Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake nude photography

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 keep. Consensus of the discussion is that although the article needs considerable improvement, there are enough sources to support keeping the article as one about a notable subject. RL0919 (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fake nude photography

[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)

An eclectic mix of press clippings tangentially related to a seemingly non-notable subject. Reads like original research. Suggest redirecting to nude photography or deepfake. DHN (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a social issues and media issues so serious Suy nghĩ mãi mà vẫn chẳng biết đặt tên là gì thiệt chán hết sức (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Keep: (oppose merge / redirect ). see new !vote below to alternate target. It may require cleanup but merging or redirecting to nude photography or deepfake might cause disruption of somewhat better articles with their specific purposes which perhaps should not be diluted .... (rubbish+good leading to one half rubbish). The advice for coding was ... don't optimize, if you still want to optimize then do it later. Same with merging ... don't rush into a bad merge. And if you want to redirect not copying any content do so and if the target would need work to accept the redirect seemlessly (possibly to a section/anchor) with no WP:SURPISE say so. Promotion of one product on the target is somewhat of an issue also but that's cleanup. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have observed nom has changed his text from merge to redirect which is clear but I would in future suggest when changing one's nom or vote apart perhaps from a trivial typo it is better to strike the old and introduce the new. I'd also note if one wishes to suggest redirects/mergte that should be explored prior to AfD really. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Korean Times, Washington Post, CNN, Mew York Times. Notable. Lightburst (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article is verging on WP:TNT territory, but this is probably a notable topic. I don't think it's appropriate to redirect it to deepfake since that's a more specific topic (the use of neural networks to create fake nudes/porn), and nude photography is too general. I'm used to this stuff being called "celebrity fakes", and that term redirects to Imagery of nude celebrities, which has a brief paragraph on the subject. There's probably enough coverage for a stand-alone article though. For example, a quick search found this: [1] I would look for more but I have to go to work now and I'm not going to google "celebrity nudes" on my work computer. If the article is kept it will have to be largely rewritten and trimmed to remove trivial examples, though. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 11:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article has been cleaned up and sources added. The article is still not in the best shape, but the topic meets GNG, and it's a subject of enough popular interest that the article won't languish in obscurity forever. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough subject and plenty of RS available. Article needs to be improved, but that is not a reason for deletion. --John B123 (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, awful subject faking someone's head on a nude body, but there are good sources here. I dream of Maple (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: (to Photo manipulation r-printworthy, r-with-history not(r-with-possibilities)). Hunting around trying to improve this article came across the Photo manipulation which covers the content of this article in my opinion at first glance very well without some of the issues that are coming up and I think we are trying to work round. Much of the content here relates to Photographic image editing of humans ( per Figure study but not necessarily posed and where context is more important). A potentially faked human image does not have to nude to give problems out article is currently ... this topical image story for example, if faked, is proving problematic for the subject [2]. Out article doesn't really cover well photoshopping for improvement of a person's appearance, for example to remove freckles. I'd like to emphaise while we have found some useful sources i'd not want to disrupt the target article so I am advocate redirect and opposing merge. I remain opposed to merge/redirect to either nude photography or deepfake for reasons given above. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Page is a bit messy and could use some more cleanup. I made some minor edits regarding phrasing and unverified claims. The subject is notable enough, but needs more English language sources. An expanded list of "notable cases" might lend further weight to the issue. Nimlhûg (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I revert some content that mr SpicyMilkBoy had been deleted, and I have to talk that thing with SpicyMilkBoy, but, maybe he accurate, hope any administer can reviews. Suy nghĩ mãi mà vẫn chẳng biết đặt tên là gì thiệt chán hết sức (talk) 02:20, 1 December 2019 (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.