Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nude celebrities on the Internet (2nd nomination)
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
— [[user talk:Skomorokh|&nbsp;Skomorokh&nbsp;]], 12:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:PROBLEMS (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)