This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Causes violations of Matthew 5:28. 205.217.105.2 16:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep. This is a disruptive VfD nomination for obvious reasons. The anonymous user appears to be coming from a proxy IP. But, could someone explain -- why the cutoff date of 1923? The article doesn't say. Sdedeo 16:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the United States, all portraits from that era have passed into the public domain." --Tothebarricades 16:32, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I just figured everyone agreed that that was when nudity jumped the shark.
      • You just gave me my best laugh of the day! Cheers! Keep Hamster Sandwich 18:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. The cutoff year for public domain will change, so this is an unstable title. Photography of female nudes in the public domain, perhaps? Or just merge with an article on photography of female nudes? --Tothebarricades 16:32, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but maybe move to something like Public domain photography of female nudes, per Tothebarricades. -- Plutor 16:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep But the title does need attention. There have already been discussions of this in the article's talk page, and the present title is the one that was decided upon. Think again... Tonywalton 20:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per above. Eclipsed 20:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep would be nice, absolutely invalid reason for nomination CanadianCaesar 21:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, Speedy if possible. Invalid reason for nomination. ManoaChild 23:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to the page Tothebarricades mentioned. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and send the nomination to BJAODN. Martg76 23:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep without even looking at article content (in work, dodgy title to click on). Extrmely bad faith (ironic term here, eh) nomination. --Kiand 23:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Say what now? Since when is the Wikipedia:Deletion policy in the Bible? Besides, Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors or similar. --IByte 23:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename for the fine reasons provided by Tothebarricades. Nandesuka 23:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article, BJAODN the nomination. --Carnildo 23:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Matthew 5:28 article came in useful... Who knew! Flowerparty ^talk 01:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Matthew 5:28? Hell's bells and buggy wheels, let's remove every photograph from wikipedia because they all contravene Exodus 20:4! Grutness...wha? 02:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Good article. Renaming to something like Photography of female nudes in the public domain may be helpful though. --Apyule 06:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think the nominator is an anti-Christian posing pretentiously posing as a devout Christian in order to inflame the sensibilities of average people. Barneygumble 18:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Should definatly be kept, for proof please visit http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Blockip?ip=Carnildo this?--172.147.127.192 19:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • People keep messing with this trollish link (see history), I removed the link markup. --IByte 15:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Pseudo-Christian morality is inappropriate here! Bob2
• Comment: I am highly tempted to change my vote to suggest that this article, including the images, should be merged with Matthew 5:28 as an example of how it can be violated. Martg76 21:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hamster Sandwich spits out coffee. 21:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but merge or rename or something. Name's too obscure as is. And spank the nominator for trolling. Tualha (Talk) 11:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Rename it though. Penquin 14:35, 15 August 2005

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.