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--JForget 22:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plus-size clothing[edit]

Plus-size clothing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

AntiVanity 02:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

• STRONG DELETE

The reasons given by AKADriver to maintain this article as seen on the article's discussion page are illogical and insubstantial. "...entire magazines devoted to plus-size clothing"? As of right now (Sept 2007) there are only 2 in-print publications internationally available on newstands (Figure and Vol): Figure is an advertorial-style release put out by Charming Shoppes to market its own merchandise, and Vol is a subscription-based and limited circulation magazine from the Netherlands that barely anyone outside of that country will recognize. Other paper publications available are brand marketing tools freely available in retail stores; they are not properly audited newstand magazines. Furthermore, these magazines exist to sell product, not to discuss the plus-size clothing industry, garment construction or sizing, nor are they able to provide any meaningful data to this article. There is a distinction to be made on that score. Overall, not a valid reason to maintain this article.

The article lacks structure and cohesion, and under the paragraphs commencing "The Plus-Size Market in..." the research done for the provision of brand names meets the Wiki criteria for spam, although of a questionable intent. i.e. The brands Options Plus and Now cited for Australia are in-house brands of Target Australia and Kmart respectively, and at the lowest price point of clothing available. Why mention those brands when so many better ones (with obvious online presence) are ignored? Where is the breadth of research? There are also more mentions of the Lane Bryant and Catherine brands than any other US brand; this in itself is either definitely spam - or at least, very apathetic research.

The development of the plus-size clothing industry as it pertains to North America is sufficiently detailed in the plus-size model article, and nothing more is required on the topic of plus-size clothing. In addition, there is continued dissent from Wiki editors on all size-related topics requiring international size comparisions, as well as in popular media, which makes this type of article extremely problematic as well as being a topic unworthy of encyclopaedic inclusion. AntiVanity 02:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ehhh. This is probably a topic that should be written about, but what we have right now is a bunch of ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Leaning towards the deletion view unless this is fixed. Burntsauce 17:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please do not misuse the term original research to mean the same thing as ((unreferenced)). They are not the same thing. --Dhartung | Talk 18:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reponse If I wanted to use the term UNREFERENCED, I would have. Thanks! Burntsauce 17:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP Of course this article needs improvement, but that's no reason to delete it. Plus-size fashion is a significant sector of the fashion industry, and is frequently discussed in the press as a topic unto itself, in terms of design, marketing, demographics, social and cultural attitudes, etc., distinct from straight-size fashion (e.g., the fact that sales of plus-size clothing are rising, while sales of straight-size clothing are flat). Many retailers target this sector of the market specifically, and many general retailers devote specific sections to this market. A plus-size model article is the wrong place for a general discussion of the plus-size clothing industry. Rather, that article should (obviously) deal with modeling specifically, while its content pertaining to the plus-size clothing industry should be moved into this article about...plus-size clothing. If sizing issues are problematic and contested, this fact should be noted in the article. If certain retailers are over-represented and other retailers under-represented, this should be remedied. Whether there are fashion magazines addressing this field is irrelevant; perhaps the experience of the industry is that direct marketing better serves customers than fashion publications (another fact that distinguishes this field from straight-size fashion). The article needs an improvement tag, not a deletion tag. And by the way, Vol is no longer in print. However, there is a magazine called Big is Beautiful which is published in the Netherlands, and a separate edition is published in Belgium. 209.244.42.76 17:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, though I'd support a merge to wherever this topic is better covered. This article contains a lot of original research that needs to be removed (or well sourced), but it also contains a lot of other verifiable useful information. When we are talking about common measurements that can be measured and verified anywhere, I am not eager to see it deleted, but it still needs to be referenced. Reswobslc 17:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, notable and, uh, growing segment of the clothing industry. Needs better sourcing and some NPOV trimming, but a significant topic that has books, magazines, and entire retail chains devoted to it. --Dhartung | Talk 18:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Ehhh per Burntsauce. This could be a good article, but at the moment it looks like mostly original research. The topic isn't bad, so not voting to delete, but hard to vote keep on this minus-size article. Mandsford 18:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "It's OR" and "it's unsourced" are not reasons to delete an article, they are reasons to improve an article. faithless (^speak) 20:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply Hence our vote of "Ehhh", which does not ask for a delete or a keep. I like Burntsauce's approach to this, since "Ehhh" is a concise way to acknowledge that one has read the article and (in my case anyway) is indifferent. Mandsford 15:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All the delete comments here belong on the article talk page. Plus-size model was mentioned. That article also needs some work--probably some of the content would be better in here.The topic is certainly notable. DGG (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Everything is already on the talk page, but it goes unnoticed by editors if recent updates are anything to go by. Good luck to those who attempt to talk about sizing in clothing manufacture, hopefully you will get someone who has been pattern-making for over 20 years in more than one company to speak to the topic. If outcome is keep, recommend that petite sizing be used as a initial template for development of article AntiVanity 06:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Also suggest a need for editors to read over WP:REF relating to verifiable source citations as media outlets quoting statistics on population/size are usually outdated and/or sourced from other media outlets rather than neutral surveying organizations; especially unreliable are those surveys conducted via women's magazines or beauty product companies such as Proctor and Gamble (Dove) as they by no means reflect the entire population of a particular country. AntiVanity 08:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There's no spam involved here; it may possibly contain OR but that's easily fixed with some better research with sources. --Darkwind (talk) 22:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. An enormous industry, probably tens of billions worldwide. Deserves coverage. Article needs serious improvement. Wikidemo 23:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Bad article about a notable topic that should have an article. Clean up but don't delete. (Diego Gravez 00:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep It doesn't even seem like all that bad of an article to me. Just needs expansion and better sourcing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dhartung. Maxamegalon2000 05:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep commonly used term in the fashion industry in the US; it's a stub now, but not spam. Could be improved. -- phoebe/(talk) 06:59, 19 September 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.