567:(inserted) Find what sources? The news coverage issue can be addressed by use of expansion, reorganization and copyediting, and that's what I'm trying to do. Though the article definitely would benefit from a better title. But, I don't think "hey, it has a wrong title" can ever be a reason for deletion. We have a move button that works much better than deletion discussions at that. It still weighs more on the
590:(undented) I don't think anyone has said "Let's delete this because it needs a better title." If you can think of a title that would fit it better, and would convince people that it should not be deleted, then, please, by all means, mention it here, and the closing admin can move it to that name, if that's what the consensus is.--
528:. All the sources in this article are talking about the item of clothing, NOT the news coverage thereof. If the article were instead to draw on sources analyzing the ways that the news reporting about thongs has been notable IN AND OF ITSELF, then I would switch to Keep. But if not, then there's really no point in having it.--
466:
establishes notability of a subject. And, content forking (i.e. keeping this article separate from the Thong article) is very much in line with
Knowledge (XXG) traditions. Nothing wrong there, apart from desperate need for cleanup. But, "this needs improvement", as I see, is a call to constructive editing, not deletion.
971:
But, what I see is that only three bits were picked out of the long line of significant thong information to be integrated into the mother article (plus one highly suspect piece of information on thong hygiene quoting Yahoo
Answers as a source). Not enough, not remotely enough, especially if we want
967:
or something). Not daunted, though, as this article shows enormous potential to grow into a formidable piece with time, patience and hard work. Already the amount of information has grown somewhat beyond the scope of integration into another article (and, I can't take the credit for that, not in the
931:
We are not tired of expanding and improving articles. However, some articles do not meet the standards of
Knowledge (XXG), either through lack of notability or other reasons, and can not be improved to meet those standards. That is the reason why we have the Speedy Deletion, Proposed Deletion, and
465:
may be a bit irrelevant here, as that particular bit of policy is about news coverage of particular happenings (i.e. President Bush's trip to
Morocco, or something like it), and not at all about something that has been on the news over the time. In fact, continuous news coverage over time very much
915:
Why are we really going round and round discussing how this article needs to be merged (or deleted, as all that's relevant has been already merged)? Is it because we are tired of expanding and improving articles? Is it because we find it easier to gut existing articles and shove them into another?
999:
I find the information presented comfortably encyclopedic (as opposed to you finding this as one of those articles that "do not meet the standards of
Knowledge (XXG)... and can not be improved to meet those standards"), as they clearly represent an impact of thong on the society (Laws and bills?
637:
As has been covered by
Bifurga and myself above, per the GFDL, if we merege, we cannot delete, we would have to redirect without deleting as contribution history must remain public in the case of a merge. There was a recent AN thread on the topic and consensus was that this is indeed the case.
936:, was mistaken. That said, I'm still not convinced that this has happend. This subject still doesn't (even after your substantial, and, I must say, well-written, improvements) warrant its own article. If the article were to be changed to a redirect, and the article condensed to a section of
52:, have demonstrated an encyclopedic article can be written. Almost all contributors who have commented since the changes were made have been persuaded that the article should be kept (including the nominator). The title of the article and a possible move should be discussed on the talk page.
420:. Aditya makes an excellent point. The article could use a better lead, but this article is very well referenced (i.e. verfiable) and definely discriminate. And even in a worse case scenario with some arguing to merge above, we would redirect without deleting
1118:
is for people like Corey
Delaney, etc.—this isn't him (although I'm loving the irony I just thought of in that the title contains "thong"...). Per DGG and Le Grand Roi, this is a discriminate and useful list. It's sourced. It can be improved. So can
437:
Just because it's well-referenced doesn't mean that the topic itself, or any of the news items, are particularly notable. There are plenty of events happening every day which are reported in reliable sources, but we don't include them because
958:
Thanks for the compliment. It is really appreciated, though I know I have not been able to expand an improve it much, yet. The first thing that needs to be changed is probably the title (something in the line of
275:(See below) Reads like a trivia section, and while some of the trivia is, as Mazca says, entertaining, most of it is probably not notable, and certainly not notabe enough to have its own page.--
916:
My, I was under the impression that growth doesn't happen that way. Anyways, I have started working on the article, and some help there would be very nice. I found it pretty distressing that
867:
in its current state--though Im not sure of the proper title. This is nota place where NOT NEWS applies--it is a discussion of multiple events on a common theme, not a particular news item.
398:
Why do you people want to delete something that can be cleaned up? Because we're being lazy and a delete is the quickest of solutions? What do you do to your ailing grandma? Delete her?
