Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-Nude Pornography

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP but move to non-nude pornography. — JIP | Talk 10:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Nude Pornography

Even if article is improved, it would just be subset of pornography. It seems to have been created as an excuse to toss in an external link, since removed. rob 10:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Pret art seems to cover the same topic as well (I say that based on the current wording of the article, which seems to focus on under-age models). So, there's no purpose for a second article, and the capitalized article name, isn't even worth keeping as a re-direct. Plus, this is prime link spam bait if kept. --rob 10:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but move to Non-nude pornography. The main pornography article is quite long (34kb), so adding in another section that would seem to have expansion potential is probably not the best thing to do. Pret art is not an epsecially common term, but would seem distinguished from this topic by being usually free. The current article needs the OR removing, sources citing and a bit of a clean, but I think it should stay. -Splash 18:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, move per Splash. Notable, different from pret art. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep! There is a distinction between art and pornography. User:Ravenswood1969 18:03, 3 September 2005 (CST)
• Keep and move it to 'Non-nude pornography' as per Splash. *drew 00:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Before choosing the name, it's necessary to decide the scope. The current article, if kept, should be called something like Non-nude internet pornography of minors and those who look like minors (or something more concise). The name Non-nude pornography is a perfectly legitimate name of an article, and could discuss many things given a similiar label like Baywatch, Maxim(US), and a host of other things *some* people (as their POV) label "pornography" on the grounds it has the same purpose, but is done with a few clothes on. --rob 02:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: is this an actual term? It seems like merely a model's preference, like when a model won't do hardcore videos? -- Kjkolb 06:21, September 4, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.