Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catsuits and bodysuits in popular media


 * 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   no consensus to delete, at any rate in its amended form, so default to keep.   Sandstein   16:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Catsuits in popular culture

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

An unencyclopedic list of every person in film, TV, a music video or computer game who has ever worn a catsuit. If this article is going to get any further, it needs to establish notability and present reliable sources giving substantial coverage of the subject "catsuits in popular culture". It doesn't cite any references covering the subject and I can't find any. Hence the article is always going to consist of original research drawn from unrelated references and isn't going to make a coherent article. There isn't even any indication that catsuits played a part in any plot - merely that a character happened to wear one. There is already a summary of this page in catsuit and the subject is not worth a seperate article. Hut 8.5 19:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This article (and some like it) represent original research insofar as they claim, without support from sources, that Movie X contains a "catsuit" and that said inclusion represents one facet of "catsuits in popular culture". without some secondary source making a similar claim we can't invent it ourselves.  To do so would mean that both the inclusion of items on the list and the thesis of the list itself would be based on judgment of editors.  Bedrock polices of the encyclopedia and consensus in AfD's show that this is unacceptable.  A secondary source that would cover this topic must cover the topic.  There are 10,000 hits for this article title without quotes on google.  That fact does not make any of them secondary sources covering the subject.  Editors are invited to look in scholarly sources such as The Journal of Popular Culture, pop culture encyclopedias such as From Abba to Zoom or St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture or even reliable sources online like, , , or .  However, without some source explicitly making the claim asserted by the article (and the existence of the article represents a thesis that can't be disclaimed), the article should be deleted.  Individual sources covering single events such as movie reviews ("Halle Berry looked great in that catsuit...") that provide no context are about as bad as no source at all.  Asserting that those sources represent "importance in pop culture" is original research.  Delete this article unless unifying secondary sources can be found. Protonk (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed to keep The original reasons I felt this article needed to be deleted have largely been fixed with the name change and discovery of sources contextualizing catsuits in film and television. I want to point out that this shouldn't be taken as some ex post rejection of the rationale--at the moment of nomination (and even following the first claimed improvement) the article concept itself still was original research.  Thanks to Aditya and Father Goose for bringing this up to standards. Protonk (talk) 04:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep purr Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. -- Happy editing! Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point! Testmasterflex (talk) 06:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete despite Le Grand Roi's specious arguments which he has been warned about. Totally original research, not a trace of a reference, and just a list of catsuits is not encyclopedic.  An article about catsuits is different entirely.   Corvus cornix  talk  21:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Despite your specious "argument", it is totally not original research in that it does not advance some kind of thesis and the items of list can be easily verified. The article is indeed encyclopedic. -- Happy editing! Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 22:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge the most notable occurrences into catsuit. I had originally split it from this article as had been requested. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not merge unsourced OR.  Corvus cornix  talk  21:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was about to qualify my comment by saying the "notable, referenced" occurrences. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Then help source this unoriginal research. -- Happy editing! Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 22:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are quite a number of articles about popular culture on WP that could be considered original research in the same way the term is used here. Verifiable instances without any analysis is not really original research. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed! It's indiscriminate listing of vaguely-related factoids. List of fictional works with catsuits would be no more useful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a discrinate listing of clearly related references. I do not oppose a move to that suggested retitling, though.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 22:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Either this is an indiscriminate listing of an object's appearance in fictional works, or it's an OR piece that advances the argument that catsuits have an important role in popular culture. Without the sort of sources Protonk refers to, this cannot be made into an encyclopedic article. Even if it is at some later date, a randomly-assembled list of times a catsuit has appeared in a fictional work is not terribly useful to that article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's neither indiscriminate nor original research. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 22:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nuh uh! Yuh huh! Nuh uh! Yuh huh! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is discriminate because there is a clear inclusion criteria for the list, i.e. only catsuits and only in popular culture. It is not original research as there is no argument about catsuits in popular culture presented.