Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thigh gap


 * 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 speedy keep per WP:SK. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thigh gap
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Once a redirect that has been deleted before, but an article was swiftly created out of it after deletion because the editor was convinced they would produce something better without the baggage. It has been the subject of some protracted discussion at DYK without any consensus. IMHO, the problem still seems to lie in the topic being an unencyclopaedic and trivial "social" concept rather than any topic with medical or psycho-sexual relevance, that no amount of dressing up is going to produce an entry that isn't about an unworthy neologism and an WP:NPOV minefield.  Ohc  ¡digame! 13:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep For a similar article about an earlier fashion, see wasp waist. This fashion is fairly new but seems too notable to dismiss completely.  There seem to be alternatives to deletion such as merger into a more general article such as feminine beauty ideal which we should prefer per our editing policy. Andrew (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable topic. While the article unsuitable for DYK, this subject has been the subject of significant coverage from major newspapers for at least several months. Furthermore, these sources discuss the topic instead of just using the term, so WP:NEO doesn't apply and WP:NPOV isn't a reason for deletion. --Jakob (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Tabloids have gone aplomb over this topic and it has been discussed by medical professionals. I am in full disagreement with Jakec regarding its DYK appropriateness, though.-- Laun  chba  ller  21:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Tabloids go aplomb for tons of crap. If it's a real medical thing, back that up with sources. Otherwise, delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Say åæãà (talk • contribs) 02:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The main arguments against this article seems to be that the topic is not a serious medical topic and/or the article is not supported by reliable medical sources. Neither of these arguments is a valid basis for deletion. Not every topic that relates to the human form is a medical topic -- and the last time I looked, Wikipedia was not exclusively about medicine and did not limit itself to serious topics. This is not an article about human anatomy or other aspects of human biology, nor is it about a neologism for an aspect of human anatomy. This is an article about a sociocultural phenomenon related to people's ideas about desirable attributes of human appearance. Some examples of similar article topics, in addition to wasp waist, are tightlacing, cleavage (breasts), buttock cleavage, beauty whitewash, Four Beauties, and foot binding. Human biology has some degree of relevance to all of these topics, but sociocultural ideation is a primary focus, if not the singular primary focus, for these topics. Finally, the sourcing in the article indicates that plenty of content has been published about "thigh gaps", so the topic is notable. --Orlady (talk) 05:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per frequent coverage in fashion periodicals. Tezero (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep For its deeply rooted notability in fashion, fitness, and cosmetic media sources worldwide for the better part of nearly six years. The argument to delete this article reflects well on the IQ of the individual, as his reasoning is quite subpar. I think no serious weight should be given to the opinions or judgments of said individual for the foreseeable future. Lemonsdrops (talk) 08:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm intrigued by your 'best part of six years' remark - care to explain?-- Laun  chba  ller  11:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Lemonsdrops, while you may feel quite strongly opposed to the proposed deletion and it is your right to express that view, I encourage you to refrain from personal attacks. That is the sort of thing that can get you banned and does nothing to help illustrate your point, in fact it just makes you look rude! Have a read of WP:CIVILITY and WP:EQ, and try to base your contributions on Policies if you want the admins to consider your arguments in this discussion. Dfadden (talk) 08:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 19.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 20:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as meeting WP:GNG. There is widespread coverage in reliable sources that address the subject directly and in detail. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: Mainstream attention, notability is not temporary, even the bikini bridge stuff acknowledged just how quickly these "fads" can spread. ViperSnake151   Talk  00:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Withdraw the discussion can now be speedily closed before anyone shows any more deficiency in their EQ. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 07:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Which kind of EQ do you mean? ;-) --Orlady (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2014 (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.