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.
Once a redirect that has been deleted before, but an article was swiftly created out of it after deletion because the editor was convinced they would produce something better without the baggage. It has been the subject of some protracted
discussion at DYK without any consensus. IMHO, the problem still seems to lie in the topic being an unencyclopaedic and trivial "social" concept rather than any topic with medical or psycho-sexual relevance, that no amount of dressing up is going to produce an entry that isn't about an unworthy
neologism and an
WP:NPOV minefield. Ohc ¡digame!13:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep, notable topic. While the article unsuitable for DYK, this subject has been the subject of significant coverage from major newspapers for at least several months. Furthermore, these sources discuss the topic instead of just using the term, so WP:NEO doesn't apply and WP:NPOV
isn't a reason for deletion. --
Jakob (
talk)
19:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. Tabloids have gone aplomb over this topic and it has been discussed by medical professionals. I am in full disagreement with Jakec regarding its DYK appropriateness, though.--Launchballer21:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. The main arguments against this article seems to be that the topic is not a serious medical topic and/or the article is not supported by reliable medical sources. Neither of these arguments is a valid basis for deletion. Not every topic that relates to the human form is a medical topic -- and the last time I looked, Wikipedia was not exclusively about medicine and did not limit itself to serious topics. This is not an article about human anatomy or other aspects of human biology, nor is it about a neologism for an aspect of human anatomy. This is an article about a sociocultural phenomenon related to people's ideas about desirable attributes of human appearance. Some examples of similar article topics, in addition to
wasp waist, are
tightlacing,
cleavage (breasts),
buttock cleavage,
beauty whitewash,
Four Beauties, and
foot binding. Human biology has some degree of relevance to all of these topics, but sociocultural ideation is a primary focus, if not the singular primary focus, for these topics. Finally, the sourcing in the article indicates that plenty of content has been published about "thigh gaps", so the topic is notable. --
Orlady (
talk)
05:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep For its deeply rooted notability in fashion, fitness, and cosmetic media sources worldwide for the better part of nearly six years. The argument to delete this article reflects well on the IQ of the individual, as his reasoning is quite subpar. I think no serious weight should be given to the opinions or judgments of said individual for the foreseeable future.
Lemonsdrops (
talk)
08:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Lemonsdrops, while you may feel quite strongly opposed to the proposed deletion and it is your right to express that view, I encourage you to refrain from personal attacks. That is the sort of thing that can get you banned and does nothing to help illustrate your point, in fact it just makes you look rude! Have a read of
WP:CIVILITY and
WP:EQ, and try to base your contributions on
Policies if you want the admins to consider your arguments in this discussion.
Dfadden (
talk)
08:33, 21 February 2014 (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.
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.
Once a redirect that has been deleted before, but an article was swiftly created out of it after deletion because the editor was convinced they would produce something better without the baggage. It has been the subject of some protracted
discussion at DYK without any consensus. IMHO, the problem still seems to lie in the topic being an unencyclopaedic and trivial "social" concept rather than any topic with medical or psycho-sexual relevance, that no amount of dressing up is going to produce an entry that isn't about an unworthy
neologism and an
WP:NPOV minefield. Ohc ¡digame!13:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep, notable topic. While the article unsuitable for DYK, this subject has been the subject of significant coverage from major newspapers for at least several months. Furthermore, these sources discuss the topic instead of just using the term, so WP:NEO doesn't apply and WP:NPOV
isn't a reason for deletion. --
Jakob (
talk)
19:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. Tabloids have gone aplomb over this topic and it has been discussed by medical professionals. I am in full disagreement with Jakec regarding its DYK appropriateness, though.--Launchballer21:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. The main arguments against this article seems to be that the topic is not a serious medical topic and/or the article is not supported by reliable medical sources. Neither of these arguments is a valid basis for deletion. Not every topic that relates to the human form is a medical topic -- and the last time I looked, Wikipedia was not exclusively about medicine and did not limit itself to serious topics. This is not an article about human anatomy or other aspects of human biology, nor is it about a neologism for an aspect of human anatomy. This is an article about a sociocultural phenomenon related to people's ideas about desirable attributes of human appearance. Some examples of similar article topics, in addition to
wasp waist, are
tightlacing,
cleavage (breasts),
buttock cleavage,
beauty whitewash,
Four Beauties, and
foot binding. Human biology has some degree of relevance to all of these topics, but sociocultural ideation is a primary focus, if not the singular primary focus, for these topics. Finally, the sourcing in the article indicates that plenty of content has been published about "thigh gaps", so the topic is notable. --
Orlady (
talk)
05:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep For its deeply rooted notability in fashion, fitness, and cosmetic media sources worldwide for the better part of nearly six years. The argument to delete this article reflects well on the IQ of the individual, as his reasoning is quite subpar. I think no serious weight should be given to the opinions or judgments of said individual for the foreseeable future.
Lemonsdrops (
talk)
08:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Lemonsdrops, while you may feel quite strongly opposed to the proposed deletion and it is your right to express that view, I encourage you to refrain from personal attacks. That is the sort of thing that can get you banned and does nothing to help illustrate your point, in fact it just makes you look rude! Have a read of
WP:CIVILITY and
WP:EQ, and try to base your contributions on
Policies if you want the admins to consider your arguments in this discussion.
Dfadden (
talk)
08:33, 21 February 2014 (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.