Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nudity in music videos

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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nudity in music videos

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

Synthesis. Nothing but a list of "music videos that feature nudity" with no discussion beyond "omg teh nekkid peepulz!" Very few sources, most of the nudity is "various actresses," most of the contents of the videos are unsourced. There is absolutely nothing in common except that all the videos have some form of nudity; it's not a discussion, it's a questionable list. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tag for cleanup and keep.~~ There is nothing that suggests a list was intended here. Remove the not-so-notable entries, leaving only prime examples, and leave the lead paragraph as a stub. That part should be expanded. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Strong keep in light of the previous AfD. Whether it's a list or an article describing the phenomenon, it doesn't matter, it's still a keeper. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable topic, article may need work but so does the rest of Wikipedia . Any musical video with a separate entry in Wikipedia is notable enough to be included--not just prime examples--that's our usual standard for such articles. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If at first you don't succeed in deleting an article, try, try again. Or not. After the last AfD the title was changed to be "Nudity in music videos" rather than "List of...": all that is needed now is for a motivated editor to remould the article using the vast number of sources out there on nudity in music videos. That motivated editor might be me (I added the existing references, and listed several at the previous AfD), or it may be someone else, but there's no need to delete a poor article on a notable topic. Fences&Windows 11:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:V and reliable sources are available. Erykah Badu's "Window Seat" video alone makes this article very notable from a music notability arising from other criteria - its first criteria is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre. Her nude video superimposed on or around the Dealey Plaza has evoked memories of the John F. Kennedy assassination that caused a major reaction and was covered in depth by many reliable news organizations. Lady Gaga's "Telephone" video has caused a similar stir and received a dust up from Donny Osmond. A refimprove tag should aid this article immensely. --Morenooso (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NOTAGAIN (see recent AfD). Lugnuts (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this entirely novel list topic contravene the prohibition on original research. As far as I can see, this list, or anything like it, has not be been published anywhere except within Wikipedia, so there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable. To demonstrate that this topic was not created out of thin air, a verifiable definition is needed to comply with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense, you're just VAGUEWAVING in the hope that one of your acronyms will stick. I listed several articles discussing the issue of nudity in music videos at the last AfD, so the argument of OR or SYNTH is totally invalid. It's a topic with a list tacked on, not a list per se (note the title change after the last AfD), but we don't require that for lists to be valid the entries must have been listed together off Wikipedia (don't invent your own rules in order to try to delete articles). Of course its verifiable! Did you even spend a single second looking for sources, several of which are already included in the article? Thinking the current article is poor is no reason to delete the article: it's a reason to write it properly. Fences&Windows 16:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment : Similar concerns have been raised about Gavin Collins view on OR at his talk page. Codf1977 (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2010 (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.