Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Men's fashion freedom

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 of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Men's fashion freedom

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Male Unbifurcated Garment and its DRVs (1, 2).

This term (in quotes) gets 333 Google hits, all apparently from blogs, forums and such. For that reason, and judging from the links that are supplied, I have strong suspicions this "movement" consists of a handful of individuals at best, and is therefore not sufficiently notable for inclusion (let alone attested by reliable sources). What encyclopedic content there is (about skirts for men) is already replicated at Skirt#Men_in_skirts. Sandstein 21:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment was at fashion freedom (23k ghits) but was exclusively about fashion freedom for men so I moved it. I am not convinced it is significant. Just zis Guy you know? 21:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. --Ezeu 21:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable movement. Fan1967 23:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - It's semi-obscure, but not any less worthy of inclusion than a lot of semi-obscure things (such as Jordanhill railway station). The word "movement" may be a little misleading (if it's taken to imply any kind of centralized organization), but it is in fact a real phenomenon. As long as the article is not a platform for Dr1819's personal advocacy, I see no reason to delete it. (If it reverts to being a platform for Dr1819's personal advocacy, then it would be worthy of speedy delete). Churchh 22:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • "Semi-obscure" is a very good argument to delete, as far as Wikipedia standards are concerned. --Ezeu 00:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Then why don't you propose that Jordanhill railway station should be deleted first? Actually, it's not a "very good argument" at all -- there are scads of Wikipedia articles on minor medieval monarchs who are also at least "semi-obscure" (for example)... As long as Dr1819 can be kept from exerting the leading role on the article (something which was a proven recipe for disaster in the past), I really don't see why "Men's fashion freedom" can't be a perfectly legitimate (though rather minor) Wikipedia article. Churchh 01:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • You can visit the Jordanhill railway station yourself and see the evidence with your own eyes. Where is the evidence of sufficient usage here? Gamaliel 23:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I bet that "Jordanhill Railway station" would have gotten much fewer than 333 Google hits until a few months ago... In fact, "Jordanhill Railway station" -Wikipedia still only turns up 96. [1] Churchh 00:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments here removed to talk for clarity. (by JzG)

• Delete as neologistic non-encyclopedic inherently POV cruft. In other words, dump it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments here removed to talk for clarity. (by JzG)

• My goodness, this seems to be the same bad movie we've seen several times already with MUG, all over again. There is way way way too much gafla to wade through in Dr1819's comments and NOTHING that satisfies the basic principles of meaningful sources, verifiability, notability and so forth that we have repeatedly pointed out govern the process here. Dr1819 you give every impression of being a vexatious litigant on this topic, and you really need to internalise the way we do things here or go away. You're, in my view, cruising for a block if you do not change your ways (hint: calling us ignorant folk, or deceptive, won't win you any fans). JzG is being more patient by far than you, at this point, deserve. Delete this non notable neologism. ++Lar: t/c 16:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments here removed to talk for clarity. (by JzG)

