Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barechested

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. -- Cirt (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barechested

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

Chock full of original research and essay-like prose sourced to blogs or worse. If this were trimmed down it would be nothing more than a dictionary definition. Could easily be merged with (or redirected to) Sociology of clothing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this along with topless is a notable social phenomenon of significance. Laws have been passed against barechestedness. Its notable.Hemanetwork (talk) 04:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think we need a new WP:, specifically something like WP:DOGBITESMAN. Men go barechested. This is supposed to be notable? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 05:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a synthetic concept. I would link to an essay that I've written about synthetic concepts and why we shouldn't have articles about them, but I haven't written it yet. Gigs (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The concept is notable. The article needs rewriting and better (scholarly) references, though. I don't think that the current poor quality justifies the deletion, given the notability of the concept. Notability can be seen in Google Scholar search for "bare chested", for example.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For much the same reasons as above; agree that this is a notable subject poorly referenced. -- Fursday 00:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is the sub ject of lawsuits. Bearian (talk) 03:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The proper title, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (adjectives) is of course barechestedness. Uncle G (talk) 12:46, 27 November 2010 (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.