1004:
may be a nice essay to understand the situaion. Since notability, reliability and verifiability of the information in the article is firmly established, I'd still say it requires a
980:
are two pieces of guidelines that may guide us in this situation fine (i.e. when content keeps growing it's appreciated that articles are split out). Of course, there has to be a
125:
932:
Articles for
Deletion processes. However, sometimes articles CAN be improved to the point where they no longer deserve deletion, which means that the nominator simply,
920:
so far has done something more constructive than discussing a reduction of the wikipedia, where as many people come to read on
Pokemon characters as Quantum Mechanics.
164:. This is just a loose amalgamation of news stories related to thongs in some way; any encyclopedic content can be covered in the article on that particular garment.
1033:, I withdraw my nomination, although the article does still need attention, I feel it has justified itself on grounds of notability and such. Less references from
524:. However, in order to justify forking an independent article discussing the news coverage, we would have to find reliable sources discussing the news coverage
1000:
Beauty Queen demoted? Schools panicking? A child-porn controversy? A GI controversy? - there is way too much in there for a delete, or even a merger).
669:
Actually if anything was added as you say, then a merge was in fact done and according to the GFDL, the edit history MUST be preserved. Best, --
704:
It is necessary for the sake of copyrights and possible problems with an article that whoever contributed the content remains clear. Anyway,
92:
87:
96:
79:
17:
1164:
790:
759:
710:
671:
640:
501:
426:
196:
708:'s a discussion we had on the subject (notice that by the end of the discussion, the consensus was to merge the history). Best, --
947:
898:
817:
777:
742:
693:
597:
810:
If anyone else was as confused as I was about the merge and redirect thing, the relevant section of the GFDL is 4-I. Cheers,--
188:
1131:
683:
887:
doesn't apply here. But what about this article in its current state is worth keeping as a separate article apart from
1187:
977:
499:
Which means we cannot outright delete this article then; we'd have to redirect without deleting per the GFDL. Best, --
36:
655:, any talk of merging is pretty much moot, so there's really no need to preserve this article, or its edit history.--
973:
1186:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1170:
1157:
1140:
1125:
1103:
1089:
1076:
1054:
1014:
953:
926:
904:
878:
859:
841:
823:
796:
783:
765:
748:
716:
699:
682:
I keep seeing this argument, but I've never really seen any real specific explanation for why this is so. The
677:
664:
646:
632:
603:
562:
548:
537:
507:
494:
472:
451:
432:
404:
390:
373:
370:
350:
334:
309:
284:
254:
229:
200:
174:
146:
61:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
989:
1153:
964:
1099:
855:
837:
83:
960:
627:
985:
832:, which has already been performed. My compliments to mattbuck for doing a good job with the merge.--
618:
417:
1072:
944:
895:
814:
774:
739:
690:
660:
594:
558:
533:
447:
367:
280:
165:
133:
The page is just a list of news items, most of which are of dubious notability to say the least. -
1162:
The article is encyclopedic, however, and the article does not merely report news. Sincerely, --
1049:
917:
489:
141:
57:
1001:
413:
339:
Sorry about that. (I haven't actually seen WP:MAD before, so thanks for putting it up). Best, --
984:
type link put into the relevant section of the mother article. Therefore I'd propose to invoke
1095:
1084:
1030:
1009:
921:
851:
833:
543:
467:
399:
75:
67:
49:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
516:
Aditya, you are absolutely right that continuous news coverage establishes notability of the
993:
937:
888:
652:
622:
614:
521:
478:
363:
266:
212:
192:
1115:
933:
884:
462:
439:
317:
316:
Thanks for the tip, although you could have phrased it in a slightly less baffling way. ;)
183:
161:
157:
754:
1120:
1068:
1041:
would help though. I encourage all participants of this debate to help Aditya's work. -
941:
892:
811:
771:
736:
687:
656:
591:
554:
529:
443:
276:
1043:
874:
483:
386:
135:
53:
340:
299:
113:
1149:
321:
241:
216:
1067:
since the AfD was placed. But we have GOT to do something about the name.
869:
382:
320:
is an explanation of this in case anyone else is as confused as I was. ~
1029:- due to the stirling (or is it sterling?) work done on this article by
1008:, which may require harder work than simply wiping it out of existence.
651:
Since mattbuck has already added the worthwhile bits of this article to
240:
per improvement to the article. The name needs to be changed, though. ~
950:
901:
820:
780:
745:
696:
600:
1148:
as unencyclopedic. Knowledge (XXG) is not a news collation service.
186:. The title shoots it dead in the water. Save things like this for
940:, I still think that would be a better treatment of this topic.--
1180:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
295:
381:
as news/trivia (or merge if there is anything of value in it).
294:
Just a note: merge and delete is not a valid option under the
48:, the impressive improvements to the article, primarily by
1064:
705:
421:
120:
109:
105:
101:
686:
essay doesn't really do a good job of this either. --
972:
to remove this article by way of merger or deletion.
