Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Female body shape

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. W.marsh 15:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Female body shape

Contested prod. This is a lot of unsourced original research, and our medical articles about the female body cover the subject better. >Radiant< 09:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 14:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Question - Would there be an appropriate medical article to redirect this to? -- saberwyn 09:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is one of the most factual articles I've ever seen. It might need a few more citations. Also, some fair use pictures would be, uhm, nice. Qworty 09:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Don't you mean free use? Yes, the fair use ones are nicer, but they fail WP:NONFREE. :) MER-C 10:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • If you want pictures of a female body shape, I'd suggest the rest of the internet is full of them already :P >Radiant< 10:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, so we should be able to find some good free ones--ideally, even those for which the classification can be sourced, DGG 00:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and i'm very disappointed to see this at AFD just one day after a productive discussion started on the talk page to fix the issues. There are plenty of very good references (it's the citation that is poor, OR is not really an issue) and it's a valid topic, it just needs some work. Contrary to radiant!'s assertion, this information is not covered in any medical article I could find. The reason this was tagged unencyclopedic is because an editor believes that the article is inherently sexist because it talks about female bodies (and because there's no article on male body shape.) --JayHenry 14:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP I found this article VERY helpful!! It told me exactly what i needed to know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.69.101.11 (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

• Keep. Seems like a pretty encyclopedic topic, and there's already a few sources on it, I'm sure more sources could be found. There's a couple parts that are questionable and border on OR, particularly the "Other Descriptions" section, but those can be excised as the article is cleaned up. Krimpet (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Just some bloke's essay on the matter. Mangoe 17:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This article combines many different topics (e.g. in medicine, art, aesthetics) which are adequately dealt with elsewhere. It does so in the context of an essay, and a somewhat suspect one with sexist undertones. The history is interesting: first created as a redirect to a sex magazine (since deleted); then developed as an essay about male sexual preferences for voluptuous women; then passing through various revisions, mostly with a distinctly sexual theme. So, delete as an unsavoury essay about women as meat. andy 18:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There are sources. Reliable peer reviewed journal sources. They don't cover everything, but the rest can be sourced also. The popular use of terms also I think can be easily sourced. I'm not sure what happened to Male body shape, but if was deleted it can be rebuilt properly after this is done right. If the article had poor content earlier, that's no reason to delete it now. The overall article for this entire range of topics is Human variation, an excellent article. This can be more detailed, & I think it's a good start. DGG 00:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I'm sure this is saveable. Secretlondon 21:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• keep please the female body shape is very notable to have yuckfoo 00:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep how beautiful article. im keeping a backup of the article fearing article maybe deleted.58.68.87.3 09:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• I'm biased because I added the sections of "inflection points" and common apple/hourglass/spoon/straight and other discussions. These are actually very analytical in nature, but will not be covered in more "medical" areas. In fact, while analytical, the female body is a work of art and can and should be analyzed outside of pure medical reasons. As such, to delete this article would be like saying art is not a valid entry either, especially when it crosses other subjects of a different analysis. What this article needs is some clean-up, I agree, and some more, professional/expert links, etc... But the article itself should remain an entry. Categorize it as "art" if you will, but trying to dissect the female body form into simple, medical anatomy is part of the problem -- it is an artform in its whole, entirety -- and it can actually be analyzed, mathematically as well. -- Professor Voluptuary 14:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Goodness gracious me. I refuse to comment. - ∅ (∅), 11:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP-- But, be more stringent, less talkative, shorten, don't repeat yourself, information in right paragraphs. jmak 06:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep now i arranged things a little.— vinay 10:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redir to Human figure after massive rewrite/OR purge, write equivalent section on male body shape. - ∅ (∅), 11:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC) delete as per andy - ∅ (∅), 12:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep — Seems interesting, and encyclopedic. Clean it up if it needs to be cleaned up, but it doesn't need to be deleted. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 13:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Merge the important parts with sexual attraction or femininity. Aminullah 16:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Can be fixed, doesn't all contain original research. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flubeca (talk • contribs) 20:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
• Keep Based on sources included.--Xnuala (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• delete mostly boring sleaze, the encyclopedic topic would be something like 'attitudes to ...', & perhaps shld be dealt with in misogyny or sexism  ⇒ bsnowball  16:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Now most part of article are properly sourced. cleanup original research sections than deleting the whole article202.41.72.100 05:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Not so. There are still plenty of questionable "facts" such as the ideal shape for a woman is 36-24-36. The tone remains sleazy and the article conveys little information of real value. andy 07:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Very true >_< - ∅ (∅), 12:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Those who nominate for deletion are nothing but gentleman vandals. you could always delete or tag ((fact)) ot content of dispute. simply posting for afd is waste of time of so many people. see above how many people came here and spent their time. these vandals dont understand the difficulty in developing a good article— vinay 08:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

and i wish to give some details of above [1] of User:Andyjsmith. he seems to be delete expert, he has 50 contributions to deletion within 5 days! i recommend this user to be banned, (i donno how to propose this formally)— vinay 09:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please. - ∅ (∅), 12:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Vinay, you need to be aware that many things NEED to be deleted from Wikipedia. Someone nominating a ton of articles that need to be deleted or at least considered for deletion is doing a great service. Please assume good faith unless you have explicit reason not to do so. Slavlin 17:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I came across this article a couple of weeks ago when I started keeping half an eye on user vinay -- who has now earned himself a one-week block from editing. He's been impetuous, and his English is poor at times, but I haven't found him to be rude. Mostly he seems simply... a young man new to Wikipedia's rules. When I first read this article I'll admit I laughed out loud. NOT because the article is absurd, but because it's a remarkably forthright article about a topic that everyone seems to want to consider only within the context of sexism, eroticism or medical science. That says more for the readers' minds than it does for the content of the article. Human interest in the shape of the human female body will not go away by deleting this article. I think it would balance things out to add an article on Male body shape, but I see no reason to delete the current article. --SueHay 23:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• keep @above even if Male body shape is created, "intolerant extreme feminists" pick up quarrel saying that the other article has fewer no. of characters also that there would be lack of "equality". this article is enough sourced, needs little cleanup thats all. it needs to stay: female body shape is normally searched after for details and there is no alternate source inside wikipedia. i feel admins are delaying without reason. this should be closed fast as keep.122.167.157.235 08:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If this anon is vinay speaking, I suggest you be quiet for awhile and let people consider the article and offer their opinions. That's how Wikipeidia works. Be patient. --SueHay 03:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Unsourced original research, just like Human figure. / Mats Halldin (talk) 09:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Worthwhile information. Weaknesses can be improved per the usual wiki method. 68.101.128.40 20:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Human figure. There is some useful information if used in conjunction with the already aforementioned article, but this article is quite meaningless alone. *Cremepuff222* 00:29, 20 May 2007 (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.