Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Underwire

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 procedural close (non-admin closure). The article that's there now is not the same article that was nominated for deletion. If any of the original concerns are still outstanding, the new article can be re-nominated, but there's no point keeping this original nomination open. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Underwire (moved to Underwire bra)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Article has little significant content and I'm pretty sure no one has written extensively about bra underwires, so it probably won't ever be able to achieve notability requirements. Khalfani Khaldun 07:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is clearly not a dictionary definition as it explains the purpose and structure of underwires as well as defining what they are. And unlike the nominator, I'm by no means convinced that nobody has written enough about underwires to meet WP:N. See, for instance, Riordan Inventing beauty: a history of the innovations that have made us beautiful (ISBN 0767914511), which according to google search has 4 pages on the subject (although I don't have access to verify what specifically they say), or Morris Sewing Lingerie That Fits (ISBN 156158309X) which has 5 pages on the construction of underwired bras, including details of how to find the right size, and how they attach to the bra. JulesH (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support merge and redirect to Brassiere designs. Not notable enough to merit its own article.~~ Keep due to expansion. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there are enough sources. DGG (talk) 09:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Brassiere designs. It seems there is already a sentence about this topic there, which is about a sentence less than this entire article. Tavix | Talk 11:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Linguist. This has been massively improved since my vote, and I probably should have checked to make sure that it could have been expanded. Tavix | Talk 23:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect Subject is vaguely notable, but not enough for its own article. Better to keep the info in one place (Brassiere designs)

Strong keep and move to Underwire bra. Article has been massively improved by LinguistAtLarge --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but move to Underwire bra and treat the subject of this type of bra instead of just the wire in it. The underwire bra is most definitely notable, I added two references to the article and JulesH's books above also look good, if someone can find them in a local library. One of the refs I added discusses the controversy of underwire nursing bras, which may contribute to breast infection. This should most definitely not be merged to brassiere designs, since there is much more information available than would fit nicely in that list-- indeed there is already more material in the article than would fit in the list. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to Underwire bra would be fine by me --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have just finished a significant rewrite of the article, adding a lot of sourced material. It is now written more from the perspective of the Underwire bra and should probably be moved when this AfD is closed. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I went ahead and BOLDly moved the article from Underwire to Underwire bra --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. With hard work and great cunning, Linguist (sorry, I couldn't resist that old debate pun) has lifted this article from the bin and separated it from the ordinary. This fine material is put together in an innovative way, and would not be a comfortable fit in another article like brassiere designs. In light of his full coverage, this AfD is now a, uh, bust.--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:15, 22 April 2009 (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.