Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haabet

Contributions of User:Haabet was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was CONSENSUS NOT REACHED, though the contributions do need to be listed separately

User:Haabet has recently contributed a number of articles of dubious quality about various types of corsets (and related items). Some of them have been fixed, others need either cleanup or deletion.

Articles with no useful content include Maternity corset, Nursing corset, Corset in fashion, List of corset periods, Corset (before 1500), Corset for children (already has a VfD page), and Bosom pad (already has a VfD page).

Other articles needing attention include Stays, Iron corset, and Training corset.

Mike Rosoft 12:12, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete: Maternity corset, Nursing corset, Corset in fashion, List of corset periods, Corset (before 1500), and Bosom pad. Keep Stays, Iron corset, and Training corset (I am working on these articles, or intend to when I can find the time). ' Katherine Shaw 14:06, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts. - Mike Rosoft 15:00, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete those Katherine Shaw listed as suitable for deletion, will wait to see what she comes up with on the other 3. --Improv 17:34, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete... uh... what Improv said. Ashibaka &#9998; 21:36, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sleuthing work with no vote attached: Haabet's user page history leads us to several other articles we may want to look at, notable for their pix of female constriction devices; see particularly Category:Years in fashion, 1850s, 1873, there may be others, which might be trackable by looking at other images uploaded at the same time as these. &#8212; Bill 16:12, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I have very mixed feelings on this. I tagged a bunch of this user's 'year in fashion' articles as speedies, because there was no content other than a picture of some euro/western women's garment of the period. Most were deleted. However, given the user's attempts to add content, it seems he/she has very limited English language abilities, so asking him/her to add content seems counter-productive. I think many of these topics are encyclopedic, but I also think there needs to be some content for an article to exist. So, I guess I vote keep on the ones that have enuf content to add to 'human knowledge', and delete on those that have little/no useful content. Niteowlneils 18:21, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I have to say that they're deletes, but I don't believe in blanket delete votes on user contributions, which is why I haven't commented before. Essentially, an RfC needs to be opened for this kind of thing.  It's that or list every single one.  I believe that the user has a very strong personal interest in women's bondage garments.  It is inappropriate to speculate beyond that, but the fact is that the "articles" are the pictures.  The pictures could have use, yes.  The topics could have valid treatments, but the articles that have been written and the uses thusfar of the images have been improper.  Geogre 00:22, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree with Geogre that a blanket vote here on a user's contributions is not a good idea, and in this case I think some of them are keepers anyway. If the intention is really to delete all this user's contributions, then yes, an RfC is the go, although IMO that will fail to get support. Note that I have voted and may again vote to delete specific articles by this user, and that this general vote does not supersede those specific votes. Andrewa 00:54, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Redirect maternity corset, nursing corset, corset (before 1500); corset in fashion and list of corset periods to corset; already voted elsewhere to redirect bosom pad. -Sean Curtin 01:08, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * My vote: Corset in fashion, List of corset periods, and Corset (before 1500) won't make useful redirects and don't appear to have any potential to become encyclopedic; they should be deleted straightforwards. Unless rewritten, the rest of articles I listed as useless can be either deleted or redirected. No vote on the three potentially useful ones. - Mike Rosoft 10:07, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep Agree with Geogre (I often do) that mass deletes are very bad. As Katherine Shaw has pointed out, not all of this user's contribs are useless and I'm going to assume good faith.  Please find the ones you want deleted and list them seperately.  The ones that need cleaning should be so marked.  If you find a lot of the user's contributions poor, by all means leave a message on his talk page voicing your concerns and suggesting improvements.   The Steve  15:15, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Mass deletions are a pretty poor way of dealing with things.  If this person is so obsessed with corsets, shouldn't we be encouraging him/her to write more about the topic?  Isn't that what wikipedia needs to really flesh itself out, deeply knowledgable people on obscure subjects that wouldn't otherwise be well-represented in a community of geeks?
 * By temperament I agree with this last argument, although "flesh itself out" is maybe not the phrase the original author would have liked best. (Seriously, only just now making up my mind and voting:) Keep. The easy part is No Blanket Deletions. The matter at hand, well, just because the kernel of all these articles is what looks like a morbid fixation &#8212; doesn't mean the subject matter isn't valid. These devices were patented, and patents aren't granted for absurdities: they are to some extent, then, as real as shoelaces. (It's fun to realize that there were committees of people sitting in 19th-century Patent Offices doing exactly what we're doing here.) &#8212; Bill 22:31, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Suuuuuure they aren't! The Patent Office is a joke.  The Steve  19:15, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.