Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social impact of thong underwear

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. Tone 13:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social impact of thong underwear

Social impact of thong underwear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is one of the worst I've come across on Wikipedia, being basically a

Love the pun. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• you-have-got-to-be-kidding delete as essay, OR, embarrassment... Mangoe (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Not remotely Encyclopedic. --Cox wasan (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to be fairly well written and would meet
  WP:GNG. "This article is one of the worst I've come across on Wikipedia". Really? The worst you've come across? Was this the first and only article you've read on here? What policy does this violate that warrants deletion? Lugnuts (talk) 09:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep being a sourcable and well-sourced topic that has
  Thong (clothing) might be discussed on the article's talk page. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep. While
  WP:CONTENTFORK, the most relevant content guideline here. I see no reason for a deletion or even a merger. All that it requires is a cleanup. But, of course, a cleanup is hard work, while arguing for deletion is not so at all. Thank you. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - maybe not the best article, but it is a legitimate content fork with lots of good sourcing. Too much stuff to be adequately contained in the parent article. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Perfectly suitable topic, with enough sources. Some people dislike dealing with such subjects in a serious encyclopedia, not realizing that Wikipedia is a comprehensive encyclopedia covering all of human life, not one limited to the conventional serious topics. And without specific reference to anyone, or to this AfD in particular, part of the opposition may sometimes be due to discomfort with discussion of sexual topics in a formal setting, even by those who are perfectly comfortable with such material in other settings. As for the suggestions in the nominations, Social impact of dildos would be an appropriate article, but I'm not sure about nail-clippers, on the basis that I can't for the moment think of any specifically relevant material for that one, but I don't know all the possible fields well enough to tell. DGG ( talk ) 14:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as being a reasonable topic, well sourced, and easily arguable that there is ongoing societal changes in regards to how thongs are viewed, to the point of being political at times. It has raised issues of 'freedom of expression vs. censorship' as well as forcing society as a whole to ask 'what is nude?', caused thousands of people to join groups to either support or oppose their use in public, and generated large amounts of press in very reliable sources. This is easily verifiable, and within this article, fairly well documented. In short: Lots of controversy + lots of media coverage + over many years + societal impact = clearly passing criteria. Sorry, but I think you missed the point of the article. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG, Dennis Brown, et al. This is an extremely well-cited, if badly-cited (I know professors who would cringe at the use of several citation styles). It could use some
  snipping as well, but I'm not touching this one; pardon the pun. Bearian (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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.