526:
of the earlier deleted articles. I also think that the discussions JzG had with Bards indicate that JzG is not impartial, and in this frame of mind may not have made a proper judgement when he deleted 'Men in skirts'. It is also notable that JzG, in his comment here, fundamentally misunderstands the scope of
English Knowledge with the statement: "The male skirt-wearing movement in the West is restricted to a few small but very vociferous forums". English Knowledge is in fact an encyclopedia about the world, but written in the English language. It is thus appropriate for English Knowledge to properly reflect the wearing of unbifurcated garments by men throughout the world, not just the West. I don't know if the article meets the criteria for deletion, but I think that the wider community should decide this.
717:, it is simialr only in that it deals with a related topic. Therefore, this is not a G4 (recreatd content) speedy. Furhtermore it included multiple references to reliable sources, although more would be needed for the articlek to remain. Whether this article is to be merged, or deleted, or modified, should be the subject of a consensus discussion. It should not have been speedy deleted. Let matters be discussed in the usual way. If JzG is correct that Knowledge does not want this article we will see so after 5 days of AfD. Note that we have pleanty of articles on the actions of small vocal groups, prexcisely because they are vocal and unusual, they are often notable, provide that the articel keeps a
1537:. In many articles there is a lack of sources. I have added new sources and and am looking for more sources. Mr. Pollack has been a host of a popular South Florida radio show and has appeared in numerious TV shows discussing the Cuban government. Just because there are no specific published works on him does not mean he should be deleated. Plus it is not often that a government mention an individual to the United Nations by name. The problem with his original article is that it was written by the subject himself and was filled with POV.. The new article as I have presented it, takes away POV and states just facts.
1759:
for almost 10 years also. Besides that he has appeared in many local South
Florida programs, has been interviewed many times by local papers ( yes maybe only a line or two) because he is a well-known local personality. And he caused enough of a ruckus during the Human Rights discussion by the UN in Geneva that the Cuban government felt it was necessary to mention him by name and explain his actions in a formal protest to United Nations. I a not going to get petty but I looked over an article that you mentioned in your list of articles mentioned
1341:, even several times longer than both of those combined. It also has nine citations to sources, while those two articles had a total of zero. (On the other hand, 9 source citations isn't even one per paragrpah, so I'm sure that sourcing could be better.) This is enough to prove that it is substantially different from the articles deleted via AFD. Since G4 does not apply, and a PROD would obviously be disagreeed with, listing at AFD is the correct next step.
1732:, not sure of the reason for the move) just seem weird and obscure. If this guy is notable as an activist and major radio host, why is there hardly anything on him in normal, verifiable, mainstream media? Resorting to things like "being mentioned by the Cuban government", being interviewed as a bystander in a news article about something else, a single (not easily verifiable) newspaper article from 2001, and some obscure web pages (a brief mention in an
1748:-- neither articles are linked online, titles are not given and they are thus hard to verify). Notable people are easy to identify; you don't have to go digging through obscure and semi-relevant sources for 1-line mentions of them. Perhaps Mr. Pollack will become more notable in the future, but for now he seems like a very minor figure. --
796:. It is true that the article did not fall strictly under the letter of CSD G4, as it was not a straight recreation of the material. However, it is still an article on the same topic, in the same improper tone, with the same problems with lack of sourcing and undue weight that were previously deemed inappropriate for Knowledge.
1596:
further. I was one who voted for delete during the Afd discussion but I am certainly willing to take another look. I guess this was speedied but in the spirit of DP can it be reinstated pending some review of the work? Please note, this is not a request to restore the version that went through Afd, just the recreated one.
784:- The article as it exists is written in a stridently POV manner and lacks reliable sourcing. This is without prejudice to a sourced, encyclopedically-toned rewrite, provided such is possible. Try userspace. I will provide the content of the deleted page should it be requested to assist in that effort.
