Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clothed female, naked male

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 22:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clothed female, naked male

Non-notable type of pornography, no Wikipedia:Reliable sources on this. I am also nominating the page Clothed male, naked female along with this Xyzzyplugh 06:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete seems to be a term someone made up one day to describe a fairly common phenomenon (ie one member of the sex is clothed the other naked - strippers for instance...) ViridaeTalk 08:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Viridae. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 08:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Definitly notable, lots of TGP sites on that topic. Medico80 10:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but merge the two articles together. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • keep both. Merge if there is a suitable collective term that isn't original to wikipedia, don't just redirect one to the other. Thryduulf 13:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok, that's 2 keep votes with no reasons at all given, and one claiming notability because this term exists on "TGP sites", which I believe means Thumbnail gallery post, a type of porn site. Wikipedia:Verifiability is official policy, we must have reliable sources. I assume those of you voting Keep have reliable sources in mind that haven't mentioned? --Xyzzyplugh 14:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both. This appears to be a guy trying to find a niche for an adult website. If he's the first, he'll make money. Problem is, this isn't a fetish. This lies somewhere between neologism and things made up in school one day. Ifnord 13:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; Googling for the title "Clothed female, naked male" or "CFNM" demonstrates that this is already a notable, and rather specific, pornographic genre. The counterpart, CMNF, is also common in fetish pornography,, but I have not seen the specific name used before: perhaps the two should be merged into a single article: perhaps Naked/clothed fetishism? This topic has the potential to keep gender studies academics busy for years. -- The Anome 14:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Have you found any reliable sources for this topic, or do you suggest we use unreliable sources or original research? --Xyzzyplugh 16:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, there's a Yahoo! category for it: [1], and it's mentioned in an Ottawa X Press agony column [2] -- The Anome 23:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
        • The yahoo category is not a source. Ottawa xpress, though... It's the most marginal of sources that might be useable, website with an alexa ranking of 300,000+, and the web version of a free local newspaper, and I'm not sure if this column is contained in the print version or not, but it is some sort of source. I personally only nominate articles for deletion if I think there's zero chance of them being keepable, so I wouldn't have nominated this had I been aware of this source. --Xyzzyplugh 05:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Don't be misled by the quoted results of 92,400 and 1,720,000 - in fact there are only 267 results for each! (See [3] and [4] - even including the "omitted results" still gives less than 1,000 hits, for some bizarre reason Google gets confused sometimes.) 267 hits is no evidence for notability whatsoever. Mdwh 22:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I think is. Take a glance at the hits and see that they almost entirely refer to sexual content, meaning this topic. Besides, the fact that so many websites have this acronym, cfnm, in their domain name should be enough to verify that the term is established. Medico80 23:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm not suggesting that the hits aren't genuine. But even if every hit is a genuine usage of that term, 267 hits is practically nothing. Do you have any evidence of notability? Mdwh 01:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both as per nom. wikipediatrix 18:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both per nom. One presumes you could find examples of all such permutations somewhere online (of porn, of course, this is the Internet), but this provides neither reliable verification, nor multiple third-party non-trivial articles regarding notability of same. Appears to be original research as well. Tychocat 09:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as a hybrid subtype of exhibitionism and femdom. The article does need improvement, lots of OR, but the topic is notable. We have smoking fetish and this might not be as widespread but it's not negligible or NFT.--Dhartung | Talk 22:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable, no reliable sources, for both articles. "Clothed male, naked female" gets 57 hits [5], whilst "Clothed female, naked male" gets 267 hits [6]. Mdwh 22:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Links list woefully incomplete, user deletes relevant links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.148.244 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is neither exhibitionism or femdom. This is not a fetish, it's an over classification of photography. Vegaswikian 16:19, 7 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.