Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clothed male, naked female (2nd nomination)

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 delete. I'm jointly closing the AfDs about Clothed female, naked male and Clothed male, naked female. In each case, there is consensus to not keep the article, which leaves us to decide whether the outcome is delete or merge. A minority of contributors would merge the articles into each other, but there is no consensus about what the title of the merged article would be or what it would be about (porn, art history, or both?). As such, deletion is the most consensual outcome. Sandstein 21:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clothed male, naked female

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

yes the acronym is a dictionary definition. Just about anything online is a mirror of wikipedia content. Can't see anything in google books or scholar either that discusses the term or idea as such. Some passing mention in a reference but there doesn't seem to be anything on the theme itself. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Merge with Clothed female, naked male. There is writing about this topic in the context of erotica and art history, though you do have to sift through a lot of pornography to find it. The two articles both cover the broader concept of art or erotica in which some of the participants are clothed and others are not, either for its own sake, or representative of power dynamics that appeal to artistic expression and to BDSM enthusiasts. Some examples, not all RS and not all use the term exactly; I promise none are porn but can't promise they're all safe-for-work: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, what would you imagine the title of the merged page would be? One of the reasons I didn't just BOLD merge these is that I couldn't find a good title for both of the pages combined, which isn't bad and or OR. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 13:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wall I ran into, so I'm wondering if both CFNM & CMNF might be better off merged into a section in a larger article - possibly erotic humiliation. Alternately, maybe clothed/naked fetishism per a suggestion at the previous AfD? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think even broader - maybe some sort of broad article on sexual imagery? As older classical portrayals not humilating...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That could work, if there's the sourcing for it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply not enough RS to sustain an article. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge both to a new article on Gender inequality and nudity. BD2412 T 05:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Three fundamental problems. The article's focus cannot be demonstrated as notable in 3rd-party sources. I appreciate the good-faith efforts of Ivanvector and others to look for fire under the smoke, but I don't see any good sources for this concept. The concept is also not verifiable, as named and defined here. Either of those obvious problems should kill the article. Lastly there's the trickier third problem of where does this idea come from? that editors have gotten caught up in, instead of addressing #1 and #2. Is porn the context? Is feminism the context? Is European art history the context? The article's first sentence claims CMNF is "a genre of nudity in which one or more women are nude while one or more men are clothed," which is a tautology, plus it turns on a nonsensical concept "genre of nudity". --Lockley (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as failing WP:OR. No indications of meeting notability requirements. --K.e.coffman (talk) 12:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think there is perhaps a small nugget of sourceable info on this phenomenon (and its reverse) as a kink/porn genre, but it could live as a section in erotic humiliation or similar. The current content of this article, and its sibling, Clothed female, naked male, is entirely WP:SYNTH, so I see nothing of value to merge anywhere. Colin M (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems highly contrived and based on sourcing that is too limited to give rise to its own term. Also, examples of convergent representation in art across different cultures and periods, however similar, do not automatically represent 'a genre'. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A more appropriate place for this article and its ilk would be something like 'Sexism in art' Iskandar323 (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the concept of CMNF/CFNM isn't to do with fine art, it's a sexual fetish. Sexism in art is a whole different topic. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:13, 21 October 2021 (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.