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 22:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is indiscriminate as it is now because the inclusion criteria are pulled out of thin air; there's no reason to link "catsuits" and "fictional works". (Consider List of blue things, List of television anchors named Allen, List of work surfaces in fictional works, etc. If you'd prefer, it's an idiosyncratic non-topic, a criterion for deletion as old as deleting articles on Wikipedia.) Any reason that isn't backed to some sort of source means this article has an OR thesis. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason is navigational; obviously some editors believe the subject wikipedic or else they wouldn't have created, worked on, and argued to keep it. Thus, those interested in the topic, fashion or costume people I would reckon, can use this page as a table of contents or portal to works of fiction that included this particularly type of outfit and it is easier for those interested in it to just use a list like article rather than to have a category.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Some people felt strongly enough to spend their time working on it has never been a shield against "So where are the sources for your implicit or explicit conclusions?" If all you have is "This must be important because someone cares enough to write an article!" save your breath. The argument that this is important for navigation assumes that this topic is somehow important, which is the assumption under attack. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "I don't like it" is not a reason to delete either. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So where are the sources for your implicit or explicit conclusions? <- my argument to delete I've made no mention whatsoever of how I feel about catsuits (I'm fond in a retro sort of way) or articles on popular culture (good when they're articles and sourceable). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A table of contents, which is how I see this article, does not need sources beyond those used to verify it's contents. The articles linked to from that table of contents need the additional sources.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're free to host whatever directories you want on a project whose scope includes them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That so many editors create, work on, read, and argue to keep these articles suggest that much of our community believes they are within our scope. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That so many editors create and read typos suggests that much of our community believes we should not fix them. That so many editors create, edit, and tirelessly replace vandalism suggests that much of our community feels that vandalism is necessary. That so many editors create, work on, read, and argue to keep original research suggests that much of our community believes it is within our scope. No. We have standards, and they do have consensus. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Apples and oranges. And if they really had consensus, I would not see comments like this.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * EVERYKING MADE AN AD HOMINEM ARGUMENT, SO YOU MUST ACQUIT. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Or was he telling it like it is? -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is quite likely an indiscriminate list but there is no assertion made that it is important. It can be made less discriminate if it was narrowed down to notable occurrences. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, because there's no topic here. "List of times a catsuit in a fictional work was mentioned in passing" doesn't fix the problem that this is a non-topic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am seeing no reason why since we know editors and readers look up "x in popular culture", we wouldn't at worst redirect without deleting as it at least a legitimate search term. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you agree the article is valueless other than as a redirect, then you have no argument to keep. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the article has value for navigational purposes, but say that at worst it should be redirect. I do not see any convincing reason to outright redlink it.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Then feel free to put a redirect here when this indiscriminate trivia is removed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't need an AfD to redirect. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wavering from Merge to Keep. It is of a very specialised nature and small readership. Why should we deny this sector the purrleasure of this article? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Unbounded and unsourced list that requires original research to determine the list members.  Complete lack of reliable sources showing that catsuits are part of popular culture.  It is also a matter of wikipedian interpretation if a costume is a catsuit, bodystocking, gimp suit, unitard, zentai, and/or superhero/supervillian costume.  --Allen3 talk 23:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is neither indiscriminate nor original researched and as far as sourcing, the items on this list should be easily sourceable. For a list used as a navigation tool to other articles, it need not have dissertations on how catsuits have influenced popular culture, but it is consistent with our purpose as a reference tool for providing readers with a handy list that researchers can use to make those studies.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What researchers? Where have they published their research? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Those who note the use of catsuits in film as part of an "adolescent tomboy's dream", in the cultural changes of the 1960s, etc. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The former is about a single work, the latter is about catsuits in the real world. Possibly good sources for The Matrix or Catsuit. Not so much this one. Understand the different between "Catsuits in film" and "Catsuits in a film." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Combined they deal with the topic under consideration here. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's silly. You're silly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, this is silly. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And just as relevant as the links you presented as references. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * At least it brings some levity to the discussion. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Other stuff exists of a similar nature, eg: Spandex fetishism. