Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mens 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 delete. Sr13 07:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mens Underwear

Mens Underwear (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

It looks like Skinnyjonz wrote this just to provide a link to their retail website. We already have Undergarment, whereas this article is poorly written and reads like OR. nadav 11:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Undergarment. That article seems to cover the history pretty well. Anything relevant could be merged. I agree with the spam assertion as well. --Cyrus Andiron 12:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for apostrophe failure. If anything redirects to undergarment it should be men's underwear.--Shantavira 13:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• So your idea is to delete if someone makes a grammatical error, rather than correcting it? I hardly think Wikipedia would be what it is if that was policy in the early days. --Interesdom 15:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect per Nadav. Hut 8.5 14:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Question per Nadav. Why is this being removed when there are other articles which are much more blatant adverts for their company e.g. KJ Beckett? This is an article about underwear for men specifically. If the quality is not up to scratch then recommend the article for improvement rather than deletion. Underwear for men is a very different topic to undergarments, surely this topic doesn't have to read like a 1970's school book.

• Comment WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument for keeping this article. Underwear for men is clearly a sub-topic of underwear, and the undergarment article covers the topic far better. This page is not only shorter and less comprehensive but has a strong element of advertising (which is not allowed on Wikipedia). And it does look like there is an element of original research here as well. Hut 8.5 15:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: It's hard to make text NOT like a 1970s school book when everything must have been written by some professional and be free of copyright. You shouldn't expect anything up-to-date under the current policies! --Interesdom 15:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, without prejudice. I suspect that an overview article on men's underwear could be written; we already have articles on jockstraps, boxer shorts, briefs, and probably a whole raft of articles on brassieres, corsets, and other lingerie. There does seem to be a hint of conflict of interest here, though. If this is kept, move to a title that is both grammatical and conforms to standard capitalization under WP:MOS. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete as mostly duplication, but I see no spam in the present article.DGG 23:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The article sounds like an essay explaining men's underwear without any reliable sources. POtential violation of WP:OR.--Kylohk 10:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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.