Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bare legs

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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bare legs[edit]

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

Unencyclopaedic, no significance or reason that I can see for its inclusion. Has not been modified or expanded on since creation. There are no equivalent articles (or any call for, IMO...) for "bare arms" (or "sleevelessness") or "bare shoulders". If anything, bare legged-ness is more a footnote for fashion overviews than something deserving its own article. Mabalu (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bare legs are top importance and deserve their own Wikiproject. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added a few references to the article and cleaned it up a bit. There are many many available sources regarding bare legs and fashion/sports/historical dress out there, no reason that this cannot be expanded.--Stv Fetterly (Edits) 16:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not a great article, but the topic has been discussed often enough to meet notability requirements. This is especially true in the context of moral standards, and I remember many years ago reading an academic article on moral relativism which discussed this as an example, though I cannot now recall the author. During the first half of the 20th century in particular bare legs were often seen as sexually immoral in a way that stockinged legs were not, even when it became the norm for those stockings to be sheer or flesh coloured (thus arguably imitating bare legs). I've added a sentence and reference but that could be improved and expanded upon. --AJHingston (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created the article because there were references to bare legs in a number of other fashion related articles. It was flagged as a stub as an invitation for others to add to it. I know that there is much room for expansion, as noted above. It would be a shame for the work which has been put into the article to be lost.Ewawer (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The right to bare legs is enshrined in the Scottish constitution (or ought to be). A piper reported to Henry Mayhew, "We go about with our bare legs, and no drawers on. I never feel cold of my legs; only of my fingers, with playing. I never go cold in the legs. None of the Highlanders ever wear drawers...". Elsewhere we read that "Bare legs and bare feet, as premodern dance innovator Isadora Duncan learned over and over again in her groundbreaking career, were considered a scandal on the legitimate stages of nineteenth-century dance theater...". And so on. Warden (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Besides the fact that I fully support bare legs in all cases, the article is backed by reliable sources that (assuming good faith for offline sources) "cover" the subject. Passes my WP:N-sniff-test. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has enough references, notable article about an important cultural topic. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 06:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:02, 9 March 2012 (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.