Thong in the news

Thong in the news (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The page is just a list of news items, most of which are of dubious notability to say the least. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOT#DIR. This is just a loose amalgamation of news stories related to thongs in some way; any encyclopedic content can be covered in the article on that particular garment. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. The title shoots it dead in the water. Save things like this for Uncle John's Bathroom Reader Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any particularly notable news into Thong (clothing) then delete. Most of these news stories are, as Mattbuck correctly stated, of extremely dubious notability, and I don't think enough are notable to make this article worthwhile. That said, I must say I found many of the stories highly entertaining. ~ mazca ^talk 21:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Thong (clothing) and delete.(See below) Reads like a trivia section, and while some of the trivia is, as Mazca says, entertaining, most of it is probably not notable, and certainly not notabe enough to have its own page.--Aervanath (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just a note: merge and delete is not a valid option under the GFDL. Bfigura ^(talk) 22:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip, although you could have phrased it in a slightly less baffling way. ;) WP:MAD is an explanation of this in case anyone else is as confused as I was. ~ mazca ^talk 23:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Slight merge of the most significant items into Thong (clothing). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as news/trivia (or merge if there is anything of value in it). JJL (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Cleanup Why do you people want to delete something that can be cleaned up? Because we're being lazy and a delete is the quickest of solutions? What do you do to your ailing grandma? Delete her? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per Wikipedia:Lists and Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. Aditya makes an excellent point. The article could use a better lead, but this article is very well referenced (i.e. verfiable) and definely discriminate. And even in a worse case scenario with some arguing to merge above, we would redirect without deleting per the GFDL to keep contribution history public. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because it's well-referenced doesn't mean that the topic itself, or any of the news items, are particularly notable. There are plenty of events happening every day which are reported in reliable sources, but we don't include them because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. --Aervanath (talk) 11:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#NEWS may be a bit irrelevant here, as that particular bit of policy is about news coverage of particular happenings (i.e. President Bush's trip to Morocco, or something like it), and not at all about something that has been on the news over the time. In fact, continuous news coverage over time very much establishes notability of a subject. And, content forking (i.e. keeping this article separate from the Thong article) is very much in line with Wikipedia traditions. Nothing wrong there, apart from desperate need for cleanup. But, "this needs improvement", as I see, is a call to constructive editing, not deletion. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already adxded the vaguely relevant bits to Thong (clothing). -mattbuck (Talk) 13:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which means we cannot outright delete this article then; we'd have to redirect without deleting per the GFDL. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya, you are absolutely right that continuous news coverage establishes notability of the subject, which in this case is Thong (clothing). However, in order to justify forking an independent article discussing the news coverage, we would have to find reliable sources discussing the news coverage as news coverage. All the sources in this article are talking about the item of clothing, NOT the news coverage thereof. If the article were instead to draw on sources analyzing the ways that the news reporting about thongs has been notable IN AND OF ITSELF, then I would switch to Keep. But if not, then there's really no point in having it.--Aervanath (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. That'd take a day or two, though. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A day or two to...what? find those sources?--Aervanath (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - anything that can't constructively be added to Thong (clothing) isn't needed. The alternative is a couple of million Foo in the news articles. Pseudomonas_(talk) 15:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As has been covered by Bifurga and myself above, per the GFDL, if we merege, we cannot delete, we would have to redirect without deleting as contribution history must remain public in the case of a merge. There was a recent AN thread on the topic and consensus was that this is indeed the case. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since mattbuck has already added the worthwhile bits of this article to Thong (clothing), any talk of merging is pretty much moot, so there's really no need to preserve this article, or its edit history.--Aervanath (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually if anything was added as you say, then a merge was in fact done and according to the GFDL, the edit history MUST be preserved. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I keep seeing this argument, but I've never really seen any real specific explanation for why this is so. The Wikipedia:Merge and Delete essay doesn't really do a good job of this either. --Aervanath's signature is boring 18:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is necessary for the sake of copyrights and possible problems with an article that whoever contributed the content remains clear. Anyway, here's a discussion we had on the subject (notice that by the end of the discussion, the consensus was to merge the history). Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• vote changed to Merge and redirect per Grand Roi des Citrouilles--Aervanath's signature is boring 19:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]