Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nudity and children (2nd nomination)

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 Merge. Lara❤Love 01:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nudity and children

Hopeless confused mess of original research and trivia which has not improved in the year since last nomination. Maybe merge what little useful content is here into nudity or issues in social nudity.-PetraSchelm (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this is me. I didn't realize I wasn't logged in. Keyok (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:OR and WP:V. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Significant topic with a multitude of available sources (some of which are already included, particularly in the Parental nudity section). --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 03:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I fail to see the encyclopedic correlation between the two title subjects as much as I fail to see the correlation between onions and ice-cream. Can someone write an article about how different cultures feel about onion flavoured ice-cream? Now that's encyclopedic. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    Child nudity raises issues that do not apply to nudity in general. Did you read the article? --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    The difference? This is a lightning rod issue for people, your example is clearly not. Take for example how the issue of youth nudist camps played out. Wiping out a topic takes away an opportunity for people on both sides of arguments to make themselves be understood. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 04:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The subjects are obviously related in a sociological sense. I would question why anyone would see fit to delete such an article - an article that goes about explaining the obvious with little bias or emotion. I would question what such a person is trying to do to the encyclopaedia. Lambton T/C 20:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per nominator and too much of a troll magnet. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Could you evidence the troll claim, and if so, why it matters? Lambton T/C 21:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. We don't delete things due to a potential for abuse. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Says you, but there is precedent, eg GNAA, and that is merely part of my reasoning anyway. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Precedent alone is not much of an argument. If something is against our principles here, the fact that it's been done before holds little weight. Again, we don't delete things just because they're an easy target. We also have ways of dealing with that -- protection, etc. This discussion should focus on the merits of the topic as its own article, not on how fearful we are that it'll get vandalized. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Its not vandalism that worries me, its POV pushing. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. POV pushing? People for and against have made serious arguments one way or the other in the legal realm and there must be a way for these arguments to be properly represented. There needs to be more legal/legislative information on this page. This article deserves to be kept intact and allowed to develop by different perspective viewpoints. You cannot have a decent understanding of issues unless there is chance for clarification on where people are coming from. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 04:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The "POV pushing" argument aside, what are you talking about? What legal issue is this? Whether or not naked children should be legal? If there were such an issue, it would be perfect for this article, but there isn't. If you mean child nudity in art and photographs, then yes that is a prominent issue, perhaps deserving of its own article, once there's enough content for it to warrant more than just its own section in another article. But we neither have that amount of content yet, nor is this article actually about that topic. This article is about something more general and perhaps too ambiguous, as Rodhullandemu points out below. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to nudity or another such article (I'm not familiar enough with all the various nudity articles to suggest a better specific article). There isn't actually much there, and what is there isn't enough to warrant its own article. The only reason to keep it separate would be if it's too long to be contained in another article, and it clearly isn't. The useful content here could easily be contained in a section of maybe 3 or 4 paragraphs in a larger nudity article. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes well I would be happy enough to see it merged into nudity. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd go along with that also, subject to proper sourcing and avoiding OR after the merge. (My !vote above is listed as "delete") --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep and Do not merge. Article is of special concern for legal, philosophical, cultural reasons, the topic is controversial and allowing a proper comprehensive legal, culture to culture and historical look at the topic would not be best met in an abbreviated form on the nudity page.User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 23:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into Nudity as a section; the article as written doesn't seem to have a focus. However, there are issues with child nudity over various topics, such as sociology, art & photography, which this article is confused about dealing with. --Rodhullandemu 01:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into Nudity as a section, per reasons given above. TalkIslander 12:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge a properly sourced aand NPOV version of this article into nudity.-- danntm T C 14:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete this train wreck of an article. This article was designed to be, is, and probably will always be a nest of original research. Herostratus (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into Nudity and possibly Child Sexuality. I'm generally a strong Inclusionist but, as it exists, this article seems more like a loose - and somewhat arbitrary - collection of facts around a theme that hasn't proven its need to exist as its own topic. I disagree with those who complain about POV, though. In fact, it's precisely any sort of coherent message that this article lacks. There's potential for a worthy article here, and I recommend to anyone who wants to acheive that that they figure out what their agenda is, and modify this page to make their case. *Then* we can go about NPOVing it. --MQDuck 18:48, 6 May 2008 (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.