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Indiscriminate collection of information. Insufficient third-party sources advancing the concept addressed in this article to establish notablity. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a discriminate collection of information as it addresses a specific topic "catsuits" in a specific example "popular culture" with sufficient sources discussed above to justify the inclusion of an article for at least navigational purposes, but even as is, I believe we can use sources like "Reading the Catsuit: Serena Williams and the Production of Blackness at the 2002 U.S. Open" as evidence of catsuits in popular culture as sports stars are an example of popular culture. The article discusses how the popular media focused on the way the catsuit displayed the athelete's physique.  Now, when I said somewhere above about how costume people do find this sort of thing relevant, please note page 94 of Costume and Cinema: Dress Codes in Popular Film.  While the cat suit reference there is brief, it does nevertheless show that the topic of this and other sorts of costumes in films is a legitimate non-trivial topic. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Both discuss specific instances of people who are part of popular culture wearing catsuits and are not about the general topic of "catsuits in popular culture". The Serena Williams source might warrant a mention in catsuit but hardly a seperate article. Hut 8.5 12:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete because when I think catsuit, I think of people dressed as cats, but instead few if any entries here actually have whiskers -- vicious lies! Also, delete because Le Grand wants to keep it, and I'm hoping one day he'll use this diff in claiming that there's a cabal out to get him and his gourds. Oh, and delete because there are absolutely no sources whatsoever. Also, some of these entries don't strike me as being skin-tight enough to be considered "catsuits"; they're more like ferretsuits, and their inclusion here -- based on editors' opinion that something is or isn't a catsuit -- strikes me as being OR(k)ish. --EEMIV (talk) 03:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have presented some sources we can use above and of course deleting because someone else wants to keep is really, really lame. You know, I just spent the last few minutes thinking of how can I best compromise with some of these editors that I usually disagree with and posts like the one above and your other efforts to mock your fellow editors make it really hard to think that taking a new approach is even worth it. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment People need to calm down. It doesn't help anything to be unfriendly to LeGrand.  Just make arguments based on the merits of the sources provided and within the articles let the AfD take its course.  Inciting other editors is bad form. Protonk (talk) 05:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Bah. You and Le Grand should lighten up. I mean, come on... catsuits! I'll also add that the article, too, is essentially a collection of WP:PLOT, i.e. mere appearances. Worthwhile content would cite critical reaction to catsuits -- I know there was plenty when, for example 7 of 9 was added to Voyager -- and that kind of content is wholly absent. I doubt there is critical response for allll of appearances list on the page; I'll bet that if whittled down to entries for which there is some sort of third-party reaction to these catsuits, they can instead be incorporated into the actual catsuit article. --EEMIV (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and per Protonk who details why this article is OR much better than I could. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why you can help to use the sources cited above to reference the article. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 05:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Keep I'm leaning toward keep as this is an acceptable list when sourced and focused to notable example versus every instance. No one disputes catsuits are a unique fashion item so this list could show earliest uses, notable uses and changes in catsuit fashions as well as used by men (presuming they were first used by women) etc. As is it's a list that seems to simply need regular improving. Unclear why OR concerns are being flagged here. Banj e  b oi   06:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Content about like that is better off in the catsuit article as it doesn't specifically relate to popular culture. Hut 8.5 12:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed to "Keep" per Father Goose's excellent work. Banj e  b oi   00:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete catsuit as well as this article on the basis of the arguments presented here, else keep both articles. I'm not making an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument here; how can one claim that this list -- which is entirely consistent with the content in catsuit -- is original research if catsuit is not also OR?  If catsuit is a valid topic, then a list of prominent catsuit-wearers (fictional or otherwise) is also valid content.  Just pare the list back to things specifically referred to as catsuits, bodysuits, and other synonyms by secondary sources.  (Oh, and merge with bodysuit, unitard, and other synonymous terms.)--Father Goose (talk) 10:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not meant to be a list of people who have ever worn catsuits - that's not the point of the title. It's supposed to discuss the topic of "catsuits in popular culture", about which there are no sources at all. The main catsuit article is appropriate for inclusion because there are sources specifically covering the subject of catsuits. Moving the article to List of people who have worn catsuits would create another problem - namely that such a list is pure trivia and provides next to no useful information to the reader. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Hut 8.5 12:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly, though, it's a list of people who have worn catsuits. Should there be a "list of prominent wearers of catsuits" in catsuit?  Sure, it would make sense to me to have it.  If you used the means I suggested above to source it, the "OR" issue disappears.  Should such a list be limited to an arbitrary length?  No; prominent uses is prominent uses, and "delete, too long" is not a sensible argument; Wikipedia is not paper.  Should the list be in catsuit or in its own article?  That depends on its length, once it's sourced, per Summary style.
