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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mom jeans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

A contested prod. This is from a Saturday Night Live sketch and doesn't even come close to the notability threshold. UsaSatsui 07:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Non-notable concept from a minor bit of sketch comedy--obviously does not warrant an article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep per KP Botany. I should have checked this more carefully--did not know this had been written about in such a serious fashion. Someone should really get cracking on the article though--maybe delete what's there and add in a stubby sentence or two sourced to a couple of the newspaper articles.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Obvious OR & NN. Wikipedia isn't a list of jokes; go to Uncyclopedia for that... Spawn Man 12:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article is a joke and definitely not notable. It is also impossible to verify the contents of this article as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per above. Thanks, Codelyoko193 _Talk 18:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep this is a notable concept that has been written about in women's magazines and discussed on talk shows for years and years. Just because it's not in your venue, doesn't mean you should delete the article without some more information. They were parodied on Saturday Night Live, but the show doesn't own the concept. The Seattle Times knows what mom jeans are,[1] so does the Washington Post,[2] the on-line Urban Dictionary,[3] and they've been a subject on Oprah for years.[4] This article needs desperately sent to the ICU, not deleted. Siva, you obviously didn't even try to verify the content.[5] KP Botany 19:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's an article from last week in the New York Times.[6] Apparently they're making a come back and Wikipedia's readers should be able to pop on line and accurately find out from the encyclopedia what they are. KP Botany 19:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 1. The Urban dictionary doesn't count. 2. A nickname, even if legitimate, for a style of jeans isn't really encyclopedic. 3. The article is in terrible condition. Merge if necessary, but delete is better. Reywas92^Talk 21:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read AfD criteria "Article is in terrible condition" is not one of them. Urban dictionary doesn't count as what? It doesn't matter if it counts, as there are enough mainstream press resources. And, yes, clothing styles are encyclopediac in nature. Print encyclopedias have articles on clothing styles. Fashion is the subject of entire schools. KP Botany 17:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't a "clothing style". It's a joke perhaps, a pejorative term for a type of clothing maybe, but hardly a style. --UsaSatsui 18:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even if it was encyclopedic, it would belong in wikitionary. Mbisanz 22:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While an actual term, does not need a separate article, NN. Dannycali 02:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I had PROD'd it, but the Washington Post article looks like a convincing source. DGG (talk) 04:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Seattle Times, WaPo and NYT references convinced me, though they need to be added to the article itself. Note: This article is now placed in the Wikipedia Intensive Care Unit. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per KP B Orphic 17:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I tried to fix the article a bit. Mom jeans are not an actual fit of jeans, more of a satire of womens "comfort jeans", but they are often referred to as such, as to point out the unflattering nature of the jeans. I even recall on the channel TLC, they had these series of goofy commercials called "Life Lessons" where they were supposedly hawking figurines for sale and one of them was about mom jeans. Here's the pic of that figurine: [7]--Section8pidgeon 11:25, 3 October 2007 (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.