617:
isn't needed. The alternative is a couple of million
753:
Thank you for being reasonable! I'll add you to my
613:- anything that can't constructively be added to
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1190:). No further edits should be made to this page.
477:I already adxded the vaguely relevant bits to
424:to keep contribution history public. Best, --
553:A day or two to...what? find those sources?--
8:
542:Agreed. That'd take a day or two, though.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
362:of the most significant items into
211:any particularly notable news into
440:Knowledge (XXG) is not a newspaper
24:
684:Knowledge (XXG):Merge and Delete
978:Knowledge (XXG):Content forking
735:per Grand Roi des Citrouilles--
1083:"Social impact of the thong"?
1:
974:Knowledge (XXG):Summary style
788:You're welcome! Â :) Best, --
1166:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
792:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
761:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
712:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
673:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
642:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
503:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
428:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
189:Uncle John's Bathroom Reader
1207:
1171:16:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
1158:15:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
1141:07:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
1104:03:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
1090:12:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
1077:09:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
1055:21:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
1015:17:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
954:04:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
927:21:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
905:17:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
879:00:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
860:03:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
842:21:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
824:19:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
797:20:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
784:19:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
766:19:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
749:19:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
717:19:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
700:18:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
678:18:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
665:18:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
647:17:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
633:15:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
604:04:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
563:17:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
549:15:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
538:15:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
508:18:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
495:13:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
473:12:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
452:11:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
433:06:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
405:05:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
391:03:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
374:02:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
351:21:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
335:23:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
310:22:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
285:21:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
255:18:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
230:21:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
201:21:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
175:21:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
147:21:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
62:19:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
1183:Please do not modify it.
755:list of nice Wikipedians
520:, which in this case is
32:Please do not modify it.
1065:substantial improvement
846:In its rewritten form,
418:Knowledge (XXG):SOFIXIT
965:Social impact of thong
850:. Nice job, Aditya.--
982:{{main|this article}}
414:Knowledge (XXG):Lists
1126:dihydrogen monoxide
1027:Withdraw nomination
961:Thong controversies
733:Merge and redirect
232:
1139:
1053:
770:Why, thank you.--
493:
207:
199:
172:
145:
76:Thong in the news
68:Thong in the news
50:User:Aditya Kabir
1198:
1185:
1169:
1167:
1129:
1087:
1047:
1012:
994:Template:Sofixit
938:Thong (clothing)
924:
889:Thong (clothing)
795:
793:
764:
762:
731:vote changed to
715:
713:
676:
674:
653:Thong (clothing)
645:
643:
615:Thong (clothing)
546:
526:as news coverage
522:Thong (clothing)
506:
504:
487:
479:Thong (clothing)
470:
431:
429:
402:
364:Thong (clothing)
348:
345:
307:
304:
267:Thong (clothing)
213:Thong (clothing)
195:
170:
168:
167:Ten Pound Hammer
139:
123:
117:
99:
44:The result was
34:
1206:
1205:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1188:deletion review
1181:
1165:
1163:
1135:
1094:Works for me.--
