Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Men in skirts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 replace with the rewrite. There seems general agreement that Wikipedia should say something on this topic, and further agreement that the rewritten version is a superior treatment. I'm going to go ahead and delete the present article--as I understand it Uncle G's rewrite is an original creation so we don't need the first for GFDL compliance. If someone feels different we can always merge the histories. Mackensen (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Men in skirts

Men in skirts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

DRV overturned a G4 speedy-deletion of this page, finding that it is different from the infamous "Male Unbifurcated Garment". This new text is submitted to AfD for consideration. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 02:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
  • I think this is a great idea! It's wonderful! Unfortunately, there aren't that many resources that say that it's notable - despite my hearing about this through the grapevine, and the grapevine is certainly not reliable. So, I'm going for a weak delete, but if somebody can change my mind, that would be really cool. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and continue to expand. I don't remember or care about what may have been there before, but it's obvious that an encyclopedic treatment on the topic can be done. For some clarification, I'm not sure if this is the proper title for it, but the topic itself is apparently writable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I contest your conclusion of WP:UNDUE. The subject is notable and merits a separate article. Bards 13:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article consists of original research because its primary assertion — that there is a notable movement to get modern-day Western men to wear skirts — has no sources listed. The only sources are for unrelated or tangentially-related facts: men in some non-Anglo-American cultures wear (or once wore) unbifurcated clothing, some young boys were once dressed in skirts because their parents couldn't afford male-specific clothing, and one school in England had to change their dress code because of a lawsuit. This article isn't describing a trend; it is making a case for something the authors want to happen, but hasn't yet happened or even received any prominent attention yet. If this alleged phenomenon itself is actually written up in reliable sources, re-create the article then, and make it sound less like a soapbox. Oh, and remove the silly Star Trek trivia. *** Crotalus *** 02:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • See my reply to Haemo below (next in the list): references are available, but not yet integrated into the text. Bards 13:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - the primary assertion, and indeed, the entire crux of the article is totally unsupported by reliable sources. All the references provided only tangentially relate to the topic in question, and certainly don't support, or assert any notability of the subject material. It's all original research. --Haemo 02:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I researched a long list of references and, originally, added them to the end of the article. It was my intention for them to be absorbed into the article as it developed. (I have yet more refs offline.) The list was moved to the talk page; then deleted with the article by JzG. He has not seen fit to restore them. I have done so, and you can examine them here: User:Bardsandwarriors/MIS-deleted-talkpage. Bards 13:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
More potential sources are now available, although not studied in depth. here. Bards 23:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - and refocus on skirts as a fashion item for men. Certainly there are sources for skirts as a fashion choice, the history of male skirts in fashion and the like. If sources develop regarding a "skirts for men" political movement that at that point the article should reflect them. Otto4711 02:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • See Skirt and dress#Male wear, where it is covered with sources and the weight appropriate to its significance, i.e. virtually none. Guy (Help!) 08:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Please stop these ridiculous procedural listings. This piece is obviously an essay, not an article, and shouldn't be on Wikipedia because it's against the Neutral point of view. It may be possible to write an article on men in skirts but this isn't it. The original speedy deletion should not have been overturned, for that reason. --Tony Sidaway 02:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The rewrite at Talk:Men in skirts/Rewrite is a very well written article and I would love to see it take the place of the version listed for deletion. --Tony Sidaway 00:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The stuff about the "MIS movement" is completely unsourced, and is pretty much a rehash of the "Male Unbifurcated Garment"/"Men's Fashion Freedom" silliness that's been deleted many times over. Much of the remaining content, namely the Legal Position in the UK section, contains a lot of original research via synthesis. WarpstarRider 03:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • See my reply to Haemo above: references are available, but not yet integrated into the text. Bards 13:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Did someone say that there were no sources documenting this? How about pages 143–146 of ISBN 0415931584, which discuss a "Bravehearts: Men In Skirts" exhibition, exploring "the skirt as the future of menswear", that was put on at the New York City Metropolitan Museum of Art? Or ISBN 0810965585, the book by one of the people that organized that exhibition? Or the interesting contrary viewpoint on page 169 of ISBN 185973782X? I'm ignoring the sources that argue that a smock-frock is a man in a skirt, by the way. Uncle G 03:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Interesting. Perhaps it is plausible that a decent article could be written on the subject — but this isn't it. The article as it exists doesn't cite the above source (probably the most plausible), and it is chock-full of soapboxing original research. *** Crotalus *** 04:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
      • "A decent article could be written but this isn't it." is almost always a cue for cleanup, not deletion, in particular {{cleanup-rewrite}} such as this: Talk:Men in skirts/Rewrite. Uncle G 10:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
