UK. It has featured many times in the naturist (nudist) press because of its importance but you probably won't see this in the US (where I presume you are) with the exception, as mentioned previously, of the AANR archives in Florida which contain our SCN publications.

Clearly as Google is US based (and I suspect because nudity is frowned upon by many in the US) it is unlikely that Google News would feature it. However SCN comes top of Google's web page listing. Similarly newspapers do not feature naturist clubs - except to titillate which we abhor. We would sooner have no mention at all rather than this, as genuine naturism has nothing to do with sex! SCN was last featured about three months ago in the UK magazine called Health & Efficiency (now H&E Naturist) which is available worldwide.

So, if I can't convince you of the importance of SCN and you still feel you must delete my article, please may we compromise by asking you to retain the entry I made under SCN for Smooth and Cut Naturists, with, sadly, no link to my page?

Thank you again for your help.

Chris (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Chris Charles, Dorset, UK
 * Hi there - you're welcome. Google News does cover sources worldwide, including major UK newspapers (I'm a Brit too myself, in fact; there's a UK-based portal onto Google News at news.google.co.uk), so I'd expect to be seeing some reference there if notability by our standards existed - though of course, it's not foolproof. The relevant Wikipedia guideline here is then WP:BURDEN, which says that the impetus is on the person adding material to the encyclopedia to justify its inclusion, rather than on those removing it if it's unsourced. If you can find sources we can't, by all means supply the details; then the only question will be whether those sources meet our reliable source standards. I'm not familiar with Health & Efficiency, so can't say offhand whether it would pass muster with our source requirements.


 * Similarly, since the idea of a disambiguation page is to help users find material on Wikipedia, our manual of style recommends against retaining links on disambiguation pages like SCN to topics not notable enough for articles of their own. Instead, if you can find reliable source citations in third-party publications, you might find other articles in Wikipedia where it would be appropriate to add references to the organization. If you've got good sources, subjects without enough coverage to merit a solo article can still find a place in more general articles. The key is to make sure that everything you add references a good source. You can find out how to do this at our guidelines on verifiability, citation, and reliable sources.


 * Or, if you're just looking for a place to document the organization's existence online, take a look at Alternative outlets for a list of other platforms similar in some respects to Wikipedia where you could publish your material. Gonzonoir (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2009 (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.