Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lumbersexual
- 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 redirect to Lumberjack#In popular and folklore culture. Or later elsewhere, and merge anything relevant from history, as editorial consensus may direct. Consensus however is that this shoudn't remain a separate article. Sandstein 21:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Lumbersexual (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary Codeofdusk (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 28. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 00:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
*
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 00:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Transwiki to Wiktionary or something ... all but the last sentence reads like a dictionary entry. Or maybe it just needs expanding. Graham87 03:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Keep – Passes WP:GNG. It's a term that has received international news coverage, and the article is certainly expandable. Source examples include, but are not limited to: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9][10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] North America1000 05:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Lumbersexuals and White Heteromasculine Pageantry". Pacific Standard.
- ^ "The clean-shaven man is passe. Hail the bearded, rugged lumbersexual". Hindustan Times.
- ^ "Some Men Are Now 'Lumbersexuals'?". Forbes.
- ^ "Lumbersexual? - New Hampshire". New Hampshire Union Leader.
- ^ "Why the lumbersexual has a lot to answer for". The Telegraph. 16 February 2015.
- ^ "Don't call me a lumbersexual (despite my beard and check shirt)". The Telegraph. 18 November 2014.
- ^ "Farewell metrosexuals — the rugged, bearded 'Lumbersexual' movement has begun". WPIX.
- ^ "After metrosexual, it's now 'lumbersexual'". The Times of India.
- ^ "Facial follicle freedom: Montanans have long known the luxury of a lumbersexual lifestyle". Missoulian.
- ^ Mic. "What the "Lumbersexual" Trend Really Says About Men in Society Today". Mic.
- ^ "Lumbersexual: What's Up With All the Beards and Plaid Shirts?". Time.
- ^ "Arrival of the lumbersexual male". Daily News and Analysis.
- ^ "'Lumbersexual' fundraising for cancer". Stuff.co.nz.
- ^ "It's out with the 'metrosexual' and in with our latest crush the 'lumbersexual' (wood chopping skills not essential)". Daily Mail.
- ^ "Trends Report: Lumbersexual trumps metrosexual". Metro.
- ^ "The Lumbersexual, Fashion's New Outdoorsman". Paste.
- ^ "The lumbersexual: rugged, hip and flannel-ready". Lancaster online.
Keep - it appears there are plenty of sources to demonstrate it meets GNG.—МандичкаYO 😜 08:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)- Redirect to Lumberjack#In_popular_and_folklore_culture notability is timeless and it's too soon to see if this trend has long-term impact. AadaamS (talk) 08:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect per AadaamS. Taking a look at the coverage, it's all very clustered together and seems to be a lot of rereporting. —МандичкаYO 😜 11:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect per AadaamS. Not enough for a stand-alone article here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 06:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- Merge rather than redirect -- there are useful sources that would be wasted, and it is easier to re-create an article if it's merely been merged. Bearian (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Bearian: You are of course at liberty to store those references in one of your user pages. AadaamS (talk) 06:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. I was looking at this with a view to closing it, but the outcome with the most support, a redirect, is problematic since this isn't mentioned at all in the Lumberjack article, so a redirect wouldn't be much use. A merge of some sort would therefore make more sense if it's worth including at all. --Michig (talk) 06:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to the youth fashion section in 2010s in fashion - this discusses a number of trends and style movements such as this. Select some of the best references for citations and condense the article and merge there. Mabalu (talk) 10:37, 6 July 2015 (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.