Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nude recreation

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. postdlf (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Nude recreation

Nude recreation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Seems to be OR, list of activities that someone associates with "nude recreation" however that term might be defined. Seems to read as a "directory" of nude activities. Caffeyw (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. I see no OR, these are activities that could be reasonably described as "nude recreation". Many of them probably do not warrant a separate article, so the article makes sense in this respect. The article could also be expected to enumerate and briefly describe such activities, which is also fine and has nothing to do with WP:NOTDIR. GregorB (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. The article does have some problems. Much of the content seems to be just random activities that some people do naked, with no accompanying sources, but it doesn't seem like an insurmountable wp:problem. It needs work, not deletion. Grayfell (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - All this article needs is a few more citations. Guy1890 (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep and improve per above - WP:N is probably met, but the article does need some work. Ansh666 03:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Not sure how notability can be met. All it is a term someone came up with for anything that a person does in the nude. Since one can do anything nude (maybe not legally in certain circumstances) there's no encyclopedic value to listing every activity that a person can do. All this appears to me is two words put together with a definition of what those two words mean, followed by a list of every possible human activity. I've fried bacon outdoors camping while naked, should that have an entry? It could go on and on. Caffeyw (talk) 04:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It's not (i.e. it shouldn't be) a list of what can be done, but it is OK to list what has been done, with any regularity at least, if supported by reliable sources. GregorB (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
• Merge with any of the following: Naturism, Public nudity, Nudity in sport, etc etc. I really can't see the point of having so many pages about these types of events/activities, except as tittilation. I think an argument can be made that the number of pages about nudity and naked events/activities is systemically WP:UNDUE. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 10:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I would need to know the total number of "nude-related" articles on Wikipedia to judge whether there was a valid UNDUE argument. Other than that, Wikipedia is not censored. Guy1890 (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting censoring anything. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 22:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, see Portal:Nudity. The pseudo-random sampling I made of those articles suggests that not just this article, but the subject as a whole needs an awful lot of cleanup. And the articles, generally, are more image-heavy than other topics, I'll note. It might be an interesting project to do some comparisons, actually. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 22:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm vaguely familiar with the with the nudity portal, but AfD is not cleanup. I'd suggest that you take your concerns (which my indeed be valid) there instead. Guy1890 (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• Keep and improve - As a reply to the comment above: focus the article on organized activities. I also oppose the merge argument: public nudity and nudity in sport are notable enough to have their own articles, and general recreation is not a sport, nor must it necessarily be public. --Terminator484 (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2013 (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.