• General comment -- please don't vote to delete this article because Dr1819 doesn't work well with others on Wikipedia; vote on the merits of the proposal. Thanks. Churchh 15:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• I haven't. Just zis Guy you know? 22:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Then rename to the far better known Male Unbifurcated Garment, for which numerous references exist. --JJay 23:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support That could work -- the problem with Male Unbifurcated Garment last time was the content, not really the basic premise. Churchh 01:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object because, as you can see from the links at the top of this discussion, "Male Unbifurcated Garment" was repeatedly recognised as non-encyclopedic by the community. Then as now, the problem was not the underlying phenomenon — no one disputes that some men do wear skirts — but the protologistic coining of terms to describe it by what appear to be a very few people on a mission. The actual phenomenon is quite well covered at Skirt#Men_in_skirts, I think, and can be expanded there if necessary. Sandstein 05:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Response - That would be nice, but people keep deleting references to men's fashion freedom and MUGs there, too, again without taking the time to learn about how many people actually use these terms, both of which have been around for at least a decade. Also, Men's Fashion Freedom is a large superset of MUGs, and includes everything from wearing foreign (non-local) garb for men to the wearing of clothes generally intended for the opposite sex. MUGs, on the other hand, refers to the wear of a specific type of clothing that's primarily intended for wear by either men, or both men and women (as are sarongs in the South Pacific). Put another way, MUG-wear isn't generally about men's fashion freedom, and lumping it in with the Skirts is errorneous, as there are many forms of MUGs that are not skirts at all (Caftans, etc.) 12:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. Men in skirts is the wrong way to go. I would also point out to Sandstein that when a term is being used by major print sources on four continents, designers and manufacturers, it is no longer a protologism. I would ask that he stick to the facts. --JJay 12:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• See, I'd be glad to vote "keep" if "Men's fashion freedom" were in fact a term "used by major print sources on four continents". The problem is that it is not. Dr1819 has posted a list of links (now in talk), of which all but one referred to forums, blogs, personal websites and other such internet ephemera. So we'd like to see (after what's now a week of discussion) some actual reliable print references, please. Sandstein 13:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If you refer back to my original comment, you would see that I was talking about MUG, for which, as you know, there are considerable, valid, printed references. --JJay 13:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence presented that this is a phrase with widespread usage or anything more than a website. Gamaliel 23:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Response - unsupported claims and assertions which have been thoroughly debunked. This often-cited nonsense has been strongly countered with clear references to many thousands of men at numerous geographic locations around the world showing keen interest. The only thing that's apparent about comments like thse is that the commenter hasn't taken the time to peruse the links and discover otherwise. This form of abuse, making wildly unsubstantiated claims is a form of abuse and against Wiki rules. It will be reported if continued. Dr1819 12:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's the responsibility of the article to substantiate the claims it makes, not for me to go around and prove that it is or isn't true. And as for your threat, go ahead and report me! I insist upon it! I also insist that you refrain from threatening any more users in this manner. Unlike your threat, this is an official warning. Please conduct yourself in a civil manner without resorting to the use of threats. Gamaliel 17:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Quite. Just for the record, the good Doctor has also threatened to haul me before ArbCom for my various hideous offenses relating to male sartorial preferences. I'm shaking in my boots. Sandstein 18:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - There are about 500 hits for "men's fashion freedom", 850 for men's "fashion freedom", and 1160 for men's unbifurcated garment. It seems to be a real movement (ie way of thinking), and has a fair amount of internet sites specifically about it. I'd like to note that wikipedia isn't about censorship, and small items like this men's fashion freedom movement is at very worst, harmless. Please don't delete an article because its badly written, or because Dr1819 might be acting like an ass. Delete an article if its on a topic that should be written about AT ALL. If it simply isn't well written *rewrite it*, thats what wikipedia is for. Small topics deserve pages just as much as large ones do. Fresheneesz 20:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I beg to disagree. The unbifurcated garments are no longer at issue here, and the internet movement regarding "fashion freedom" seems to consist of a few dozen bloggers and forum participants at best — at least no one has shown otherwise yet. We don't really cover interest groups this small (see WP:WEB, WP:CORP for analogies). Sandstein 21:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• MUG is over 50% of the article. --JJay 21:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

this is some sort of official site. this one is a list of many sites relating to the issue - most of which are not blogs. an example from that site. this site specifically refers to "a movement for men's fashion freedom". This is not just a forum phenonmenon. Fresheneesz 04:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. 114 different google hits for "men's fashion freedom" [2], that's too obscure a "movement". Equendil Talk 10:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on whether or not you want to count the hidden results. Fresheneesz 18:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't, sub pages within a domain artificially inflate the hit count. Equendil Talk 19:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Its not really artificial, as sub pages can be as large an independant as full pages. Fresheneesz 20:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

That's hardly the case [3][4][5][6], for that matter quite a good many of the 114 distinct links are irrelevant [7] Equendil Talk 20:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to note that on the page Notability, it says that "It has been argued that lack of "notability" is not a criterion for deletion" under the header Notability and deletion. The article goes on to say "The problem with writing "Delete, non-notable" is not about whether the articles should be in Wikipedia, but that it is a quick phrase that does not tell another person why the article is non-notable." and "The recent fundraising page says, "Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." We are not doing that if we are deleting articles solely due to their obscurity."

It should be remembered that deleting based on non-notability is NOT policy. Its interesting to note that the main reason to delete non-notable pages is that they "clutter categories", which isn't a huge issue to begin with.