1499:
I recreated the article because I had found other articles to show his "notability" Such as the Cuban government mentioning him in a formal protest to the United
Nations.. I believe that the new article that I created is sufficiently credited and refrenced to be included in Wilkipedia. I woul like to
539:
Alan, I think I understand the scope of the
English Knowledge tolerably well. I have one or two contributions to my name and I have been an admin for a little while. Perhaps you could refrain from joining the hysterical accusations of bias? The article was a largely uncited essay about how awfully
1758:
Perhaps I am new to this but to me an online encyclopedia should be very inclusive and not exclusive. Mr. Pollack's radio show has a large following both in South
Florida and in Cuba where it is heard also. He has been on the air for over 10 years. He has a political web site that has been online
813:
Based on the comment, "The male skirt-wearing movement in the West is restricted to a few small but very vociferous forums" it seems that the subject would certainly be notable. Small but vociferous groups are very often notable, because people notice them. The argument: I know its notable, but
525:
to an article previously deleted. Bards states that he created 'Mens in skirts' from scratch, unaware of the earlier articles. There is no reason to doubt this, so it is reasonable to assume good faith and accept it. It is thus highly unlikely that 'Men in skirts' was substantially identical to any
1848:
are exactly the kind of things that
Knowledge needs as sources -- that is, multiple independent reliable sources as to the notability of the subject and the facts asserted in the article. I'm confident that any notable contemporary figure will have references like these, and it is not necessary to
1595:
says an article can be recreated after deletion without review if the editor wants to improve the article. Callelinea asked for me to review his work after he recreated the article and to offer suggestions. By the time I looked, it was already gone. I have no idea what was added so I can't comment
1224:
I do not accuse you of bad faith, Corvus. Ignorant is a descrptive word meaning lack of knowledge or understanding of a subject. I presume you are prejudiced, as I can't see other reasons for your unwillingness to study the subject before voicing an opinion on it. From what I can gather (not being
1196:
JzG, you are wrong in your assessment of me. There are some arguments against me which seem reasonable, and some which do not. I am refuting the unreasonable ones. As I see it, there is a small minority of the world who are vociferously opposed to this article, with you amongst them. If it was the
1165:
Bards, it seems the world divides into two: those who support having this content, and those who are prejudiced and ignorant. The only problem is, per our many previous debates, that means only a tiny minority of the world is anything other than prejudiced and ignorant. This is, of course, quite
365:
as the deleted article did not meet CSD G4. It's about the same topic but this speedily deleted article had much more content and many sources than the AFD'd ones, and the sources seemed credible at a glance. Not saying I'd vote to keep in an AFD, but this wasn't a clean speedy deletion, sorry. If
1696:
I really must admit I am a little baffled by excess of proof required to prove that he is personality that merits an article.. Universities have had him debate on Cuba issues, the Cuban government has mentioned him by name in a written protest to the United
Nations, He has an AM radio show heard
282:
The title was originally capitalised as "Men In Skirts", aka MIS - a popular name for the movement. It was unilateraly changed to "Men in skirts", again without any debate or warning. I can't remember who changed it, and now I am unable to find out. It wouldn't have been one of these admins here,
669:, you need to say what needs attribution, what is NPOV, and what and where it is NOT. For that discussion, we also need the article restored and put through AfD. Wagging your finger vaguely over the whole thing doesn't get us anywhere, and certainly doesn't justify a speedy deletion.
1102:. Whatever you call it, MIS or MUG, it's the same topic, and this topic has already been decided as non-notable. It doesn't matter if you rewrite it with different words, if the topic is prima facie non-notable, it doesn't need to go through AfD every time. What's next?
516:
The purpose of a deletion review is to determine, not if an article meets the criteria for deletion, but whether the process by which an article was deleted was in accordance with
Knowledge policies, i.e. it is a review of the process that was used. User JzG misinterpreted
562:
Your "hysterical bias" is showing again, JzG. If you wish to tell people what the article was like, in order to persuade them, restore the article and let them read it for themselves. Please do not even attempt to paraphrase the entire article in your own demeaning terms.
447:
Which says nothing about the quality of the article or the validity of the deletion process, unless the editor was banned so that even valid contributions should be rejected. Note also that I don't see anything particualrly "disruptive" in this user's edits.
195:
recently (which contained a valuable debate), again giving spurious reasons and offering no debate or warning prior to deletion; and by his inability to defend his position, offering up excuse after excuse and being defeated rationally on all of them.
1210:
Thanks for the assumption of good faith, Bards. Apparently only those who are prejudiced could possibly oppose this, apparently it's intuitively obviously notable, and only the ignorant and the prejudiced could not vote in lock step with you.
175:
1. The reason given for speedy deletion - "recreation of deleted material" is not true. The deleting admin had assumed this, and has been proved wrong. As the author of this article, I was unaware of the previous, related article entitled
540:
clever those few brave souls are who choose to wear skirts in defiance of fashion norms, and how terribly significant the movement is likely to become, and how afully downtrodden they are and... well, we've seen it all before. Textbook
1763:
and the only reference that is given for that small local cable TV station is a link to its own web site. I feel that this article merits inclusion much more than that article but I also believe that both articles have a place here.