 * The fact that this article has the words "popular culture" in its title does not mean its content should be deleted for being about a different subject.--Father Goose (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:DEMOLISH. --Qsaw (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is three months old - that's plenty of time for someone to address the concerns - and the content was present in catsuit even before that. The link you cite is an essay and doesn't trump the policies and guidelines that were cited above. Hut 8.5 12:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Three months is actually not that old and we aren't in a rush here. Banj e  <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b oi   13:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are going to use a WP:DEADLINE, then please explain why the rush to create an article before sources for required verifiablity were located? An appeal for unlimited delay does not trump Wikipedia's core content policies. --Allen3 talk 14:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fortunately it meets our core content policies as discussed above. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your highly repetitious argument has been duly noted and will undoubtedly be given the weight it deserves. --Allen3 talk 20:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I imagine that your inaccurate "argument" will also be given such weight. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete, WP:SYNTH all the way. Wikipedia is not for original ideas — unless someone has previously written about catsuits in popular culture (not just catsuits, and not just popular culture), we should not have an article about it. Stifle (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * These are unoriginal ideas, however. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment this discussion has been linked to from WikiProject Popular Culture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Popular Culture and Article Rescue Squadron/Current articles. It is general practice to make a note at an AFD if you link to it from somewhere else. --<b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 19:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.   —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.   —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Catsuits are not a normal piece of clothing; their typical use is by vampy (or campy) superheroines and entertainers, and also what makes this list something other than "chairs in movies". One can claim that a list of catsuit wearers is simply "trivial", but such content is not forbidden from Wikipedia (trivia sections, being a jumble of facts with no relation to each other, are discouraged). And I'm frequently surprised by how some of the most seemingly trivial "lists of x" on Wikipedia have an appreciative audience beyond fandom (one example: "Wikipedia, the community-edited online encyclopedia, maintains a useful history of anti-Barney Internet humor — from the “Jihad to Destroy Barney,” which has evolved into a role-playing game, to fictionalized stories and images documenting Barney’s womanizing and crack habit" from The New York Times). Unless content like this can somehow be claimed to be harmful to Wikipedia, my instinct is to retain it, and improve it.--Father Goose (talk) 06:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do-over. I've renamed the article and rewritten its lead to match its content, and started sourcing the entire list.  I was able to source every single one of the first ten items with little effort.  This is not a list that needs deleting.  It is certainly not original research.  It is not "indiscriminate information".  C'mon, guys.  Find an article that needs improving and get to work, instead of picking up a baseball bat every time you spot an article that has the words "popular culture" in its title.--Father Goose (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent effort! It is encouraging to see constructive and proactive editing and it is even nice to see some imagery in an AfD!  :)  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's admirable, but nobody has yet offered any sources that this is not a list of movies with chairs in them. There's no larger topic here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The larger topic is catsuits, and this is a list is a supplement to that article. Given its size, it's not unreasonable to have it in a separate article from the other content in catsuit, though either location would be fine by me.
