Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beachwear

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 of the debate was - kept

Beachwear

A bizarre article that's been on Cleanup for several days without being touched. I tried to rewrite it to remove the nonsense, but that would have left about one sentence. RickK 23:29, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

• This is User:Glogger again. Someone needs to get this guy some help. He appears to be scared silly over the fear that he will have to be decontaminated one day. I'm not voting, I can't tell if this is a Clean Up, a Delete, a Merge and Redirect, or something else, I only know that it is not a Keep As Is.
• Delete. Silly. Wyllium 23:50, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)
• Abstain; I gotta admit I like it, and there are lots of points of contact with reality. — Bill 01:03, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, but cut the final section. I did get a chuckle out of it -- In today's world of bioterror scares, urban beachwear, worn under regular clothing, may be the answer to otherwise embarrassing mass decontamination or stripdowns ... -- what's more, bright colors never go out of style! Be that as it may, beachware is a notable topic. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:35, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I changed my mind; it's just an essay. User:Glogger (Steve Mann) is using Wikipedia as a blog to dump his musings and photography. See also naked. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:21, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Oh, what the heck?! Would someone like to talk to him? The next step will have to be a Request for Comment.func(talk) 20:28, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm prepared to accept criticism, but please try to be constructive, e.g. although some of my writings and pictures may be garbage ("dump") I'm sure that some of them are also good, e.g. I've gotten praise for some of my contributions. When I teach my students or review papers written by my colleagues, I try to be specific and detailed in criticism and review. I believe that's the intended nature of peer review, e.g. if some of my work is "dump" (garbage) it would be helpful to know which work, and specifically how it might be improved, e.g. if there are poor quality pictures, it would be good to see those identified, so I can improve my technique. I often shoot specifically for Wikipedia, as I wander around and see everyday objects in new ways, that are not yet in the Wikipedia. For example, I took hundreds of pictures of pole transformers to get the one I finally submitted to Wikipedia, which I captured just before sunset, when the lighting was just right. I spent quite a bit of effort trying to get a nice mixture of natural light and electronic flash, with the right exposure, and a good solid tripod, the right lens, etc., in order to get the most illustrative transformer picture possible. I also tried a number of different transformers to get one that looked nice. If that's "dump" or garbage quality, please advise. Or maybe it's some of my other contributions that are below standard, but specific identification of which and where would be very helpful. Glogger 00:57, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Author must have been in a changeroom for too long. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 07:15, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Reason for vote would be helpful, e.g. reference to changeroom article makes the reason ambiguous, e.g. it could be "delete because other articles written by same person are no good" but that would only be a first guess. A more clear reason would help in the peer review process. Glogger 13:40, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Glogger appears to have a very large stash. Decontaminate by deleting what is a rambling, pseudo-academic discussion of a topic that does not need explication. Geogre 14:28, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Silly, and topic is best handled as part of some other article. We don't want articles on, say, Operawear either. --Improv 18:08, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • A better analogy than operawear would be streetwear or business attire or formalwear or mess dress. Like beachwear, they refer to a more generic location (like the street, coastal regions, or office areas) than something so specific as operawear or hockey uniforms or baseball uniforms that are more specific to one specific activity. Beachwear spans a broad range of activities on or near any coastal region where the level of formality in dress is somewhat less than the urban core, apart from urban beaches which represent infusion of this coastal ambiance into the downtown core. Glogger 13:46, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and either cleanup or find a good home for some of the information and m/r. —siroχo 19:41, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Remove the original research/essay and it's a dictdef. — Gwalla | Talk 00:16, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. The Recycling Troll 18:39, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and improve, expand, add new references, etc., since there seems to be a trend toward more spaces where beachwear would be of use and relevance, e.g. we just got back from a conference in New York where there's alot more new urban architecture being built in which beachlike spaces are appearing, with a growing need for beachwear. If there's problems with the article, please let me know and I'll try and re-write it to conform to Wikipedia style guidelines more closely. Glogger 01:11, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• I'd welcome comments, thoughts, ideas, etc., on how the article could be improved; talk to me on my user talk page. Glogger
• Keep. There appears to be enough that could be written on this to make it encyclopedic. (see my concerns on the talk page) The decontamination paragraph needs to be removed, though. I think I'll do it myself. JesseW 02:40, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Beachwear is a common term and common items in Australia. Can't see why it can't be cleaned up. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:22, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• This is definitely an encyclopedic subject, so keep, but this needs vigorous editing and rewriting into a better state. -- The Anome 13:52, 20 Oct 2004 (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.