199:
3. The deleting admin's strong influence in deleting the related article last year adds more weight to the above. I and others have recently posited strong arguments for the undeletion of that article, which have also been ignored.
905:
It doesn't look like this specific article was ever deleted at AFD, so it is not a recreation. Perhaps it has addressed the concerns of the similar AFDs, perhaps not. This isn't the sort of judgment a single person should make.
459:
The start of the debate I have linked to above, shows clearly that JzG assumed I was another sockpuppet of that user, and that was the basis of his speedy deletion. He was wrong, but is refusing to rectify his error - why not?
1278:, etc. Hardly a week goes by without a article about 'skirts for men' (eg. search 'kilt fashion' on news.google.com), so the topic is not unnoticeable and I gather many people who'd like more info about it, turn to Knowledge.
1517:
about the guy (just mentioned him as a witness to something), and the other was something from the Cuban government that didn't really talk about him either. I think it should be undeleted for the purpose of review, though.
925:
Movement for males being able to freely wear unbifurcated garment in
Western society, (and male wear of unbifurcated garment in general) is ceirtanly notable and wikipedia should have one article about it. While it existed,
1123:
Your inability to discriminate between related but essentially different articles only shows your prejudice and your ignorance. One was about the garment; mine was about the subculture. As a side note, I will direct you to
180:, which was deleted about this time last year. My article has a different focus, being about the subculture rather than the garment, describing the issues involved and offering valuable resources and information about it.
1071:
for the reasons above stated, article did not qualify for speedy delete. It is important to be fair. We should confine this discussion to whether it did or did not meet speedy deletion criteria.
1000:
292:
For values of "popular" which amount to around 140 unique Google hits outside of
Knowledge, many of whihc turn out to be unrelated. Your definition of "popular" may need a little work.
1107:
244:. I'm also sick of being told that the removal of this content is due to my personal bias. A lot of people have looked at a lot of debates, and the result has been pretty consistent.
1775:
Alright here are some more articles. The first one is actually all about Mr. Pollack and the rest he shows up prominantly in them.. I searched them in a newspaper web search engine (
864:. A it has existed in a different form but the same basic material and hasn't substantially addressed the issues of the original AFD the G4 deletion seems reasonable. --
1334:
963:
883:
714:
673:
287:
221:
177:
897:
1007:
760:
697:
693:
1248:
1229:
1225:
able to read them), the previous articles appear to have been substantially different in both coverage and intent, and you lump them together, making no distinction.
1215:
1156:
1114:
1438:
625:
608:
530:
1362:
1338:
1310:
1128:, where (imo) an article titled ""Skirts for men" covering those sold, for instance, by Midas Clothing, would be a useful addition - as detailed, for instance, at
967:
225:
846:
788:
727:
650:
585:
576:
498:
477:
357:
1345:
805:
374:
1075:
934:
893:
Substantively different article. Whether this is OR, NN or POV falls in the purview of AfD, where everybody can look at, and possibly improve, the article. ~
1768:
1541:
996:
776:
689:
275:
1718:
1632:
1582:
1201:
1187:
1144:. Your ignorance of the subject is a very good reason to add a whole range of articles about it to Knowledge. It is not advocacy; it is information. If you
915:
868:
820:
567:
464:
327:
314:
305:
257:
1103:
1057:
1048:
1554:
the facts asserted in the article? Verifiability is a core policy of Knowledge. Perhaps he is a widely-noted activist and popular radio host, but without
1527:
1319:
1284:
1279:
1620:
283:
perchance - as part of the application of their godlike and therefore "correct" prejudice - surely not?! For The Truth will come out in the end, right?
557:
1857:
1752:
1562:
995:, and restore - IT'S NOTABLE, per se. (Gawd, what do you have to do on Knowledge to keep an article these days??)Also, its related fetish/practice of
1647:
833:
736:
241:
233:
213:
1244:
has already had consensus as to not be notable. Whether you use different words or not, that doesn't change the fact that there's no there there.