 * I have to agree with A Man In Black here. By "wider topic" he means that Catsuits in popular culture is not a valid encyclopedic topic as there are no sources covering it. Well done for trying to source the list, but the references you added merely consist of "so-and-so wore a catsuit" and don't cover the subject of catsuits in popular culture. In the case of other "in popular culture" articles this isn't true - as an academic has written an entire book exploring depictions of Mars and Martians in film and literature the topic of "Mars in popular culture" is encyclopedic. Another good example is Cultural depictions of spiders. If you don't insist on sources covering the topic, where do you stop? Coathangers in popular culture? Washing the dishes in popular culture? Nasal hair in popular culture? The mere fact that the information is verifiable is not a reason to include it. If a list of depictions like this one is too long for the main article then you don't have to move it to a sub-article as it can simply be removed. Wikipedia has in fact been ridiculed for its willingness to include popular culture lists like this one. Judgements as to whether the article is "harmful" or not aren't arguments against deletion. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 11:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The difference between coathangers, washing dishes and nasal hair in popular culture, and catsuits is that there is an interest in catsuits in popular culture. As noted below there is discussion of catsuits in sources that can be referenced. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Where in WP:GNG does it say about how many people are interested? And where are the sources that talk about catsuits in fiction, instead of a catsuit in a fictional work? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Would you have voted to keep this article, Hut 8.5? All the accusations you're making against catsuits and bodysuits in popular media in its present form seem to apply as much (or as little, as the case may be) to that article: it's unsourced, it's indiscriminate, it's original research, it's "arbitrary subject in popular culture".  Yet that article was the seed for this article, which you have above lauded.


 * I do insist on sourcing, and I started on that work by sourcing each item individually to establish that a) each of the mentioned instances is a catsuit, and that b) the catsuit in question is an important enough quality of the work for a secondary source to mention it when discussing the work. Additional writing and sourcing of the kind used to transform cultural depictions of spiders from a loathed pop-culture article into a lauded one will be needed (and I have no doubt that sufficient good-quality sources exist to make this possible), but this "improve this immediately or destroy it" attitude displayed by you and others here is truly distressing, and out of line with our basic working methods.  There's stuff in the encyclopedia that can be improved to our encyclopedic standards, and stuff that can't.  The content you are seeking to delete right now is stuff that can be improved to that standard -- but not if it gets deleted.


 * You must understand my deep frustration when I see raw but redeemable content that is -- I'll say it again -- not specifically harmful -- discarded instead of being given a reasonable opportunity to evolve into good content. Harmful to the encyclopedia is my sole criterion when evaluating whether any article should be deleted, and I criticize anybody who doesn't have a clear idea of why something is harmful when making an argument that that it should be deleted.  Having bollocks in the encyclopedia is clearly harmful, as is lies, bullshit, lies of a different sort, libel, self-promotion, and a slew of other fundamentally bad things.  But if I see content that is not plainly harmful, not diminishing the quality of another article, and that could plausibly be reworked into something that improves the encyclopedia, I give such turd blossoms time to mature -- and I improve them myself, whenever time and energy coincide.--Father Goose (talk) 07:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have voted to keep it, as there are whole books and journal articles covering the subject. If I really was on some sort of crusade to destroy unreferenced articles, would I have referenced several myself in the last week? And would I have done this? <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 10:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're set on getting this referenced information deleted due to a simple dislike of it; that much is clear. And pointing to a consensus to keep that you closed as a consensus to keep -- what does that signify? That you know to avoid getting desysopped?--Father Goose (talk) 06:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * that's absurd. just stick to the article and to the sources, rather than tossing around "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" with abandon. Protonk (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per Le Grand roy de citrolines reasoning. Testmasterflex (talk) 06:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as revised by Father goose, one of our most reliable editors for these topics. . The present article speaks for itself. if half the effort of trying to delete it had gone to improving it, we'd have been much further along. distinctive costumes in movies are major parts of the setting, and are used significantly and there's an enormous amount of admittedly rather scattered literature from several aspects, so there will be yet more to be added. DGG (talk) 06:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Reviewing the update, I don't see any reason to change my original vote. Protonk (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is still unreferenced crap. My original opinion still stands.   Corvus cornix  talk  20:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC
 * It's actually referenced encyclopedic content. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't consider the current version of the article to be any more encyclopedic than a carefully referenced list of chairs in movies. If you want to argue that catsuits are unusual, then ok, it's no better than a list of 3 legged chairs in movies. PhilKnight (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Apples and oranges. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Chairs are a straw man. To make a point of this sort, you need to show a substantial topic of this sort and then demonstrate that catsuits don't adequately match this for notability or coherence.  For example, while trawling sources for this, I considered the topic of Librarians in popular culture, as exemplified by Rupert Giles, say.  I was all set to create an article on this when I found that it has already been done:  Librarians in popular culture!  This article seems a good model and it seems that catsuits are an equally potent cultural trope which merits similar coverage here.  Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Just another content-less "I spy" trivia list. The usual claim in these articles is that the X in "X in popular culture" is important to popular culture. An "X in popular culture" article can be written that actually discuss the impact on pop culture instead of obsessively listing every book, movie, and TV that X appears.  Using a source that only talks about a catsuit in one movie doesn't support the central claim that "Catsuits are important to popular culture".  Once you remove the list, you are left with one sentence, even with the attempts to "save" the article. --Phirazo (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Unsourced? What unsourced? There are a lot of comments above telling how this article is unsourced, is original research, is not verifiable and so on. I'd like to point out that the article only mentions published works and these are sources on their own. There is nothing unsourced about it. Aditya (talk • contribs) 03:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no source that says "Catsuits have (foo) role in popular culture/fiction/whatever." Just a bunch of sources that say "A catsuit appeared here." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep conditional to the list being removed. The article is better now. --Phirazo (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. A quick GSearch has shown that many of the appearances of the catsuit in the films mentioned has been discussed, analyzed and commented on in both mainstream newspapers, TV and books. It would be a great help if an attempt was made to incoprorate information on individual films, rather than a mere mention of the film. The original Avengers, Barbarella, Matrix, Irma Vep and all the Catwoman featuring films definitely leads the discussion board in mainstream media. Aditya (talk • contribs) 03:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment As a note to contributors, we have been down this road before. Consider Articles for deletion/United Airlines in popular culture, Articles for deletion/Cheshire Cat in popular culture (2nd nomination) and the DRV which listed Cheshire Cat IPC as no consensus only because a userspace draft of the article was made that didn't violate policies. Protonk (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would ask you in turn to consider Articles for deletion/Classical elements in popular culture (second nomination), Articles for deletion/Thong in the news, and Articles for deletion/Buffy the Vampire Slayer in popular culture, just to mention a few. Not everybody on the same road arrives at the same destination.--Father Goose (talk) 07:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * All of which were improved to add the kind of sources that this article lacks. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That process is underway for this article.--Father Goose (talk) 08:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Underway" implies to me that a start has been made to it. That would imply that at least one reference on the current article directly discusses the subject of "catsuits and bodysuits in popular culture". However, it does not appear that any of them do discuss this subject directly. I am puzzled as to how it can be stated that sourcing is "underway" if there are currently zero instances of said sourcing on the article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please be honest in these discussions as there are 27 references in the article at the time of my reply. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Noted. I didn't link those two AfD's and a DRV because they were "in pop culture" articles.  I linked them because they have exactly the same problem as this article still does.  They made a claim that X was important or notable in popular culture by presenting a list of times X has appeared in films or books, etc.  The CC article was eventually userified because LGRDC found a source that said "So powerful has the books influence been that memorable characters, such as the Hatter, March Hare, Doormouse, and the Cheshire Cat, to name a few, have become inextricable parts of our popular culture." Without a source that says something like that, claims that X is important in pop culture are original research or original research by synthesis. Protonk (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's splitting hares hairs that a single reference that addresses the topic in an overarching way is the difference between deleting or keeping content that would otherwise be identical. You may be convinced that such literalism and regimentation holds sway over Wikipedia, but the standing wisdom is that it does not.