Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skin-tight 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Skin-tight garment

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

This is an umbrella term which seems too subjective and loose for an article or even a category. It is unsourced original research, heavily tagged. The external links are dubious links to semi-porn rather than to scholarly articles. I came upon this when removing a deleted cat, so it is now lacking a category. I did consider creating a new cat and including the articles in the Examples list - but then questioned how many of those are "skin tight" or even "close fitting" - jeans and polo necks can be worn loose and baggy as well as tight, and it seems to be a matter of choice. Is a t-shirt close-fitting?  SilkTork  *YES! 10:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - looks like an original research, personal opinion page with much WP:SANDWICH potential. Could be a category, but ultimately I don't see any reliable sources discussing it but a lot of personal observations and links with the word "fetish" in them.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  --  treelo  radda  15:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;It may need a rewrite and citations, but the topic itself is notable. The "skinsuit" technology is making significant impacts on the Cycling and Swimming sports, including at the most recent Olympic games.&mdash;RJH (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - that certainly is a reason to edit those pages with the appropriate information or create a proper skinsuit page with specific references and citations, but notability is demonstrated through coverage in reliable sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think revisions in last few days have established it as a useful article - dodgy links have been cleaned out, and refs have started to appear. Good rescue underway. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. Existing refs show notability. I did a quick search, found various commercial sites and then found What is zentai & fetishwear & catsuit?? on eBay of all places, but it seems to show that apart from refs already present there is a lot more to be said - the article will grow. A mix of fashion, sports, fetish, medical, whatever - it will need watching. But a legitimate topic. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but consider differentiating more clearly its athletic and sexual uses. As for the athletic, I think I read that some of these were no longer going to be allowed in competitIve swimming as they gave too great an advantage? DGG (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes the gear may be banned in swimming, but that would still make them notable.&mdash;RJH (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2009 (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.