Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One-piece garment


 * 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 Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 11:32Z 

One-piece garment

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is a category improperly implemented as an article Anonymous55 00:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This came out of a discussion on Category_talk:One-piece_suits. The One-piece garment article is essentially a list of links to other articles with very little other content, and has existed for over four years. The One-piece suits category was created three days ago. They're not identical in scope; the article includes non-bifurcated garments like dresses, whereas the new category does not. My idea is to replace the article with a category called One-piece garments, and make One-piece suits a sub-category underneath it, but I don't know if that's the best solution as the two categories may be too similar to justify keeping them both. Looking for input on that. Anonymous55 00:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as Category:One-piece suits already exists. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ Review! 00:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as improper article format and as per Mr.Z-man N o l 888 ( Talk )(Review me please) 00:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. --Dennisthe2 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant when considering existing category - no new or different information. Frickeg 01:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; non-informative, non-encyclopedic. &mdash; ERcheck (talk)
 * Delete' as redundant, unencyclopedic.-- Dakota 02:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Hardly any real information just a bunch of lniks to other articles-- 양 복  42 06:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons given above. I have recently been extensively organising the clothing categories, and have been in discussion about this with proposer. Bards 20:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete -- It's just a pointless list that is unencyclopedic. It should have been nominated for deletion YEARS ago!  Eugene  2x  Sign here  ☺   00:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete article that is really just a dicdef with a list of examples, this is not an encyclopedia article.-- danntm T C 01:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete uncyclopedic. —dima/s-ko/ 01:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as an utterly useless article. -- Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  07:52, 11 March 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.