Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/19th century female attire


 * 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   redirect to Victorian fashion. Only one editor thinks this should be kept as a separate article. The others disagree about whether any content is merge-worthy. Redirecting allows editorial consensus to determine what, if any, content should be merged from the history.  Sandstein  07:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

19th century female attire

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Recently created article by an unregistered user. Appears to just be someone's rather-vague essay. thisisace (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into Victorian fashion, or simply redirect it if no content is salvagable. Plausible search term. It does look like original research, but not blatant OR.--res Laozi speak  21:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep No proper reason to delete is provided by the nomination as reasons such as recently created, unregistered, rather vague have no basis in policy. Our actual editing policy is to assist new editors in such cases. Notice that this editor provided a good source &mdash; Byrde, Penelope. Nineteenth Century Fashion. 0713455462. London: Butler and Tanner Ltd., 1992 &mdash; and so the accusation of OR is uncivil, failing to assume good faith and demonstrating that the article has not yet been properly inspected. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There are news results for "19th century" AND "female attire". Words other than female might show additional results.  There are books written about this, or just mentioning it in detail.  I saw a program on PBS called Frontier House which had quite a bit of detail in it about female attire of the 19th century, that the 1800's.  They had laws in place about the dress code, what all women had to wear.  Lot of coverage about this to be found.  I doubt any history book about that period in time, wouldn't mention the required attire women had to wear.  Many feminist at the time rallied and protested for, among other things of course, a change in the female dress code, it oppressive towards women, and something important enough to be protested about.   D r e a m Focus ' 15:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed it to merge. There are already articles covering this.   D r e a m Focus  18:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete We already have coverage of this under Victorian fashion. This is vague and very sparse essay-like content with little in here even worth merging. There's also the point that "19th century" is a rather arbitrary and unimportant time period to place the boundaries at. The turn of the centuries weren't where the significant shifts in fashion took place. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: poorly written piece of uncertain sourcing whose topic appears to conflate two distinctive fashion periods: Regency (1795–1820 in fashion) and Victorian fashion, both of which have 'Women's fashion sections. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Snotty Wong   yak 17:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect this content fork to Victorian fashion. If there is any relevant content, it can be merged.  Snotty Wong   yak 17:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge per res. There is a source, and there's useful information there; it's just necessary to cite the actual statements. (The article itself is redundant, but there's no reason not to merge the content.) Roscelese (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just what is there in here that's worth merging? "Today in Modern America women wear things under their clothes, known as underwear."? "Females then never wore t-shirts."? or the slightly bizarre "A pickaninny would take the blame for any escaped gas that was let loose from the rich woman in a public place."? I just can't find a sentence in here that's worth saving and isn't trivially self-evident, let alone not already covered in Victorian fashion. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Things like the descriptions of garments - though I suppose those could be added from the existing articles on them as well. Roscelese (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've read it fairly carefully and I can't find anything worth saving - most is either outright wrong, or only tenuously arguable for a small period of the 19th century. "The dress was worn long and was molded to the female’s body." is a reasonable comment on Regency clothing, but would be outrageous in the high Victorian period. The 19th century just wasn't consistent enough to make simplistic blanket statements about it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2010 (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.