Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manscaping
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 Merge to hair removal. Shimeru 16:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about a neologism and thus should not be included in Wikipedia. Please read WP:NEO. The article Manscaping is definitely a neologism, and admits to being so when it states in "Manscaping is a neologism that was brought into American homes in the early 2000's..." The article does not cite its sources, and merely attempts to "track the emergence and use of the term". Agha Nader 21:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader Agha Nader 21:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete self-admitted neologism, unencyclopaedic tone. Wrong content, wrong title, get it gone please. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - noting references including this (which itself offers another reference from the LA Times), this, this and this on health risks associated with the practice. The term has acheived the sort of mainstream penetration that allows for an article. But that godawful pop culture section has got to go. Otto4711 23:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately you did not address the main problem, which is: "The article is about a neologism". Do not you accept "Manscaping" is a neologism? How can you refute WP:NEO? Agha Nader 00:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
- To respond to the links you provide, the first states "This new word 'manscaping' appears to date from Hollywood, 2006." Further proving the term is a neologism. The third USA Today link says "Or 'manscaping,' as Queer Eye for the Straight Guy's Fab Five call it." Which is more evidence of it being a neologism. There may be many news stories that use the term manscaping, but that does not mean there should be an article on it. Agha Nader 00:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
- I can elaborate as to why we should not have an article on a neologism on Wikipedia, but I recommend you first read WP:NEO. Agha Nader 00:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
- I have read WP:NEO thanks, I don't need to be condescendingly told to. As for your specific objections, I can only assume that while you were busy re-reading WP:NEO you failed to actually read the articles themselves, which are, in order, about: 1) the international emergence of manscaping as a trend called "manscaping," along with a reference to an additional source; 2) the results of a search for the best manscaping in New York City; 3) the lowering of resistance to manscaping and other forms of hair removal among men; and 4) the health risks associated with manscaping. Here's another source from Los Angeles, possible the additional source mentioned in the Australia article. I never suggested the word isn't new. Just because a word is new does not mean that it automatically runs afoul of WP:NEO and the sources exist to support this article. Indeed, we have entire categories dedicated to neologisms. Otto4711 04:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note WP:NEO states "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term." None of the sources you proved were about the term, they just used it. Agha Nader 00:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
- Merge to Hair removal. This term is in use but does not warrant an article of its own. The article is really about trends in the removal or non-removal of male body hair, not so much about the term itself, and thus the content should be covered at the general article for this topic. --Metropolitan90 02:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the article has now been substantially re-written. While presumably nothing short of an OED cite from 1608 will assuage the nominator's concerns over WP:NEO, please take a look at the revised article (with sources and everything). Otto4711 06:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately the so-called revised article did not have "sources and everything". In fact some of the new material that user Otto4711 added is OR. Furthermore user Otto4711 removed important information. For example, the fact that it is a neologism was removed. Even though there are sources that say it is a neologism. Agha Nader 23:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
- Thank god you called attention to the so-called fact that there was an unsourced sentence! Good thing you just took it out instead of either asking for a so-called source or taking four seconds to find a source through so-called google yourself. Added back with source. But I took out the bit about its being a neologism because it wasn't sourced. Source for the goose being source for the gander after all. Otto4711 00:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:A, it states "Any unsourced material may be removed". I am a bit amazed that you re-added the sentence and added a source that has nothing to do with the sentence. I will assume good faith, and I assume this was a mistake. I hope you did not intentionally add a reference that has nothing to do with the sentence. If it was not a mistake please paste the part of your "source" that you think pertains to the sentence "The word is a portmanteau of "man" and "landscaping." here. Agha Nader 02:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
- Man, you must've had a really bad waxing experience. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Otto4711 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Please read WP:CIV WP:EQ. It states "Argue facts, not personalities." User Otto4711 has ignored several of my questions, which is in violation of the Wikipedia Etiquette: "Don't ignore questions." Agha Nader 02:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
- Man, you must've had a really bad waxing experience. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Otto4711 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Please read WP:A, it states "Any unsourced material may be removed". I am a bit amazed that you re-added the sentence and added a source that has nothing to do with the sentence. I will assume good faith, and I assume this was a mistake. I hope you did not intentionally add a reference that has nothing to do with the sentence. If it was not a mistake please paste the part of your "source" that you think pertains to the sentence "The word is a portmanteau of "man" and "landscaping." here. Agha Nader 02:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
- Thank god you called attention to the so-called fact that there was an unsourced sentence! Good thing you just took it out instead of either asking for a so-called source or taking four seconds to find a source through so-called google yourself. Added back with source. But I took out the bit about its being a neologism because it wasn't sourced. Source for the goose being source for the gander after all. Otto4711 00:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately the so-called revised article did not have "sources and everything". In fact some of the new material that user Otto4711 added is OR. Furthermore user Otto4711 removed important information. For example, the fact that it is a neologism was removed. Even though there are sources that say it is a neologism. Agha Nader 23:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
- Merge to Hair removal per Metropolitan90. Manscaping as a term is nn but the trend probably is and should be in the main article about hair removal. Chevinki 18:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The sourcing is sufficient for articles on this sort of topic. DGG 23:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no sourcing in the article. The article cites web pages that use the term, not pages that are about the term. Agha Nader 20:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
- Merge to Hair removal. Manscaping is merely hair removal when done on a bloke. The term is obviously meant to be comical; should depilation of females be called wenchscaping? Froggo Zijgeb 03:36, 4 April 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.