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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monosuit[edit]

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

Once again, I sit on the fence. Another editor prodded this with the reason being that the article was unsourced, and while that isn't a valid reason for deletion, I ((prod-2))'d it anyway but for a different reason: although I can find pictures and mentions about the monosuit, nowhere is it explained what a monosuit actually is. (The prod was contested by the article creator.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 10:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Yes, i too can't find right article what the monosuit is , but all can see right pictures for that. so, from the picture, i have narrated it. I think, we should make an article related from pictures. There is no sense of copying articles from internet and adding it as our own article, the real contribution is that to take actual contents which are not easily accessible by people.So, Erpet, kindly help to resolve this matter, without any remedy pleae don't simply try to delete or block articles. Thanks--Alpen129 (talk) 10:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article amounts to nothing more than a definition of a word. It has no sources, let alone reliable ones. I can't find anything to show that this is a word in common usage, Ghits seem to show it is a term used by some surfing outfitters, and thats about it. The term is not listed at Oxford online. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and based on the above I would not even want to see it transwikied as a dicdef. Pol430 talk to me 11:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The author has provided no sources. I looked and cannot find any, other than possible trademarked products; nothing consistent with article definition. Even a definition, if found, is not sufficient, but this doesn't even meet that hurdle.--SPhilbrick T 12:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep? Certainly this type of suit exists. I have seen them worn by, for instance, construction workers and farmers to keep warm while working outdoors. An article is possible if some source could be found that discusses the history of them in some way. There doesn't seem to be much connection to infant "Onesies" however, despite what the article claims. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you find any such sources? If not then how do you intend to address the issue of the article's content being unverifiable due to a lack of reliable sources? Pol430 talk to me 15:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Construction workers and farmers wear overalls, coveralls, and boiler suits (amongst many others) and those are what those things are actually called. Uncle G (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:DICTDEF, with a scattered set of examples. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:25, 31 December 2010 (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.