Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austenian Fashion

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. — Aitias // discussion 13:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Austenian Fashion[edit]

Delete another tautological article that basically repeats its title; while something can be said about Jane Austen's "fashion" - not the term used in literary criticism - it is said in the article Jane Austen; as, of course, would be true of any other artist, singer, author, politician, sports person, etc. of note - we don't need these sorts of articles by the thousands - one for each of our notables: Joe the Plumber's Fashion coming right up... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as it stands., Not even the usual term-- "Fashion in Jane Austen's novels" would be a better term,. and a possible article, if someone were to want to work on it seriously: there have been a few full length books written on the subject, as well as chapters on it in the many comprehensive handbooks on her works. But here's nothing here worth the keeping. However: it was just started earlier today, and the author was not notified of the AfD. Possibly he plans to expand it. I just notified him. DGG (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Lacks significant content. (Please recommend the creator to start articles in userspace so articles can be moved when they're actually finished and have some meat to them)- Mgm|^(talk) 11:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What little exists in this article is OR. Unless "Austenian fashion" catches on as a significant literary/academic term (as "Orwellian" has), no article for you! I wholeheartedly endorse the creation of Joe the Plumber's Fashion, though. ;-) Graymornings_(talk) 01:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a credible term used in a significant number of scholarly works. Very few ghits. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:34, 17 January 2009 (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.