        • That article is probably acceptable. It might be a good idea to wait for this version to be deleted (which it probably will be), and then post your version at the article title. Because of this possibility, I recommend that the article not be salted so Uncle G can create a neutral, sourced version once this one is deleted. *** Crotalus *** 18:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I have a question. Does taking photos of men wearing skirts in public constitute research that the concept of Men in Skirts does exist?--Allyn 04:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd say it constitutes research that the general concept of men wearing skirts exists, but it still wouldn't save this article because (a) it doesn't show that there's an actual movement of men wearing skirts, and (b) we don't allow original research. Confusing Manifestation 04:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. It's an essay, it's pushing a point of view, and there's no real evidence of this "movement" which is still well below 1% of men, maybe 0.1% of men. To the extent that male skirt/kilt use is increasing, it is not notable as a "movement". --Dhartung | Talk 08:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • See my reply to Haemo above: references are available, but not yet integrated into the text. Bards 13:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete with fire. Not only is it a personal essay masquerading as an article, it's also a POV fork (whether deliberate or not) of the small section in skirt and dress which contains this topic without the undue weight, neologistic usage, original research and occasional bits of complete bollocks we see here. Previous debates in respect of Male Unbifurcated Garment and Men's Fashioon Freedom show the way to go here: we have kilt, we have cross-dressing, and we have a very tiny residual presence of men who wear skirts "just because", which is covered in skirt and dress#Male wear. I agree with Tony Sidaway: listing this is process wonkery and a positive magnet for puppetry - the forum members will almost certainly be along any minute. The article serves mainly to advance an agenda, the assertions of trends in prevalence of this "movement" originate solely for a very small number of web-based forums devoted to it. Walk around even a very cosmopolitan city like London and you will recognise within minutes that the so-called "MIS" movement (~200 unique Googles, of which a fair number seem to be discussing the defeminisation of women in the business world) is not in any way significant. We have been resisting this POV pushing for over a year, let's not stop now, shall we? Guy (Help!) 08:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Surely undue weight applies only to within a particular article? In fact, it specifically says "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them". So if anything, this is an argument of putting it in its own article, as moving to skirt and dress may lead to undue weight in that article. Previous debates are not valid here, as many deletes referred to the terms being neologisms, and not the content (including my own delete vote, where I specifically stated that this should not be taken to mean I would vote against other articles with similar content). I agree with the bits about it being a movement, but we can remove those bits (and I have mostly done so now), without deleting the article. Mdwh 11:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm not ready to give up my pants, but I did see the Bravehearts exhibit at the Met. It convinced me that real companies with real money would like to expand the male market for kilts and skirts. I don't know whether they're succeeding or not, but shouldn't a complete encyclopedia record this effort? So far, it seems like only men who are personally interested in wearing skirts are interested in editing this article, so right now it's one-sided. But where are the other editors? We don't kill articles just because they emphasize one point of view. We balance them. I vote to keep this article and clean it up. –Shoaler (talk) 09:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • See Talk:Men in skirts/Rewrite for a complete rewrite. Uncle G 10:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, rename to Men's skirts and use the rewrite by Uncle G. --Ezeu 10:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I have removed the parts referring to this as a movement, so this cannot be a primary objection to the article anymore (though there are probably other parts that should be removed too). Another example of this sort of article (but done better) is at Pantyhose for men - perhaps this should be renamed as Skirts for men (or Men's skirts, as suggested above)? Whilst we do have skirt and kilt, the problem is that this may involve duplicating material in several articles, or giving undue weight (imagine if pantyhose for men was made a section in pantyhose?) Cross-dressing is certainly not appropriate here, as it is POV to suggest that a man in such a garment is cross-dressing (and wouldn't at all be true in some cases, e.g., kilts in Scotland). Mdwh 10:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • salt POV fork/undue weight - use existing articles Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Perhaps replacing with the rewrite proposed above, possibly also renmaing to Skirts for men or Men's skirts. There are no appropriate existing articles. Undue weight does not apply here, it only applies to sections within an article (so in other words, that's an argument against using any existing articles), see my comment above. See Pantyhose for men for a similar kind of article - should that be merged into Pantyhose? Mdwh 15:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    • A guideline similar to Undue weight applies to entire articles. See WP:POVFORK. However, I agree with you that the rewrite appears to qualify as an acceptable spinout. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 19:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename per Mdwh. I must say I'm interested in this myself, but you ain't ever gonna see me in a skirt... Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • If deleted, replace with the rewrite. At the time I post this, every paragraph of the rewrite has a source. