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 no consensus. W.marsh 02:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of photographers known for portraying males erotically[edit]

This article was deleted after a prod, but later restored when contested on DRV. There is nothing in this article that couldn't be accomplished with a category. It's really needless listcreep. BigDT 17:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was the one who prodded this, I thought it looked familiar. Anyway, here is the diff of him requesting it be put back. I guess he just did it in the wrong place or something. It's probably better as a category, it's definitely POV (who decides whether they are being portrayed erotically or just portraying them nude?) and it's pretty arbitrary as well (why only males?). Maybe a category on Category:Photographers of nudes or something similarly named would be OK, but since its such a commonplace thing in fine art photography, I don't see it as being all that necessary. Recury 18:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sorry that I didn't find your name anywhere on the original Prod and that it was in the wrong place. I did post on the talk page of Kungfuadam, who in less than four days had elimnated the list and never replied. This list is not just about nude photography of men as some of the Calvin Klein and 2(x)ist underwear ads are without question "erotic" even if their genitals are covered. For many years erotic photography of the male was kept out of view and never as well know as the photography of women nude or partially clothed. Many of these photographers on the list were top professionals known for their commercial and high fashion work and this side of their art was known only to personal friends. Large quantities of this work was destroyed by the artists themselves before their deaths and I believe that it is an important part of history to have these names grouped together in some way. As you can see there are a number of links to this page from other photography pages. No, I did not start the page or do the principal edits, but I consider it important. Doc ♬ talk 18:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that is the case then the subject deserves a full article and is not well-served at all by a list of names without explanations (which will likely attract a large amount of spam and advertisement). Recury 19:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would agree that much more is needed on this. So far, at least, it has not been spamed that much and I think the list has been kept under control better than many. Doc ♬ talk 19:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're not talking about whether the subjects of the articles in this list are notable. We're talking about whether or not the list itself is needed. The entire article is nothing but an alphabetical list of bluelinked articles. It is serving the same function as a category. This is not a judgment on the usefulness or worthlessness of these people's work. This AFD is nothing more than a decision as to whether this list serves an encyclopedic purpose. As it is a subjective list and a list that serves the same function as a category, I do not believe that any encyclopedic purpose is served by having it. BigDT 22:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the contrary, I believe that grouping these name does indeed serve an encylopaedic purpose for anyone wishing to research those that have done photography in this area. I am perfectly open to the sugestion that it include a couple of paragraphs on the field at the top, or that it be changed to a category if that is the consensus view, as long as it limits the scope to this particular group of persons. Doc ♬ talk 23:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You haven't offered any reason for the list (as opposed to a category) to exist. If a list exactly duplicates the information that would be in a category, it serves no purpose. BigDT 01:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have tried to state what I do consider important and have asked for input on which would be better. If there is consensus that this would be better served as a category, I don't have a problem with that and would create same before this history gets deleted again. Doc ♬ talk 01:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Please keep. This page is useful for the particular genre of photography — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.40.49 (talk • contribs)
• Keep Per doc. Ohyeahmormons 02:49, 20 August 2006 (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.