Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 13

Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:drv2|page=<PAGE NAME>|xfd_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>|reason=<REASON>}} ~~~~ –>

Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:drv2|page=<PAGE NAME>|xfd_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>|reason=<REASON>}} ~~~~ –>

====[[:Pantyhose_for_men]]====

:{{DRV links|Pantyhose_for_men|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pantyhose_for_men|article=}}

Wanting a second discussion on this article’s deletion. Page has barely improved on issues mentioned in deletion review since 2007 and still reads like a POV fork.

As Krimpet stated in the last deletion proposal, the author admits: “Why I created this article is the point that most men who wear pantyhose are not any more ‘fetishists’ or ‘crossdressers’, AND that pantyhose for men is an individual type of pantyhose just like stockings or leggings that may be separated from pantyhose.”

The page exists simply to validate the author’s point that pantyhose are not simply for crossdressers. I agree with this statement, but that’s not what Wikipedia is for, and is not neutral. This is shown by the page’s avoidance of mentioning sexual fetishism in much detail (which is likely a huge reason as to why most men are buying pantyhose), refusal to mention any societal pushback against men in pantyhose, and simply being made of flimsy justifications for male pantyhose being non-fetishistic.

“NFL Players wear them to stop from getting cold during winter games”…? No citation, and doesn’t actually mention the most major tie between NFL and pantyhose – an NFL quarterback in a nylons commercial that had nothing to do with the usage of nylons in the NFL, notorious only due to men in pantyhose being hugely societally condemned at the time.

Apologies if the deletion tag on the article is incorrect: unsure about the policy when previously marked for deletion.

[[User:Purradiselost|Purradiselost]] ([[User talk:Purradiselost|talk]]) 09:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)