Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boyfriend (fashion)


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 09:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Boyfriend (fashion)
The original dictdef has been removed, leaving a description of the blindingly obvious (wearing the boyfriend's clothes) but stated in "interesting" (i.e. uncited) terms. I would suggest that this is essentially a non-article; the terms cited (boyfriend jeans and boyfriend jacket) have some currency butnothiong beyond the blindingly obvious. Just zis Guy you know? 23:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article was helpful in covering a fashion industry term that describes a particular style. ,,, . Was not at all blindingly obvious to me, especially as the "boyfriend" look seems very girlish. Examples include the boyfriend skirt , or the boyfriend tank with pink facets . If anything should be expanded. --JJay 01:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral - It's been around a long time for a one-two sentence stub, but I think it could be a legit topic. It either needs expanding, or should go.  Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
 * Delete. Aside from being no more than a dictionary definition, it's offensively stupid: 'more unisex....still designed for the female form'? --die Baumfabrik 03:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: But it's the trend that's stupid -- the article is fairly accurate, as I understand it... --Rehcsif 03:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per JJay. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. JJay has reasonably demonstrated that this article can be well expanded.  Silensor 07:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand, Boyfriend clothes are more like tomboy than unisex, and when we introduce boyshorts, things tend to need some encyclopedic text to do some explaining. hateless 07:32, 7 June 2006 (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.