454:
1665:
438:
983:
371:
1490:
1053:
Yes, I've been here before, ages ago.... I won't deny it. It was 2 years ago I last edited here (not that that's of any real importance!). --
166:
220:. The male skirt-wearing movement in the West is restricted to a few small but very vociferous forums. We have deleted this or similar at
206:
1835:
1701:
1504:
48:
34:
768:. I do not see the reason for CSD G4. Perhaps AfD would have been fine, but not a speedy delete. I now doubt my decision to delete
1831:
Does this help in changing the minds of those of you who do not believe he is notable or that he does not have enough references?
735:
If the movement isn't notable enough for a full article, then at least we can salvage the best-referenced parts for merging into
1402:
1353:
per GRBerry. If it's not the same text (even approximately), it's not G4. I will decide if it's deletable when I can read it.
78:
1447:
1442:
572:
The article was indeed as JzG describes. Considering it was written by pro-skirt wearers, this shouldn't come as a surprise. –
43:
1736:
and a 1-line mention in a page about a minor educational forum) all all up to... well, very little. These sources do not meet
1451:
1020:
756:
394:
1476:
1434:
1292:
1679:
188:
123:
118:
39:
1779:) he was easy to find. These show the name of the newspaper, the date of the article, and the title of the article.
1653:
1296:
1092:
1024:
951:
494:. Neither of them justifies speedy deletion, but I can see how his emotional reaction prompted him to be ruthless.
319:
I would also like to remind you that Google is not a reliable indicator of notability, according to Wiki policy at
127:
486:
It seems straightforward to me, although the answer may not be one you like. JzG's replies below clearly indicate
1141:
879:" is your personal oipinion, which others would dispute. It does not justify a speedy delete without discussion.
408:
187:, appears to be advancing a personal prejudice, as evidenced in the recent discussion on his talk page (archived
1456:
262:
Strongly endorse deletion - the article was utter bullshit. Even the title is complete unencyclopedic bullshit.
152:
110:
21:
1728:
for now. I'm afraid the new sources, which I had requested in the original AfD (when the article was called
1483:
1468:
1088:
1039:
is a sock-puppet? It just seems fishy that a new user goes directly to this page and makes these comments.
947:
422:
132:
370:
version at AFD, yes I'd agree there's pretty clear consensus against giving an article to this topic. --
1737:
159:
144:
1868:
1413:
1373:
89:
17:
1016:
752:
388:
1464:
240:
among others, and there has never been a credible argument that we need more than the section in
1288:
1803:- October 18, 1996 - RADIO REBELDE Y EMISORA DEL EXILIO UNEN FUERZAS PARA EMERGENCIA DE CICLON
1573:
Duplicate "restore" struck out. The nomination itself is considered an argument to restore. --
1460:
1226:
1198:
1153:
1149:
1145:
880:
843:
670:
622:
618:
605:
582:
564:
495:
487:
461:
324:
311:
284:
203:
999:(which has been debated countless times, anyone know where the debates are?? I can remember
140:
1711:
1500:
request to have it reinstalled and see if there are any more problems with it from others.
1358:
894:
212:
Stongly and absolutely endorse my deletion, obviously. This conept is already covered in
8:
1577:
1275:
1054:
1036:
1012:
1004:
769:
740:
402:
384:
57:
136:
1430:
1394:
1245:
1212:
1111:
725:
452:
192:
114:
1168:
Knowledge is not the place to fix the prejudice and ignorance of the rest of the world
1661:
1523:
801:
346:
1333:, as this deleted article is several times longer than the prior versions at either
1084:
943:
527:
416:
237:
191:- PLEASE READ), and by his proclivity for deleting all related discussions, eg. on
1680:
http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-1114101-125240/unrestricted/Cobas_thesis.pdf
1675:
Here are some additional references on Mr. Pollack to help show his notability..
1850:
1832:
1765:
1698:
1613:
1538:
1501:
1354:
1307:
1271:
1125:
541:
491:
342:
320:
229:
1330:
518:
350:
310:
Perhaps you could remind me who changed it (with zero debate or prior warning)?
1776:
1715:
1629:
1574:
830:
785:
718:
662:
639:
398:
272:
1729:
1550:
Unfortunately, if there are "no specific published works on him", how can we
1182:
1176:
978:
972:
927:
865:
842:
If you want sources you should demand them, not speedily delete the article.
722:
666:
658:
647:
643:
635:
573:
552:
546:
474:
449:
433:
427:
354:
300:
294:
252:
246:
106:
70:
1657:
1592:
1555:
1519:
1342:
876:
861:
797:
684:
Can we please just put this on AfD and get it done and over with already?
