Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Male bra


 * 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 and that's after excluding the sock accounts.--JForget 01:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Male bra

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

With zero reliable sources, this seems to fail notability. And just because it's been in Seinfeld doesn't make it notable either. h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 09:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this already has a mention on Bro and is discussed at length in the episode's article ("The Doorman"). In my opinion, that's plenty. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep it has total relevance if not - should be incorporated into the main Brassiere article better --88.108.124.49 14:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But where are the reliable sources documenting the male bra? Please provide them if you can.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 14:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Little more than 500 Google hits for the term "male bra" excluding Wikipedia mirrors. As I said, if you have reliable sources on this topic, provide them.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 14:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A bit under 500 for the term "men's bra".-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 14:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note, also, that quite a few of those hits are unrelated: right on the first page I see jokes about a "male bra fitter" and skiing results (for some reason). Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 15:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete (or merge to various articles) - Cross-dressing is better covered at that and other articles. No references of men wearing bras for obesity or gynecomastia, and although it may well happen, it's not clear it's particularly notable or encyclopedic; any mention is probably better off in those articles. Also, the Enell Sports Bra doesn't actually refer to it as a bra at all, instead calling it a "Male Support Vest". Even if we decided it is a bra and worth covering, I think it'd be better mentioned at Sports bra? Or alternatively, we could rename this article to something like Male support vest. Mdwh 22:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep as notable. Needs cites to be rescued. Redirect per Mdwh if neeeded. Bearian 00:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Enough reference material is available for the article. -  Jreferee  (Talk) 07:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Still needs some work, but sources have been added to the article. - Fosnez 10:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Merge and Redirect to Brassiere. Merge the appropriate portions to both gynecomastia (which doesn't mention this at all, currently) and brassiere (also no mention currently), then redirect to brassiere.  The article has been rescued enough that I'd call this a "weak merge", meaning that it's almost a keep, but not quite.  Even with further improvement, I still think this belongs inside another article, rather than as an article itself. --barneca (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Note that I will be removing the visually offensive image from the article.  I'm a firm believer that we are WP:NOT censored as an encyclopedia, but the image simply does not apply.  If someone has a photograph of an actual male bra on the other hand, please feel free to add it.  thanks!  Bur nt sau ce  20:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC
 * Condense and redirect to bra A bra is something to keep one's breasts in place. Simple as that. That a tiny percentage of them are worn by men doesn't mean they need a completely seperate article. Cooperate by working this information into the main article instead of engaging in this stubborn information separatism. Peter Isotalo 13:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. I've added some references, external links and content and plenty more is out there but is somewhat hidden as the condition of having male breasts as large as a females is a source of embarrassment and shame for many including the large percentage of adolescent boys who go through the social stigmatizing process during puberty. Male breast reduction surgery is on the rise as is awareness for all medical conditions as people too embarrassed to speak with a medical pro turn to the internet for answers. Wikipedia should have a well written article about the subject as much as any other for those who seek the information. The article does need work but is on its way to being a credible and helpful source of good information. Benjiboi 01:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And the reason that just about all of this information can't be covered by the main bra article is...?Peter Isotalo 07:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason is that male bras are a distinct item unto themselves with their own history, usage and cultural implications that, I believe, would get lost in translation in the main article and quickly annexed anyway. Whereas bras for females have a long, mainstream history, bras for men have almost always been a secret and a shame. As technology and medical science has advanced so has our understanding of why a male's breasts would grow as such where there is little fascination of the why of female breasts - it's just assumed as is. The bra for females has become a high fashion accessory whereas the male bra remains a source of secretive shame. The motivations for and awareness of are on two different planes altogether. Benjiboi 23:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep For god's sake what the fuck are you doing guys deleting stuff like this?? ARE YOU FUCKING PSYCHOS?? --Sempspriggs 15:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC) — Sempspriggs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Notable. --Gil Gai giog 15:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC) — Gil Gai giog (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Obviously notable. --Dodgestmeun 15:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC) — Dodgestmeun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep keep, keep,keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, notable, notable, verifable. --Mister Starblind 15:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC) — Mister Starblind (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep MOST NOTABLE TOPIC EVER!! --Kismet3300 15:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC) — Kismet3300 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep This is notable as ever. Don't delete it, it can be worked on. --Juliejha2 15:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC) — Juliejha2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Strike-out obvious sockpuppets. – sgeureka t•c 19:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. No reliable sources. Patent nonsense article. Keb25 15:34, 24 September 2007 (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.