Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Issues in social nudity

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 Nudity. I see limited support for keeping this as a standalone article. Views differ as to the best redirect target, but closing this as "no consensus" would defy the clear consensus to redirect it somewhere. The Nudity target got marginally more support here, but discussion on a better target may continue on the Talk page. Owen× ☎ 14:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Issues in social nudity

[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)

This article hardly addresses issues, and is apparent from the get go with the introductory paragraph rehashing info that can be found in many other articles on nudism such as Nudity, Naturism, and Nude recreation, etc.. The article on Nudity especially has multiple sections dedicated to issues, in regards to its legality, cultural acceptance, and child development. The terminology section is totally unnecessary for an article about the issues related to a concept as it does not address any terms related to issues, only the history of naturist related terms themselves. Diversity in nudist clubs is not relevant to its issues unless those issues are stated, discussed, and sourced, which they are not, and would be more appropriate on articles covering specific cultural attitudes towards nudity as shown in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudity#Cultural_differences. The other issues and legality sections are short and can be moved elsewhere, other articles about nudity and naturism have subsections covering particular countries where these tidbits may be more relevant. Micahtchi (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Micahtchi (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Anything useful and not redundant here can be merged with one of the existing articles mentioned.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 05:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I poked around Talk:Naturism and apparently Issues in social nudity was intentionally spun off from Naturism in as part of an effort to reduce the size of that article. I don't think that has any bearing on whether or not to keep this article, but any editor wanting to move content from this article back to Naturism should be aware of the issues there. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this before- what I got from it at the time (in the 2000s, so a while ago) was this person made a whole bunch of nudity related articles (that were too specific or unnecessary and were deleted or merged into articles like naturism and nudity, and seemed to get into a lot of fights about them too...). I think the reason it exists was because of old beefs and (in my opinion) an apparent desire to be first when it comes to writing these articles. I got this mainly from the original author's talk page. Micahtchi (talk) 07:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article has been PROD'd before so is not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Discussion as to whether and how the article can be improved, or whether an earlier split should be reverted, or whether parts of the article should be merged elsewhere, are appropriate for talk page discussion and not AFD. The article has at least some appropriate, not duplicated, referenced content so deletion at this stage is not appropriate. Thincat (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Good Article Nudity. The latter is much better written, having gone through the GA process. — Maile (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Redirect to nudity as this content does not fit that topic area's broad scope and is a better fit to naturism or recreational nudity.4meter4 (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep and speedy close per WP:WRONGFORUM. The issues presented here are all content based decisions in nature and do not fall under WP:DEL-REASON. The was a WP:FORK based on size from the parent article on Naturism. How to improve the scope of this spin-off, or whether or not to merge it back to naturism are not issues pertinent to WP:AFD and per policy at Wikipedia:DEL-CONTENT should be handled instead at Talk:Issues in social nudity using the WP:CONSENSUS process.4meter4 (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nudity. Makes sense as people can find what they want or an article that is more specific. This is too broad. Nothing whatsoever to do with deletion but we could cover topics like this without the colonial era shots of bare breasted indigenous people, IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect this WP:CONTENTFORK to nudity. If nothing else, the title of the article is something for a journal, not an encyclopedia. Mangoe (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to the nudity article seems fine, most things are already covered in that article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to differentiate enough to have its own article. Certainly no reason to destroy the work done to cater to someone's personal taste. 2603:8001:7106:C515:5D20:CF20:234B:4FE8 (talk) 07:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just not seeing anything here that isn't already covered in a more logical place. The subject is really an aspect of nude recreation, so if redirecting anywhere, it should probably be there. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:13, 27 November 2024 (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.