1129:
829:
That would be true if someone had actually noticed them. Sources, please?
1551:
1316:
1080:
1072:
966:
was an article about it. Deleted by consensus. Then, while it existed,
939:
931:
412:
1821:- August 22, 1995 - HAVANA ROCK: NUEVAS ONDAS DE LIBERTAD RADIAL A CUBA
1791:- July 25, 2001 - E-MAIL VIRUS ARRIVES IN MESSAGE PURPORTEDLY FROM CUBA
1597:
1399:
75:
1690:
581:
That is not a good reason for speedy deletion. What's wrong with AfD?
1042:
1003:
but that's about it!) is notable too, so we should list that here. --
773:
383:
Much of it was also the work of a now-blocked disruptive sockpuppet,
265:
1641:
I can find only the originally deleted article, not the revised one.
1001:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Male bikini-wearing (2nd nomination)
1854:
1809:- September 23, 1996 - RADIO DE CUBA REHUSA DEBATE RADIAL CON MIAMI
1749:
1643:
1559:
1398:– Deletion overturned, in light of new sources; relisted at AfD. –
908:
816:
184:
1152:, I suggest you find out a few things before stating an opinion.
814:
it still shouldn't be in WP can be translated as idontlikeit .
1628:. This is a procedural matter and not an expression of opinion.
1133:
713:
substantially similar to the article deleted under the name of
1270:
There exist similar articles on fashion in subcultures like
930:
was only such article and now, there is no such article. ---
1137:
217:
1853:, and especial thanks for acquainting me with NewsBank. --
1849:
rely on obscure and oblique references. Excellent work by
1760:
1714:
is more than sufficient for an encyclopedia article. —
1785:- May 19, 2000 - HENRY POLLACK: VEHEMENCIA ALTERNATIVA
1815:- August 22, 1995 - REACHING CUBA WITH ROCK 'N' ROLL
1697:throuout South Florida and parts of the carrebean.
1687:
The Miami Herald (by Jennifer Miller) July 25, 2001
1611:
1598:
970:was an article about it. Deleted by consensus.
1797:- August 25, 1998 - CUBAN MUSICIANS FACE PROTEST
1315:Can you give any of your own argument for it? --
1197:whole world, I would concede defeat. Probably.
1513:. There were two new sources: one didn't even
521:. This applies only if the article content is
1777:http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives
860:article appeared to be one massive piece of
1412:The following is an archived debate of the
88:The following is an archived debate of the
1558:to verify that, how do we really know? --
733:Overturn speedy deletion and list at AFD.
1148:, you can choose to not read it. If you
1132:. Articles on notable companies such as
74:– Deletion overturned; listed at AfD. –
1867:The above is an archived debate of the
1372:The above is an archived debate of the
657:If you think anything in the aticle is
14:
1174:is why you are having trouble here.
772:as WP:CSD#G4, so I'll restore it. --
1844:, including the new sources above.
1691:http://www.fiu.edu/~lacgsa/cafe.htm
1329:Clearly not a valid deletion under
27:
228:, we've had endless problems with
28:
1889:
1108:Unbifurcated clothing worn by men
351:WP:BEENTHROUGHTHISMANYTIMESBEFORE
1578:
1142:Category:Clothing manufacturers
721:there is no problem with this.
604:and nuke this crap on sight. --
13:
1:
1684:Miami New Times, May 13, 2007
1069:Overturn Speedy, list at AfD
903:Overturn speedy, list at AfD
891:Overturn speedy, list at AfD
7:
1734:unpublished Masters' thesis
634:I don't like violations of
10:
1894:
1842:Overturn deletion and keep
1738:Knowledge:Reliable sources
514:Restore, then place on AfD
1740:, excepting possibly the
1335:Male Unbifurcated Garment
964:Male Unbifurcated Garment
715:Male Unbifurcated Garment
519:criterion for deletion G4
222:Male Unbifurcated Garment
214:skirt and dress#Male wear
178:Male Unbifurcated Garment
18:Knowledge:Deletion review
1874:Please do not modify it.
1858:22:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
1836:20:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
1769:18:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
1753:06:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
1719:10:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
1702:00:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
1666:04:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
1648:04:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
1633:01:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
1621:01:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
1583:21:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
1563:06:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
1542:18:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
1528:18:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
1505:18:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
1419:Please do not modify it.
