Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-nude pornography

Add links
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 Redirect to History of erotic photography for now. While several sources were introduced during this debate, they have not been used to expand the article, which is currently only sourced to "Lighting Techniques for Fashion and Glamour Photography". Basically a keep, but with no verified content whatsoever in the current article, it seems best to redirect it until someone actually wants to bother writing a proper article. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-nude pornography

[edit]
Non-nude pornography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable; has never had any sources, I can't find any sources. Prezbo (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are hundreds of thousands of Google hits. Moreover, I found four sources using Google Scholar that indicate this to be a phenomenon:

1. Albright, Julie. (2005). “Lolita Online: Sex and under-aged smoking on the Internet.” International Journal of Critical Psychology, June. The under-aged girls appearing on these sites all appear clothed, yet these images may still be considered pornographic: U.S. case law in the United States vs. Knox case stated that images showing “lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area” including non-nude depictions which are meant to be sexually exciting can be considered child porn (MSNBC.com, 2002). [[1]]

2. The Common Law and Its Impact on the Internet ROBERT AALBERTS, et al. He discovered a number of probable childpornography sites including one with the title ‘‘Teenflirts.org: The OriginalNon-Nude Teen Index.’’ [[2]]

3. TESTIMONY REGARDING HOW INTERNET PROTOCOL-ENABLED SERVICESARE CHANGING THE FACE OF COMMUNICATIONSBEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCESUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS & THE INTERNET By Charles M. Davidson, Commissioner, Florida Public Service Commission Playboy Enterprises announced today that the company is set to offer nude and non-nudephoto galleries that have been specifically formatted for viewing on Sony's PSPhandheld. [[3]]

4. Forensic assessment of deviant sexual interests: The current position Vanja Flak, Anthony Beech & Dawn Fisher Abel Screening IncorporatedTM commer- cially produces the ‘Abel Assessment for Sexual Interest’ (AASI) (Abel et al., 1998) using entirely non-nude images of children and adults. It assesses sexual interest by combining covert measures of viewing time (often termed visual reaction time [VRT]), with a self-report sexual history and interest questionnaire. [[4]] Wakablogger2 (talk) 07:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: as the alleged article creator, I'd like to note that in fact I did not create this article, but rather that the current article's location is due to a cut and paste move from 2008 here. I had moved the article correctly in 2006 from the clearly loaded (not to mention nonsensical) term non-nude pornography to non-nude photography, as it was a less POV term that at the time had far more search results and was the term, according to the article at the time, preferred by the "nn community". I have no idea why the cut and past move was done in 2008, or what agenda the cut-and-paste mover had to place an article on my redirect.
As for the fate of the article, I don't much care, but if the article is kept, it should be moved back to non-nude photography (or another NPOV title), with old edits to the article proper being merged with the new edits. Of course, if there is anything salvageable in this article (current or old version), it should be merged with erotic photography rather than outright deleted, although that article currently focuses on nude erotica rather than non-nude "erotic" pictures.-Aknorals (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A topic needs to receive significant coverage in reliable sources to satisfy the inclusion criteria of WP:N. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must be able to cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. The sources you just quoted don't even mention this exact term, so I see nothing here that justifies a fork from Erotic photography or Pornographic photography. Besides, in its current state, the article also has a problem with WP:DICDEF and WP:NEO. — Rankiri (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point that the article needs work to comply with DICDEF is irrelevant as articles can be cleaned up. It seems clear to me that this is a very real phenomenon, though it may not have yet received a fixed name; in that sense, the NEO issue is a concern. Nevertheless, again this is a real phenomenon and should be explained either in this or a different article. Wakablogger2 (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's actually no evidence this is a notable phenomenon. None of the four references you produced above could be used to cite content in this article or expand it.Prezbo (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those four references provide a powerful indication that this is a real phenomenon and are backed up by numerous raw Google hits when such terms as "non-nude porn" and "non-nude pics" are searched for. That does not mean the references are adequate for expanding the article, only that this is a very real phenomenon. Wakablogger2 (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Google hits don't count for anything because it's impossible to know if they're reliable or even related to the topic. See WP:GHITS. Your references don't provided any indication that this is a notable phenomenon, which is what it needs to be for there to be an article.Prezbo (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Google hits do count for something. From the link you provided: "Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." The citations I provided indicate that it is a topic worth listing on Wikipedia; the Google hits provide evidence that it is a very common topic. Wakablogger2 (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is there to merge? Nothing in the article is cited.Prezbo (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Non-nude_pornography&oldid=1138167926"