Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tight rolled pants

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 merge to Cuff#Trouser cuffs. Sandstein 08:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tight rolled pants[edit]

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

Stale article on trivial fad with no actual citations of any value. Orange Mike | Talk 22:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to "Pegged pants", by far the more common term. A Google Books search shows this 1950s fashion trend discussed in dozens of books as something iconic of certain social groups of that era. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1950s? If you look up "peg-top trousers" as well, you'll see that these were a fashion in the 19th century, long before the incorporation into the zoot suit. Twice: once in the 1860s and again in the 1890s (continuing into the 1900s). Yes, our article is spectacularly uninformative and misleading on the subject. Uncle G (talk) 12:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, for a recentist like me it's not bad, though it fails to point out the connection between Benetton and rolled-up trousers, and the essential preppiness of their practitioners. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cuff#Trouser cuffs. It's merely a ~~trivial~~ variation. LadyofShalott 17:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cuff#Trouser cuffs along with the photo for illustration of the variation. Losing this detail would be unfortunate. --gilgongo (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - notable but not much here, so bring the two articles together. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2014 (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.