--Father Goose (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not splitting hairs at all. A single reference would be sufficient to indicate that the subject of "catsuits in popular culture" has been addressed by a reliable source. More than one would be nice, but you've stated that the process is ongoing. Ongoing implies that it has started. That requires at least one instance. IAR is for when process stands in the way of the project; in this case, a significant proportion of replies are in favour of following process, so IAR isn't applicable (it never overrides consensus). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep/merge This seems to be a spinoff from Catsuit and should just be merged there if it seems better to cover the material in one place. Deletion is obviously not appropriate as the main Catsuit article has few references and could use an infusion of the well-sourced material that we have here. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not that the material is "best covered in one place"; it is that this article cannot stand alone as its subject ("catsuits and bodysuits in popular culture") has not been covered by multiple independent third party sources. Merging into a "popular culture" section on the main catsuit article just leads to a lowering of that article's quality, per the "I-spy" and "wood in popular culture" arguments. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like this refers to Notability. That policy states in verbatim - "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." And, significant coverage is explained on the policy page as "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." That part is already covered in the article (unless we insist on a source saying "X is important in pop culture" in verbatim, a criteria not covered by the policies), and as things are progressing, it looks like at least three/four of the mentions (Avengers, Matrix, Barbarella, Star Trek: Voyager) can have their own articles as per Wikipedia inclusion policies. It would only take a little more effort. Finally, it would be helpful to remember that Wikipedia has a way of artice splitting along with a way of article merging. In this case, the former looks to be applicable fine. Aditya (talk • contribs) 16:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability isn't the deciding issue here. Original research is.  We actually DO have a policy that says claims made in the article must be supported by evidence and that two bits of evidence can't be stitched together to make a third claim.  Here the deletes are asserting that 27 references which all claim variously that catsuits appears in movies can be stitched together to claim that "catsuits are a part of popular culture".  The topic is "Catsuits and bodysuits in popular media" (or pop culture, w/e).  Coverage of the topic is necessary. Protonk (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So, as I understand, the issue is about No original research, a policy that says in verbatim - "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." In explaining synthesis the policy page says - "Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly." Where is the world do you see any of that violated in this article? Theres also is enough coverage of the topic already cited. I don't like it isn't much of a reason to delete an article, neither is I don't get the point. Let's not reinvent the policies generated by consensus just get one article deleted. Aditya (talk • contribs) 18:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say I don't like it. and no where has someone continued to show me "the point" and I've evaded the question or simply repeated an assertion.  Here is my assertion, same as it was from the first delete vote: "The existence of the article is an assertion that the topic is notable or important.  That is indisputable.  If the article existed, but didn't assert that the subject was notable, it would be deleted per CSD-A7.  Therefore this article specifically asserts that the subject "Catsuits and bodysuits in popular media" is notable.  That means that per our policy on original research, some source out there must either assert that the subject is important OR some source must cover the subject (by this I mean the concept or occurrence of Catsuits and bodysuits in popular media) in significant detail.  If it does not, then we are stitching together disparate mentions of catsuits and bodysuits in an editor created taxonomy."  No where in there do I say "I don't like it."  Nowhere in there have I reinvented policies or refused to "get the point", whatever that point is claimed to be. Protonk (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If stitching together information from different sources to create an article that covered all the varied facets of a single topic were against Wikipedia's rules, it would be illegal to write encyclopedia articles on Wikipedia. I don't blame you for not understanding the purpose of WP:SYN: it is disastrously phrased, making the misinterpretation you present here all too common.  If you look at the kinds of things SYN talks about, however, you'll see that its overall aim is to disallow taking claims from two or more sources that distort what is actually written in those sources.  Making a set of assertions that are backed up by sources, and then making a generalizing assertion that is also consistent with those sources (even if it isn't necessarily explicitly said in those sources) is basic encyclopedia writing.  