Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Naked party"

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 of the debate was no consensus. Most people voting "keep" also wanted a move to Naked party, so it has been done. -- King of Hearts ^talk 23:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Naked party"

Seeing as this article was listed under Category:Articles lacking sources, I tried looking up sources. However, too many of the results either were galleries of naked parties or having to do with the 1997 movie. Basically put, there are too little viable sources for such a topic matter. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect in to Clothes free movement. There is a small reference nude parties under the Philosophy and practice section, it looks like most of the contents of this article would fit neatly after/around this.--Blue520 14:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sill is a bit stubby but the cleanup/rewrites are good, keep and move to a better title with out the " " per Night Gyr/Haza-w.--Blue520 20:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge as per Blue520. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 14:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Dare I say keep and cleanup? It's apparently a valid international phenomenon, with news coverage via the BBC, the NY Sun, and a noted editorial piece in Christianity Today, and that's from the first 30 google hits that are riddled with a lot of fluff. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 17:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Someone should try to cleanup the article, adding some sources and so forth as well as eliminating the non-neutral point of view. If they do well enough, I vote to keep the article. Otherwise, merge as per Blue520. Cool3 18:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable neologism. "Party naked" is a t-shirt slogan and a joke, not a subject for an encyclopedia article. Nudists socially gather all the time, and there are several articles already that do a better job of explaining the various groups of people who like to be nude in public. Brian G. Crawford 19:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Those references from badlydrawnjeff show that this is real, international and well worth inclusion here, just like streaking was in the 70s. The many different aspects of public nudity need to be discussed here. -- JJay 19:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup as per all above Jcuk 21:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Badlydrawnjeff. Like streaking, this phenomenon seems to be independent of nudism per se.Feezo (Talk) 23:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per jeff; real and notable phenomenon. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 00:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per Brian G. Crawford; Is this really the caliber of Wikipedia? What is the relevance of this article to anything whatsoever?C3H5N3O92010 01:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It's relevant to youth culture and college life. I've improved the article a bit, too. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 01:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I completely rewrote it with more references. It's still stubby, but it's workable now. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 01:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete brian. --Khoikhoi 05:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, don't merge, since the college phenomenon is really distinct from some larger social movement and shouldn't be treated as such, but move to better title. We shouldn't have quotes around the article's title, and it's looking good with sources now. Night Gyr 06:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and move to Naked party. haz (user talk) 17:44, 20 March 2006
• Move to Naked party, per Haza-w. -Colin Kimbrell 19:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Party and remove those quotes around the article name. I merged Naked yoga with Yoga#Naked yoga I'm not sure what to say. It seems more like a cultural phenomenon, than part of a larger clothes free movement. However the two often go together. Seems to be somewhere along the lines of the Naked Pumpkin Run [1] (no article), Streaking, and themed college parties. Dandelion1 03:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, "naked yoga" into "yoga" makes more sense than merging this into "party". I mean, we wouldn't merge "nudist movement" into "movement" or "naked gun" into "gun" - a naked party is pretty different from a regular party, and has its own purpose. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 04:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I can see your point, but on this particular topic I would disagree as naked party seems to be a variant of party. It sounds like a themed party, just like toga party. Are you making a case that a naked party is more distinct from other variants such as "office party" or "dance party"? Its just a dress code just like a toga party or themed dance parties. If I think of something radically distressing, like a suicide party (does it even exist?) or something weird, it would not really fit in to the same general function of having a party, and I thus could see it being kept separate from "party".

I was mostly kidding with the gun/movement analogies, but in seriousness, I think toga party is worthy of its own article, like "naked party", whereas office parties, dance parties, and birthday parties are more traditional, simple "parties". My standard would basically be this: if a friend simply told you they were "going to a party", would you reasonably assume that they might be going to a naked party? I, for one, might assume that they were talking about an office party or a dance party or a birthday party (depending on the context) - moreover, I'd assume that, were they going to a toga party or a naked party or a costume party (costume parties have their own article at masquerade ball), they would specify such. I'd be open to well-written and susbstantial articles on "office party" or "dance party", of course, but until then, they seem to fit more comfortably and completely within the standard meaning of, simply, "party". Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 00:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I would also add that there are naked parties outside of the college age crowd, often thrown by nudists and naturists and they are just like other parties except there is a lot more nudity.Dandelion1 23:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This should be added, I think. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 00:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I would have never personally merged that. Hm. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 20:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep but link to party, remove quotes around title. Now I'm going to disagree with myself. I think there is enough info on naked party to justify its own article, but I think that their should be a reference at party as the other types also have.

• Merge with Clothes-free movement and party

This is like voting to cut the baby in half :) Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 20:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Move and cleanup: the article is vaguely sourced and has a rather specific perspective (talks about Yale a lot). However, the phenomenon is apparently real... I say let the page editors decide on the best name for it, but the quotes have to go. Mangojuice 18:59, 23 March 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.