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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pantyhose for men[edit]

A POV fork of Pantyhose, full of coercive statements and OR. As the author admits on the talk page, "Why I created this article is the point that most men who wear pantyhose are not any more 'fetishists' or 'crossdressers', AND that pantyhose for men is an individual type of pantyhose just like stockings or leggings that may be separated from pantyhose." Wikipedia is not a soapbox; the gender connotations of clothing are already widely discussed in other articles. I tried smerging it back into Pantyhose, but the author reverted without explanation. — Krimpet (talk/review) 20:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please see the discussion page for the article. Best, Harisnya 21:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - POV fork. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 21:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fits notability guidelines and is certainly well-written and well-referenced. It may need some cleanup and possibly an NPOV review, but neither of those are reasons to delete it! I say keep. --Theunicyclegirl 23:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge - I think it's a decent article, but I do think it can be merged with pantyhose easily enough. There's already a short section on that page about men and pantyhose. Why not just add this information there? --pIrish 14:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a specific aspect, and some of the appropriate categories might be different. DGG 05:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well written and well refrenced article addressing a specific and relatively new segment of hosiery.

Keep I think that this topic does have a specific aspect, the article is written from a NPOV, it's using reliable sources, stands up to Wikipedia:Verifiability and doesn't contain OR; and that it doesn't simply fit into Pantyhose. Obviously it's not perfect - as one of the authors I would be happy to go on with it.

So here comes Socrates' Defense.

First of all I object the way Krimpet nominated the article for deletion: he/she merged it without placing a merge tag before or making any suggestions to improve the article including placing other usual tags like NPOV into; and when I objected he/she simply put the AfD tag into. This is an article that was created more than six months ago and has been worked on a lot - it deserves a merge tag followed by a discussion at least. This is not WP:CIVIL from someone who aspires to become an administrator.

Second I object for the lack and/or poor quality of clarification of the merge act and the deletion nomination as follows:

In the discussion page Krimpet states the following reasons for merge/deletion:

'OR in the article'. We carefully tried to avoid any OR in the article. Please be specific and cite some.
The article 'cites questionable sources'. The article uses sources like the US.Gov's National Library of Medicine, and the International Herald Tribune amongst others. Some online articles cannot be recovered at the original place anymore indeed.
...and is a synthesis of material' - very much as with OR, we did not want to advance any of our positions (why should we/I?). Citations please.
...reads like an advertisement for male pantyhose'. This is really sad and should be improved! We have worked a lot on this already with the help of other more experienced Wikipedians (check the article history and/or discussion page). Your help is welcome!
'merging this back into Pantyhose' - it wasn't emerging from the Pantyhose article; sounds like preconception.

Here in the deletion discussion page Krimpet states the following:

A POV fork of Pantyhose. It is a bit of a summary style article - it is to ensure NPOV. Summary style articles are not content forking.
full of coercive statements' - please be more specific. 'Coercive statement' is rather a legal expression used for something very different.
OR - see above - we did everything not to include any OR - please cite some.
Soapbox - the article doesn't want to do anything with any propaganda/advocacy/self-promotion/advertising - but if it sounds like, please help to improve it.
Gender connotations are not discussed in the article but rather in the discussion page of the article... just as Krimpet points out.

Again, I am sure it's not a perfect article and would happy to go on with it.

Harisnya 22:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. Not merge. Stifle (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2007 (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.