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 merge to 2020s in fashion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coastal Grandmother[edit]

Coastal Grandmother (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tiktok trend unworthy of an article. IF this content is worth keeping, I suggest moving to be a section within a more relevant page, like 2020s in fashion or something of that nature. If this becomes a larger known thing and continues beyond a fad of summer 2022, then articledom can be re-discussed, but at this point, it's only worth a section within an article, if that. Zinnober9 (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Zinnober9 (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2020s in fashion, per nom. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 02:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable fashion trend. Andre🚐 03:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into 2020s in fashion, notable enough to be added to that article but I don't think it's currently notable enough for a separate article. Suonii180 (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a stub article, but based upon the sourcing, there is more than enough to demonstrate that there is enough material to make a standalone article. This article looks like the Indie sleaze article before it was recently expanded. Thriley (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Coverage suggests that WP:GNG is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or merge to 2020s fashion as described. Oaktree b (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can people arguing sources please discuss the sources and how they meet the gng pleAse?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to 2020s in fashion. Even if it is notable, there is not enough information from reliable sources to draft an encyclopedic article on it. Chagropango (talk) 09:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge On second thoughts, this stub article would be better incorporated within the parent article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per above. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.