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 19:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as blathery WP:OR, but replace with the good rewrite. We'll be able to cut down on this stuff in the main articles, then. Sandstein 20:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, Rewrite, and Rename. The article needs more sources and a new title, but it is a topic that I think should be here. It's a legitimate movement, albeit a small one. I think quite a bit of work needs to be done here. Useight 20:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, OR, special pleading. This topic has already been through consensus as non-notable. Yeah, men wear skirts. So what? It's not a fashion statement. This should not have been overturned. Corvus cornix 21:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment This is the first time this article has gone through AfD; nothing is being overturned. Mdwh 21:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment See that link up at the top of the page? The one called "DRV overturned"? That's what should not have been overturned. Corvus cornix 21:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment It was speedy deleted, but was there a previous AfD for the article where a consensus was reached? Mdwh 12:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep the rewrite and rename to Men's skirts. The topic is notable enough for its own article, as demonstrated by the references included in the rewrite, but the original article is not sufficiently neutral. I think the rewrite corrects the focus and counters the original research criticism. --David Edgar 21:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • You mean the sections in the rewrite about the Metropolitan Museum of Art exhibition, and Wicca and neo-paganism? I don't see those covered at all in the articles you refer to (and neither should they be - they are much more appropriate to a more dedicated article such as this). --David Edgar 08:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There is a systemic bias that needs addressing regarding the wearing of unbifurcated garments. The main article about the subject appears to be Skirt and dress, but this has been written almost entirely from a Western-world perspective. English Wikipedia is not about the Western world, it is about the entire world. This article, if allowed to develop, can go some way towards addressing the bias. Long term, I think the best approach is an article Unbifurcated garment, about the garments worn by both men and women throughout the world. Alan Pascoe 22:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Don't be absurd. We don't counter systemic bias by pretending that a virtually non-existent movement is significant, especially when it's already covered at skirt and dress#Male wear and kilt. and where virtually the entire contents of the article supposedly addressing that bias is original research because there are no reliable sources about it because it's so insignificant. Guy (Help!) 08:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • No. That's the worst approach. We don't want to repeat Male Unbifurcated Garment (AfD discussion) all over again. The idea of an overarching "unbifurcated garment" concept is original research, which is forbidden here. There are, as can be seen at Talk:Men in skirts/Rewrite, several sources that discuss men's skirts, the largely failed efforts of Gaultier and the like, and the social and moral aspects of men wearing skirts. Not a single one of them espouses an "unbifurcated garment" concept. That's just something that a vanishingly small group of people made up off the tops of their heads in web discussion fora, that nobody else acknowledges. Moreover, there is no systemic bias here to address. That there are cultures where the issues raised by men wearing skirts are not present is not a case of systemic bias. Systemic bias is bias in coverage on the parts of Wikipedia editors, not bias in how things actually are in the world at large. We no more need to make an overarching concept extending the men's skirts concept outside of Western culture to embrace everything else than our coverage of kaftans, sarongs, kilts, lungis, and djellabas needs to make in depth mention of countries where those garments are not worn.

      Discussing history and ideas that are specific to certain countries or cultures without discussing the places where they are irrelevant is not systemic bias, and inventing a new "unbifurcated garment" concept that doesn't exist at all in any reliable sources is original research. Talk:Men in skirts/Rewrite notes the relationship of men's skirts in Western cultures to other garments in other cultures as a minor point because that's what the sources do. Uncle G 11:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep, but on one condition - that the the rewrite is used in the new version. The history should be kept for GFDL compliance. There is no need to delete this, as we can easily replace the text with the rewritten version, since this was undeleted already. The title Men's skirts should be a redirect. If you agree with this suggestion leave a note on my talk page, and I'll copy-paste the rewrite over. Hopefully this will help --SunStar Net talk 22:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • strong keep Much of the current article is undersourced, and some of it is PoV. But some of its content should IMO remain. The current sources make it clear that there is soemthing notable here. I have added a "popularity" section to the article, and it adds 5 source citations to major news outlets. Ultimately the version in the "rewrite" should probably be merged with (not just replace) the version in the currrent article, but that is an editorial matter. DES (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    • That which is not "under sourced" (i.e. original research) is already covered in skirt and dress#Male wear and kilt. Guy (Help!) 08:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I found 5 significant references in reliable sources in about an hour. This suggests to me that there may well be more sources out there, and that one cannot concluyde with certianty that there are not. DES (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and use rewrite instead under better title. The article as currently written needs to disappear as well as the abhorrent title of "men in skirts". The rewrite is much, much better and should be titled something like Skirt (male). -- ShinmaWa(talk) 23:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Replace with Uncle G's rewrite. I accept that some of the aticle is WP:SYN (as stated by User:WarpstarRider above), which I didn't realise was against the rules when I wrote it - particularly the legal section. It is not an essay of original research; most of it is a description of a real subculture, which has scores of outposts, POVish sites, forums, etc on the web, acting as proxies and meeting points. That subculture could be mentioned with due weight in the new article, or not, if good sources can be provided. Furthermore: * I propose we initiate a separate debate over whether this subject constitutes a "movement". * Make the deleted article available for a period (eg. within my user pages) as a resource for contributors, eg. the list of fashion designers is relevant; along with links to this discussion and the (completed) deletion review. * If this discussion concludes 'delete' or 'replace' or similar, salt the movement-related namespaces to prevent rewrites by other innocent parties (there will undoubtedly be many of them, like me). I would also like discussion re. "notable manufacturers" such as Midas Clothing and Menintime, and other related articles, where dissenters can raise their hackles before any effort is put into writing articles for them. Bards 14:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC) (original author of Men in skirts)
  • Keep and clean up. Looks like Uncle G is on the right track. Frise 21:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as a good starting point. The name of the article is a little dubious thouguh. —Pengo 23:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Replace with Uncle G's rewrite. Whatever the previous articles may have looked like, this redesign/rewrite looks good. Uncle G should go into clothing? And yes, the page name sounds like an alternate movie title. Shenme 03:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:OR. Arbustoo 17:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete current version; a strange essay on non-notable movement, full of unsourced opinions... definitely not an encyclopedic article. I have no opinion on the rewritten version, though. Henrik Ebeltoft 20:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Issue of men not being able to indiscriminately wear skirts and dresses in Western society, along with movements to overcome this issues and male wear of unbifurcated garments in general is notable and too wide topic to be only in one section under article skirt and dress. It might be good idea to rename article to more generic name such as Men's skirts, and to carefully merge with above mentioned rewrite while saving both versions as source of useful information. --193.198.16.211 23:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep General subject, wide literature, -- especially as re-written expertly by Uncle G. DGG 02:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • No, not wide literature. Wide literature on kilts (on which we therefore have an article), wide literature on cross-dressing (on which we have an article), some literature and one exhibition once on the fashion of male skirt wearing, which is covered in skirt and dress#Male wear and has been for some time, complete with pretty much all the references in this article, but very very restricted literature on the movement for male skirt wearing, which is tiny, and for that reason has been deleted under at least two titles. No reliable sources that I can find for that, other than a novel synthesis from Utikilt's sales figures. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - no substantive difference from the previously deleted articles on this non notable topic, and Skirt and dress#Male wear gives adequate coverage at this time. ++Lar: t/c 11:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • From what I've heard (not being able to view the previous articles), this article is very substantially different, longer, and better sourced than the previous articles. This was one of the arguments put forward by a respected admin in the recent deletion review. I suspect you had better check your facts before blindly supporting your mates. Bards 22:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Please do not assume you know what I did and didn't check, and please also don't jump to assumptions about my motives for doing so, thanks. The topic has sufficient coverage in other articles, as outlined, and Wikipedia does not exist to give notability to non notable things. ++Lar: t/c 00:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That's true. Thank god we're not those bastions of non notability, the Metropolitan Museum [1], [2] and the V&A [3]. --JJay 00:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obviously an important societal subject as shown by the significant references and the extensive work of editors such as Uncle G. The fact that certain users dislike the subject, and want to see it remain buried in a the skirt article, is completely inadequate to justify deletion. JJay 12:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It's also a false assertion. The references to kilt, which is significant, are in kilt. The references to cross-dressing, which is significant, are in cross-dressing. The fashion trend of the 80s and early 90s is covered in skirt and dress#Male wear. The global movement for Western men to wear skirts is there, too, because the movement is pretty much insignificant and lacks any documentation outside a few forums, so we already deleted several attempts ot pretend otherwise and prmoote these neologistic terms. Guy (Help!) 14:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That's exactly why any relevant content should be included in this article. And I must also say I am extremely disapointed that you are defending an entirely unsourced and inferior subsection such as skirt and dress#Male wear. Furthermore, cross-dressing is a totally unrelated issue. We are not dealing with drag queens here.JJay 14:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • JzG, your persistently vague and dismissive arm-waving does not help your case. "MUG" was deleted last year mainly as a neologism. If you think something relevant to this discussion is also a neologism, you should be specific. Bards 14:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep the sourced sections, IF there isn't too much overlap with kilt and skirt and dress#Male wear, Delete the OR and unsourced sections, and strongly consider Rename, though I don't have a distinct preference for which name to change it to. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Like the BLF article this is a serious article about current fashions and their political implications, SqueakBox 19:21, 22 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.