Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lumbersexual


 * 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 Lumberjack. Or later elsewhere, and merge anything relevant from history, as editorial consensus may direct. Consensus however is that this shoudn't remain a separate article.  Sandstein  21:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Lumbersexual

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Codeofdusk (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

* Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters. —cyberbot I  Talk to my owner :Online 00:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 28.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 00:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Transwiki to Wiktionary or something ... all but the last sentence reads like a dictionary entry. Or maybe it just needs expanding. Graham 87 03:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep – Passes WP:GNG. It's a term that has received international news coverage, and the article is certainly expandable. Source examples include, but are not limited to:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , North America1000 05:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - it appears there are plenty of sources to demonstrate it meets GNG. —Мандичка YO 😜 08:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Lumberjack notability is timeless and it's too soon to see if this trend has long-term impact. AadaamS (talk) 08:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect per AadaamS. Taking a look at the coverage, it's all very clustered together and seems to be a lot of rereporting. —Мандичка YO 😜 11:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect per . Not enough for a stand-alone article here. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 06:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge rather than redirect -- there are useful sources that would be wasted, and it is easier to re-create an article if it's merely been merged. Bearian (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You are of course at liberty to store those references in one of your user pages. AadaamS (talk) 06:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. I was looking at this with a view to closing it, but the outcome with the most support, a redirect, is problematic since this isn't mentioned at all in the Lumberjack article, so a redirect wouldn't be much use. A merge of some sort would therefore make more sense if it's worth including at all. --Michig (talk) 06:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to the youth fashion section in 2010s in fashion - this discusses a number of trends and style movements such as this. Select some of the best references for citations and condense the article and merge there. Mabalu (talk) 10:37, 6 July 2015 (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.