Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fly (clothing)

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fly (clothing)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Essentially unsourced, and tagged as such for 3 years. Much of this is WP:OR, and some is sourced to The Free Dictionary which is WP:UGC. This is one of those articles that was probably acceptable when it was created back in 2007 with the edit comment "might make a good article one day if history gets added", but totally fails our modern concept of WP:N.

I made some attempt to find good sources, but to be honest, "fly" doesn't make a very good search term. Somebody who's more familiar with the garment industry literature might be able to find something, but until then, this isn't an encyclopedic article. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favour of keep because the concept is quite a notable one, very nearly in the same league as Pocket (and people have written whole PhD theses on them). The main problem with the article is lack of referencing, but it's not obviously factually wrong. And as the nominator correctly said: "Fly" is a horrible search-term. But we can't go round deleting articles because the name of a thing happens to be ambiguous. A google search for "history of the fly in trousers" produces a lot of hits, but predictably a lot are blogs, so they're probably not reliable secondary source. But the fact they exist suggests that a lot of people consider the topic worth writing about, and somewhere in humanity, someone knows something about it. As the nominator said, this article really needs attention from someone familiar with the clothing industry. Elemimele (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let's remember that there are other languages than English. We can look for sources in German, French, Spanish, Russian and so on. A quick look at the corresponding Wikipedia articles in other languages reveals that sources (such as this one) do indeed exist. I don't think the notability is seriously in question here. TompaDompa (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a well-known everyday item, I definitely think this is notable. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 13:34, 26 July 2021 (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.