Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tightlacing

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

Tightlacing

• Delete Original research. There are known ill effects to health, and tightlacing is certainly fatal, if they use witorian corsets which continuous are for sale. Haabet 09:06, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

Huh?? --Viriditas 10:14, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Huh=who? http://www.versatilecorsets.com/ Haabet 10:39, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

• Keep! Whether or not tightlacing has ill effects on health (which Haabet and I have been debating on the discussion page) is irrelevant. For a fetishistic/BDSM practice, tightlacing is quite well-known and well-documented (both currently and in history) and definitely merits a Wikipedia article. As for the charge of original research, I will add some sources to the article. - Katherine Shaw 09:25, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

this page say: http://www.staylace.com/retail/cands/c&s.htm What makes C&S corsets special and different from others is that Constance and Stuart have an instinctive understanding of the human anatomy, [And is the only and] C&S Constructions is a small corsettiere. [all other make dangerously corset]. Haabet 11:48, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

• Keep! I think you can see the problem. Haabet believes that tightlacing is fatal and bases his case on 100-year-old medical reports, and the reported experiences of two of his friends. Insofar as his case can be understood, as he writes in a strange gibberish. Both Katherine Shaw and I, who have been working on the tight-lacing article, would be willing to modify the article if we believed that Haabet represented anything other than his own POV. But so far as we know, there is no contemporary anti-tightlacing movement, and no contemporary doctor on record as saying that it is fatal, or even medically ill-advised, if carried out with the medically-advised safeguards (professionally fitted corset, extremely gradual tightening, stop at first hint of trouble). Both Katherine and I agree that Wikipedia needs an article about the late-Victorian and Edwardian anti-corset and dress reform movement, and I intend to write one, as soon as I get a round tuit. Perhaps this would satisfy Haabet, who has been fluttering about the corset and tight-lacing articles for ages, inserting gibberish and objecting to its deletion. Zora 09:31, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

a replica of a 100-year-old corsets, will make the same damage. Haabet 10:39, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

• Keep. Look at the talk page; we clearly have a POV conflict here, not an article that falls under the Deletion policy (which it does not now and didn't at the time of nomination). Haabet even put up an NPOV tag, but apparently got tired of waiting. At best it just needs some cleanup and NPOVing, at worst it might need merging with an existing article—neither of which is VfD. JRM 09:42, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
• Keep--Viriditas 10:14, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

a reason?

• Keep-- AllyUnion (talk) 10:51, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

a reason?

• Keep, this is a widely discussed topic and is notable. Wyss 12:33, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. VfD isn't a forum for POV confilcts. The article should be kept and the conflict resolved. If you can die from tightlacing or not is irrelevant to if the article should or should not be included here. Jeltz 12:58, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
• Keep: DCEdwards1966 14:27, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: if this really is bad for you, it underlines the need for an article on the topic. -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:13, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. VfD is not cleanup, and that is all this article needs. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 18:01, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. One does not go to VfD out of pique at not getting one's way on an article. Haabet, IMO, needs some attitude correction. —Morven 19:53, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Topic is notable but esoteric. It's even referenced. - Lucky 6.9 02:41, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - VfD is not the place to resolve (your own perception of) a page's POV problems. -Sean Curtin 05:43, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly notable and worthy of inclusion. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 16:31, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. However, I've replaced the VfD; we should have a policy that the originator of a VfD may withdraw it, but at the moment we don't. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:22, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • We have a policy that anyone may withdraw it in these circumstances.Dr Zen 02:21, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • OK, in that case, the person who removes it from the article should also (a) remove it from WP:VfD, and (b) perhaps archive the discussion. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:51, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • This is news to me. Where is this policy mentioned (pertaining to delisting VfDs)? And yes, we should, of course, archive this debate^H^H^H^H^H^H overwhelming support to keep this article. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 07:18, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - David Gerard 03:57, 12 Dec 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.