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 would have closed this no consensus, but none of the arguments for keeping present anything that could be used to correct this article's problems. There is nothing provided that can refute the WP:OR/WP:NPOV problems presented by the nominator without rewriting the article. --Core desat 04:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturned own closure to no consensus. --Core desat 03:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nude celebrities on the Internet[edit]

This reads like a personal essay, and while written in a somewhat encyclopedic way, there are no references to substantiate the topic to suggest that this is more than just original research, or a POV fork. Note that this is a former featured article... from 2003, that is. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If ever there was an article that needed some illustrations.... Damn. Mandsford 00:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Come on Mandsford, don't be bashful. Thousands of pictures need to be added to this article immediately to allow editors a proper chance to assess its merits or otherwise. Nick mallory 01:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If not, someone can invent Whackipedia. Mandsford 21:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Hornet35 02:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The topic is notable enough to warrant an article. What this needs are a few sources added and perhaps a new title. I don't see this being OR as the article doesn't seem to be creating new knowledge; it just lacks sources. When it was described above as a "personal essay" I was expecting something a lot worse than this. The list of examples should be vetted per WP:BLP, though. 23skidoo 04:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete content is almost entirely original research, with lots of synthesis. Corpx 05:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this reads like an essay, as the tag on it implies, and I don't see any reliable sources to indicate that there's been any kind of formal study or reporting on this topic. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Prurient interest aside, it is enough of a cultural phenomenon, that it often gets significant press coverage (The Jennifer Aniston case, and recently the Nick Lachey/Vanessa Minnilio case) and probably warrants an article. It just needs to be cleaned up to be more encyclopaedic and "fleshed" (pun entirely intended...) out with sources... --BaldDee 15:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is presently weakly referenced, but per Google Books [1] there are lots of books commenting on the phenomenon of people looking at said photos, real or faked. No original research needed. Edison 20:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep The subject is clearly notable, but the article is almost wholely unreferenced and original research. We can do a better job than this. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually make it full Keep. A former Wikipedia:Featured article being deleted outright is just not a good idea. We can rebuild it. We have the technology. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bonus points for the Six Million Dollar man reference. Italia^vivi 19:59, 29 August 2007 (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.