Is there any possible way we can merge and redirect this page - is there any article on a similar topic? I knew nothing about this topic until looking at that article, and I think its simply an interesting passing topic. Please ask yourselves why you want this article to be deleted - I'd be interested to know the downside of keeping the article. Fresheneesz 02:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The article probably should be moved to Men's Unbifurcated Garment, but that one got deleted last time around because most of the content of the article was by Dr1819, and he/she rather conspicuously didn't win friends or influence people during the deletion debate (I myself voted to delete). Churchh 03:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. -lethe ^{talk +} 03:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Per which above? I think its reasonable to give some explanation for a vote, so people can either agree or disagree with specific points. Fresheneesz 05:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not a vote, but a discussion. And I nicked your reference here - I hope that's OK. Stephen B Streater 19:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: the purpose of notability is partly to ensure the ongoing accuracy of an article. See, for example, this edit in the software debate, where the article on a minor piece of software is inaccurate but it is not important enough to fix. Notability also gets away from WP:OWN and ensures that many views are synthesised into a balanced article. Most new articles have a main mover, but my preference is for notable minority content to be added as a short section to a more widely edited relevant article first. When it has received peer review and grown established, it can be moved to an article of its own - as recently happened here, for example. I haven't looked into the content of either article in detail, but a (possibly cleaned up version) of this could come in a section of Fashion, with MUG being included in Clothing. Stephen B Streater 06:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I strongly suspect that neither the most of the regular editors of "Fashion" nor of "Clothing" would really want to deal with the topic in any systematic and sustained way within those articles, and I'm not sure that dumping the problem child on their doorstep actually accomplishes anything. There are plenty of stub articles on Wikipedia. Churchh 16:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Perhaps we can find a better home. It only needs a handful of experienced Wikipedians at any one time to provide and keep balance. There is always the prospect that this subject will accumulate press reports and notability with time, though given that my small company gets hundreds of press reports a year, I think they have some catching up to do. I think the bit about MUG (strange name!) is quite interesting. I'll add a condensed version of this article to Clothing and see if it gets reverted. Perhaps they'll appreciate it. Obviously I have no WP:OWN pretentions if it doesn't work out. Stephen B Streater 18:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • This edit is a start. Still needs cites, but these are promised. Clothing has a reasonable number of editors, so we'll know if it doesn't fit soon enough. Stephen B Streater 19:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: I haven't yet seen sufficient press coverage to ensure a whole verifiable article. I'm happy with a mention in another article so if people do search for the term(s) in Wikipedia, they will find something rather than nothing. As said above, a section can be expanded easily as coverage increases. Stephen B Streater 19:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This would warrant about a one-sentence mention in kilt, at best. And I do mean at best. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like theres consensus to delete, so I won't push my points further. But i'm personally curious to know peoples' opinions as to what is wrong with labeling an article with {{cleanup}}, {{notability}}, {{sources}}, {{POV}}, {{OriginalResearch}}, {{NOR}} , rather than deleting them? I.e. what harm to stub non-notable articles like this do? Fresheneesz 00:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

More entries in the database doesn't make it run any faster, it makes the life of cleanup ant workers that much more difficult, it clutter categories, non notable subjects detract from the notable ones basically. Besides if a subject is not notable, no sources are going to be available for writing a proper article. Worse, it's a slippery slope, deletion is what shields wikipedia from hundred of pages every day that could be "stubbed" and "kept". Equendil Talk 00:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The database is filled with *large* histories of notable articles. Small non-notable articles aren't going to be a significant weight on the database. Of course, if theres more content, cleanup is going to be harder, and cluttered categories aren't an imperative problem.

One thing I could suggest is split up categories into notable and non-notable articles - with notable articles most prominantly displayed. I would think that would solve that problem. A similar thing could be done with cleanup work, notables should get precidence. However, since wikipedia is meant to be improved for the *readers*, I don't see how any of those arguments argue that deletion improves anything for readers. In my point a view an article thats labled as shitty (and is shitty of course), is much better than no article at all. Fresheneesz 01:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I was quite surprised when I found out that 100 articles go through AfD each day, with many more speedied, avoiding considerable clutter. I like to preserve the compactness of information, and if useful information is spread over many insignificant articles, it becomes the job of every reader to collate it. Deletion should also help train editors on what is required and improve the quality of new articles they write and edits they make, so one deletion may result in many good articles. The discussions also ensure we talk to each other about what we are aiming for, stopping us all drifting ever further apart in our aims. Stephen B Streater 06:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

But information is information, and deletion is basically censorship. I have absolutely no problem with full merges of material - merge and redirect. Whenever I find a search item that I expected to go somewhere, but didn't, I'll redirect - and thats what should happen to lots of this information, not a delete. Fresheneesz 07:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

An encylopaedia contains knowledge, not just information. The information in this particular article may be more useful in context, and may have found a suitable new home. Having 200 articles, 50% of which are accurate, is deemed less valuable by WP than having 100 articles which are all accurate, even though this involves deleting 100 articles. I believe there are other wikis which prefer quantity to quality. Stephen B Streater 08:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

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.