You're not allowed to make a false claim by selectively stitching together sources in a way that misrepresents the sources -- that is what NOR and SYN are looking to prevent.  Making generalized assertions that are consistent with all available sources is not SYN, although the way SYN is written right now, such misinterpretations are fairly common.  (I won't go so far as to call it wikilawering, as I generally consider wikilawywering to be a deliberate misinterpretation of the rules.  However, the end result is the same: you must ponder the spirit of the rule -- the reason why we have it and why we need it -- when applying it.  If you take as broad an interpretation of WP:SYN as you have here and apply it to other parts of the encyclopedia, I hope you can see that it would savage basic, good encyclopedia writing.)--Father Goose (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to say that SYN prevents us from doing anything but a recapitulation of source documents. I interpret the (albeit poorly worded) guidance there very narrowly to mean that we shouldn't assert a concept unless it hasn't basically been asserted elsewhere.  Your vision of my interpretation would disallow any list beyond what had been inclusively covered in a single secondary source.  That's not my point at all.  I don't mean to exclude something like List of brain tumor patients because there isn't a single source which lists all of the brain tumor patients out there.  I interpret WP:SYN as preventing us from taking source A (girl X wears a catsuit in movie M), source B (girl Y wears a catsuit in movie N) to mean article C (catsuits are a notable element in popular media).  If some source is revealed that either covers the subject "catsuits in popular media" or says (like the Cheshire Cat article) that the subject is important, then my concerns evaporate.  Please don't confuse that position with some other, more restrictive position that I do not hold. Protonk (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me assume good faith and also assume that you actually are missing the point. Let me, then show the point again. By Wikipedia policies and conventions it is perfectly alright to write an article with sources like "X says there's a phenomenon of wearing catsuits in media", "Y says a lot many catsuits are worn in media" and "Z says there's a reason why so many catsuits are being worn". It isn't called original research of synthesis here, we call it non-trivial coverage by multiple independent sources. "Importance" or "popularity" or adherence to a very specific line of thought are not inclusions criteria, or deletion criteria for that matter. Not an aorta of "stitching together" of "two bit facts" to make a "third claim" is evident in the article, unless you count that imaginary claim of "importance", which hasn't been claimed. Aditya (talk • contribs) 01:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But none of the sources say those things. No source is saying "This is the role of catsuits in film," just "This is a catsuit in a film." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you'd like to read the lead again. Aditya (talk • contribs) 02:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's drop the "assume good faith that I'm missing the point" bit. It's snarky and unhelpful.  I don't need to be lectured that I'm missing the boat on core policies.  We have a disagreement about this article, let's leave it at that.  As for the reformed lead, it is MUCH BETTER than the article at the start of the AfD and even at this revision when FG announced that the article was revamped.  Now we are getting somewhere.  Renaming the article helps as well--catsuits in media requires a list, catsuits in popular culture requires a syllogistic connection.  This article is in better shape then it was previously and I'm inclined to move to keep (given some of the sources).  But what I want to know is this: Why, if I was so DREADFULLY wrong about what did and didn't constitute OR, did you move to improve the article in the exact fashion I suggested to avoid making claims by synthesis?  Why did we have two or three posts here bemoaning my lack of policy understanding when all it would have taken was "hey, Farrell 2007 is a good start to a list in the secondary literature and Geller, Inness, and Worick all discuss the importance of the catsuit in media".  That's it.  From my first delete vote, that all I asked for. Protonk (talk) 02:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair. And, I apologize, too (I guess, it's called the heat of action). Thanks, for bringing this article to attentions, for doggedly insisting compliance with Wikipedia qualities, and for appreciating the hard work that went into it at your insistence. Aditya (talk • contribs) 03:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge. While part of it is a list of catsuits seen in movies, which for some reason is missing the venerable Roller Boogie, there's also some decent prose with dozens of references to academic papers on the subject.  Article could be reworked into an overview of fetishism and fashion. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is more than just "people or characters by the clothing they wear". Catsuits and the like are notable as part of subculture, such as S&M fetishists, superhero fetishists, and Goths. (My, the things I find myself reasearching and commenting on, on Wikipedia...) The article is also an obvious split point per WP:Summary style. - jc37 05:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am back from real life. I promise to work on the suggestions in the next few days. It'd be a great help if there were additional hands available. Aditya (talk • contribs) 16:26, 24 August 2008 (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.