Talk:Plus-size clothing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on September 19, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
Contents |
[edit] removed proposed deletion
The prod (reason: linkspam) was inappropriate. Obviously the subject is notable and verifiable; there are entire magazines devoted to plus-size clothing. Wikipedia contains a main entry for plus-size models as well as individual model biographies and notable retailers. The article is a short stub and contained commercial links (which I removed), but that's not grounds for deletion. — AKADriver ☎ 18:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. --Canley 07:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I'm putting this article up for AfD again
The reasons given by AKADriver to maintain this article are illogical and insubstantial. "...entire magazines devoted to plus-size clothing"? As of right now (Sept 2007) there are only 2 in-print publications internationally available on newstands (Figure and Vol): Figure is an advertorial-style release put out by Charming Shoppes to market its own merchandise, and Vol is a subscription-based and limited circulation magazine from the Netherlands that barely anyone outside of that country will recognize. Other paper publications available are brand marketing tools freely available in retail stores; they are not properly audited newstand magazines. Online magazines cannot be considered the same calibre as newstand releases. Overall, not a valid reason to maintain this article.
I also find the research done in the provision of brand names meets the criteria for spam, although of a questionable intent. i.e. The brands Options Plus and Now cited for Australia are in-house brands of Target and Kmart respectively, and at the lowest price point of clothing available. Why mention those brands when so many better ones (with obvious online presence) are ignored?
This article should go back up for AfD consideration. The development of the plus-size clothing industry is sufficiently detailed in the plus-size model article, and nothing more is required. There is continued dissent from editors on all Wiki size-related topics requiring international size comparisions as well as in popular media, which makes this type of article extremely problematic as well as being a topic unworthy of encyclopaedic inclusion. AntiVanity 01:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Revised comment: The plus-size model article has deleted mention of clothing sizes because it is increasingly less relevant and does not define the scope of the work that the models do. Accordingly, there is a redirection/link to plus-size clothing for persons interested in more specific information. As there is no one global conversion chart for clothing sizes, some more work needs to be done to clean this page up and make it a meaningful article. AntiVanity (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] men?
Is there a reason that this article is about women's clothing? I'm a man and I often find men's clothing marked 2X, XXXL, etc. --Keeves 03:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- The men's equivalent is usually called "big and tall", isn't it? I've only heard the term "plus size" used to refer to women's fashion. But I could be wrong. — AKADriver ☎ 16:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- In the UK men's clothing sizes 3XL - 8XL+ is usually referred to as 'Big and Tall' or 'Outsize'. Should a new article be created for 'Big and Tall' and crosslinked with this? --BilzoDee 11:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Can someone please provide some useful number in the first para for the tipping point of men's regular sizes to plus or 'big and tall'? There is a reason for the those ...! AntiVanity (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] What/where on earth?
What is the first paragraph supposed to mean? Clearly somebody has taken the situation in some small part of the world and painted it up as if it applies the world over, which obviously it doesn't.
See also the debate going on at Plus-size model. -- Smjg 23:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This page is awful
While I understand the frustration of the men wishing to have representation, content to support a listing pertaining to men is neglible. If there was a cult of size and beauty in society that targetted the men, well then of course representation is deserved, however the business of beauty, and fashion (hence plus size clothing) is exclusively targetted at women and therefore the statistical data and attitude will always swing to them initially. Besides, mens' stuff is always called "big and tall". Call it that if you like!
I do not believe that it is necessary to have a page outlining what plus size clothing is. It is merely a category of clothing, in the same way as sports, or children's clothing is. There is not enough content of merit for a page, and I move it be deleted without resurrection. If you like, put in a redirect to plus size model and leave it at that. BGModels 08:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
