Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flogger (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 was   '''no consensus, defaulting to keep. References need to be added in.'''. Tan     39  23:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Flogger (fashion)

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

WP:NEO Avi (talk) 01:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC) *Delete. WP:NEO or WP:HOAX, take thy pick.  tomasz.  13:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * DeleteGoogle hits are this article and people being described as flogging fashion (selling or promoting fashion). It's either a neologism or a hoax LegoTech &middot;(t)&middot;(c) 01:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, first of all, this article is not a hoax.
 * Secondly, yes, that's true, it's a neologism, it born the past year, but exists many reliable sources about the term and about the phenomenon. The article don't have anyone, that's a pity, and I sure that it's the principal reason which cause this nomination. But well, it's also one reason because the article is only a stub.
 * This article it's about a phenomenon with have a enormous significance at least in Argentina, is estimated that has become a habit of living almost two million of young people. And, of course, the principal media of that country has treated this matter. For give some examples, Clarín, the principal diary of Argentina and the second more important in the hispanic world, published this note, which is the principal source of the article. La Nación -the second most important in the country- also has published about the matter, in this note. And we can found a lot of more references, in Crítica de la Argentina, La Voz del Interior , Channel 13 -the more watched in all the country- , and the list goes on.
 * I think that the article should be expanded, and the references should be added, but I think that the relevance of the matter and the reliable sources justify its maintenance.
 * So, I decided to Keep it. Daniel dj87 (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Neutral inclining towards keep. i admit, i had not seen Daniel dj87's sources before i !voted, and having given them a brief glance, it does indeed seem like this is real and potentially notable. Spanish is not my 1st language so i will have a more detailed look later, but it is looking like a keeper if those can be incorporated.  tomasz.  12:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as inherently non-notable. I'm not convinced this year's youth fashion in one South American country belongs in any encyclopedia.  I would go so far as to say that fashion sources are not independent of fashions for Wikipedia purposes, since they make their money by promoting fashions.  Should the craze documentably go worldwide, or even continent-wide, I will be happy to amend my !vote. Jclemens (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. As long as sources can be found it should be kept.  Policy aside, the article helped me understand when my Argentine friend told me she was a flogger.  Searching on youtube brings up several videos, perhaps the content there can help indicate where sources will be.  --B  F izz (e•t•c) 17:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Nonnotable neologism. I can't find any English sources in notable publications. Themfromspace (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:48, 23 July 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.