1085:
1010:
922:
918:only one editor
883:Okay, so maybe
791:
789:
760:
758:
711:
709:
672:
670:
641:
639:
631:
619:Foo in the news
544:
502:
500:
468:
427:
425:
400:
346:
341:
305:
300:
166:
119:
90:
74:
71:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1204:
1202:
1193:
1192:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1143:
1133:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1080:
1079:
1039:The Daily Mail
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
997:
990:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
969:
910:
909:
908:
907:
862:
845:
826:
805:
804:
803:
802:
801:
800:
799:
729:
728:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
625:
607:
606:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
514:
513:
512:
511:
510:
457:
456:
455:
454:
407:
393:
376:
368:Metropolitan90
356:
355:
354:
353:
313:
312:
288:
287:
258:
257:
234:
233:
205:
203:
177:
171:and his otters
130:
129:
70:
65:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1203:
1191:
1189:
1184:
1178:
1177:
1172:
1168:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1144:
1142:
1137:
1128:
1127:
1122:
1117:
1114:
1111:
1110:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1088:
1082:
1081:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1051:
1046:
1045:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1016:
1013:
1007:
1003:
998:
995:
991:
987:
983:
979:
975:
970:
966:
962:
957:
956:
955:
952:
949:
946:
943:
939:
935:
934:in good faith
930:
929:
928:
925:
919:
914:
913:
912:
911:
906:
903:
900:
897:
894:
890:
886:
882:
881:
880:
876:
872:
871:
866:
863:
861:
857:
853:
849:
844:
843:
839:
835:
831:
827:
825:
822:
819:
816:
813:
809:
806:
798:
794:
787:
786:
785:
782:
779:
776:
773:
769:
768:
767:
763:
756:
752:
751:
750:
747:
744:
741:
738:
734:
730:
718:
714:
707:
703:
702:
701:
698:
695:
692:
689:
685:
681:
680:
679:
675:
668:
667:
666:
662:
658:
654:
650:
649:
648:
644:
636:
635:
634:
629:
624:
620:
616:
612:
609:
608:
605:
602:
599:
596:
593:
589:
578:
574:
570:
566:
565:
564:
560:
556:
552:
551:
550:
547:
541:
540:
539:
535:
531:
527:
523:
519:
515:
509:
505:
498:
497:
496:
491:
486:
485:
480:
476:
475:
474:
471:
464:
461:
460:
459:
458:
453:
449:
445:
441:
436:
435:
434:
430:
423:
419:
415:
411:
408:
406:
403:
397:
394:
392:
388:
384:
380:
377:
375:
372:
369:
365:
361:
358:
357:
352:
349:
344:
338:
337:
336:
333:
332:
328:
324:
319:
315:
314:
311:
308:
303:
297:
293:
290:
289:
286:
282:
278:
274:
272:
268:
264:
260:
259:
256:
253:
252:
248:
244:
239:
236:
235:
231:
228:
227:
223:
219:
214:
210:
206:
204:
202:
198:
194:
191:
190:
185:
181:
178:
176:
169:
163:
159:
155:
152:
151:
150:
149:
148:
143:
138:
137:
127:
122:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1182:
1179:
1145:
1124:
1112:
1096:Father Goose
1060:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1026:
1025:
1005:
981:
868:
864:
852:Father Goose
847:
834:Father Goose
829:
828:
807:
732:
610:
576:
572:
568:
525:
517:
482:
422:per the GFDL
409:
395:
378:
360:Slight merge
359:
342:
330:
326:
322:
301:
291:
270:
262:
261:
250:
246:
242:
237:
225:
221:
217:
208:
187:
179:
153:
134:
132:
131:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1121:most things
1116:WP:NOT#NEWS
992:here (also
986:WP:HOPELESS
942:Aervanath's
893:Aervanath's
885:WP:NOT#NEWS
812:Aervanath's
772:Aervanath's
757:. Best, --
737:Aervanath's
688:Aervanath's
623:Pseudomonas
592:Aervanath's
463:WP:NOT#NEWS
410:Strong keep
379:Weak Delete
193:Doc Strange
184:WP:NOT#NEWS
158:WP:NOT#NEWS
996:, may be).
621:articles.
571:side than
162:WP:NOT#DIR
1069:AndyJones
945:signature
896:signature
815:signature
775:signature
740:signature
691:signature
657:Aervanath
595:signature
555:Aervanath
530:Aervanath
444:Aervanath
277:Aervanath
238:Weak Keep
1061:Keep Now
1044:mattbuck
1002:WP:BRAIN
638:Best, --
484:mattbuck
136:mattbuck
126:View log
54:Davewild
1063:due to
1035:The Sun
1006:cleanup
968:least).
808:Comment
569:cleanup
518:subject
396:Cleanup
292:Comment
197:Logbook
93:protect
88:history
1150:Stifle
1146:Delete
1086:Aditya
1031:Aditya
1011:Aditya
951:boring
923:Aditya
902:boring
821:boring
781:boring
746:boring
697:boring
611:Delete
601:boring
577:delete
545:Aditya
469:Aditya
401:Aditya
371:(talk)
347:figura
318:WP:MAD
306:figura
271:delete
180:Delete
154:Delete
121:delete
97:delete
1113:Keep.
830:Merge
573:merge
265:with
263:Merge
209:Merge
124:) – (
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
1154:talk
1100:talk
1073:talk
1050:Talk
1037:and
988:and
976:and
875:talk
865:Keep
856:talk
848:keep
838:talk
706:here
661:talk
628:talk
559:talk
534:talk
490:Talk
448:talk
442:. --
416:and
412:per
387:talk
366:. --
296:GFDL
281:talk
269:and
182:per
160:and
156:per
142:Talk
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
46:Keep
891:?--
870:DGG
575:or
481:. -
383:JJL
298:.
173:•
1156:)
1123:.
1102:)
1075:)
963:,
948:is
899:is
877:)
858:)
840:)
818:is
778:is
743:is
694:is
663:)
598:is
561:)
536:)
450:)
389:)
283:)
215:.
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
1152:(
1138:)
1136:O
1134:2
1132:H
1130:(
1098:(
1071:(
1052:)
1048:(
873:(
854:(
836:(
659:(
630:)
626:(
579:.
557:(
532:(
492:)
488:(
446:(
385:(
343:B
331:a
329:c
327:z
325:a
323:m
302:B
279:(
273:.
251:a
249:c
247:z
245:a
243:m
226:a
224:c
222:z
220:a
218:m
144:)
140:(
128:)
118:(
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.