Deletion of Nude celebrities on the Internet (2nd nomination)

Comment: I usually consider myself an inclusionist, and while this may technically meet , it's simply not suitable for inclusion within an encyclopedia. I disagree that it's discriminate info; in fact, the topic is extremely vague. Are we describing nude people who happen to have their pictures posted on the Internet? If so, then it does indeed fail . All salvageable info (doubtful that there's much) can be merged into any combination of the many nudity-related pages
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:IINFO)

Comment: The question is whether or not ''nude celebrities on the Internet'' is a legitimate topic for an encyclopaedia article. The answer, even after reading the article and the misdirected nomination, would seem to me to be "why on earth not?" Is there a dearth of reliable coverage of the topic? http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/fashion/sundaystyles/19tapes.html Not http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/thestar/access/13191334.html?dids=13191334:13191334&FMT=CITE&FMTS=CITE:FT&type=current&date=Jul+27%2C+1997&author=by+Ian+Haysom+%28SOUTHAM+NEWSPAPERS%29+SPECIAL+TO+THE+STAR&pub=Toronto+Star&desc=Dropping+fame%27s+pants+Naked+celebrities+bared+by+Internet+and+magazines&pqatl=google by http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124586548125448559.html a http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/golf/5363958.stm long http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2002/05/52429?currentPage=all stretch. Is there any fatal spam/conflict of interest/self-referential element to the topic that would prevent us ever having an encyclopaedic article on it? Not as far as anyone has claimed thus far. Is it inherently unmaintainable? Having as its subject a dynamic topic that attracts low-quality contributions is |no justification for throwing in the towel. Doing so after eight years, which, given that in the absence of a global data storage/electricity apocalypse this particular repository of information is likely to persist in some form for hundreds of years, seems foolishly shortsighted. No compelling reason has been offered to justify deletion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:PROBLEMS)