Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dress Like a Woman

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 delete. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 08:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dress Like a Woman

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

Nominating per WP:NOTNEWS. There is no enduring notability here and probably could be condensed into a single line mention in a related article. —Non-Dropframe _talk 22:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Implicit stereotype for now, per the standard result. It exists as a meme, and might continue, but this is an unsourced essay. Bearian (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the newbie is trying to construct an article, but is unsure how to do so; see Talk:Dress Like a Woman. Perhaps we can consider the userfy option? I alerted the relevant Wikiproject. Bearian (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No problem with userfying if that's less bitey, but I don't hold out hope that this will make any kind of substantial article. Also consider writing a WP:NOT about how Wikipedia is not a collection of the most popular hashtags of the week. Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability and that's exactly what this is. TimothyJosephWood 15:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are reliable sources on this: see [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Bondegezou (talk) 12:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2017 (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.