1403:01:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
1379:Please do not modify it.
1363:15:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
1346:01:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
1320:16:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
1311:18:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
1249:02:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
1230:23:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
1216:17:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
1202:12:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
1188:09:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
1157:08:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
1115:00:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
1076:17:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
1058:10:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
1049:10:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
1008:10:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
984:10:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
935:10:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
916:07:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
898:07:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
884:07:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
869:07:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
847:07:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
834:07:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
821:03:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
806:01:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
789:01:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
777:00:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
761:00:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
728:23:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
698:23:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
674:22:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
651:18:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
626:00:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
609:22:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
586:00:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
577:00:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
568:23:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
558:22:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
531:22:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
499:00:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
478:00:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
465:23:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
455:23:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
439:22:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
375:22:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
358:21:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
328:08:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
315:22:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
306:20:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
288:00:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
276:21:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
258:21:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
207:21:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
95:Please do not modify it.
79:01:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
40:Deletion review archives
1140:would also fit well in
1110:? It's still a duck.
523:substantially identical
183:2. The deleting admin,
1871:of the article above.
1416:of the article above.
1376:of the article above.
1238:As I said before, the
1035:Why do I suspect that
875:"one massive piece of
366:the community deletes
345:applies here, as does
92:of the article above.
1339:Men's fashion freedom
1297:few or no other edits
1093:few or no other edits
1025:few or no other edits
968:Men's fashion freedom
952:few or no other edits
611:(A proud kilt wearer)
490:, although he claims
341:pretty much per Guy.
226:Men's fashion freedom
1299:outside this topic.
1095:outside this topic.
1027:outside this topic.
954:outside this topic.
363:overturn/list at afd
1626:Restored for review
1306:per Guy and Steel.
1276:Heavy metal fashion
1037:User:DenmarkEuroB11
997:Male bikini-wearing
770:Million Skirted Men
473:Loaded question. –
1431:Enrique A. Pollack
1395:Enrique A. Pollack
1104:Skirts worn by men
962:Whilt it existed,
193:Talk:Men in skirts
1881:
1880:
1664:
1526:
1386:
1385:
1361:
1351:Overturn and list
1327:Overturn and list
1300:
1186:
1166:likely true, but
1096:
1028:
982:
955:
914:
877:original research
862:original research
696:
556:
437:
304:
256:
1885:
1876:
1813:The Miami Herald
1795:The Miami Herald
1789:The Miami Herald
1726:Endorse deletion
1660:
1652:It's there, try
1619:
1609:
1608:
1603:
1580:
1556:reliable sources
1522:
1511:Endorse deletion
1486:
1472:
1454:
1421:
1388:
1387:
1381:
1357:
1282:
1180:
1100:Endorse deletion
1078:
1045:
1010:
976:
937:
912:
858:Endorse deletion
794:Endorse deletion
692:
602:endorse deletion
550:
431:
339:Endorse deletion
298:
274:
270:
250:
238:high-heeled shoe
162:
148:
130:
97:
64:
63:
53:
33:
1893:
1892:
1888:
1887:
1886:
1884:
1883:
1882:
1872:
1869:deletion review
1819:El Nuevo Herald
1807:El Nuevo Herald
1801:El Nuevo Herald
1783:El Nuevo Herald
1746:Miami New Times
1618:
1604:
1599:
1495:
1489:
1482:
1481:
1475:
1445:
1429:
1417:
1414:deletion review
1377:
1374:deletion review
1355:Septentrionalis
1272:Goth subculture
1126:Category:skirts
1043:
895:trialsanderrors
737:Skirt and dress
266:
263:
242:skirt and dress
234:skirt and dress
171:
165:
158:
157:
151:
121:
105:
93:
90:deletion review
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1891:
1879:
1878:
1863:
1862:
1861:
1860:
1829:
1828:
1827:
1826:
1825:
1824:
1823:
1822:
1816:
1810:
1804:
1798:
1792:
1786:
1756:
1721:
1710:The subject's
1694:
1693:
1688:
1685:
1682:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1670:
1669:
1668:
1636:
1635:
1623:
1612:
1587:
1586:
1585:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1545:
1544:
1530:
1497:
1496:
1493:
1487:
1479:
1473:
1424:
1423:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1384:
1383:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1348:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1301:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1233:
1232:
1219:
1218:
1205:
1204:
1191:
1190:
1160:
1159:
1150:WP:IDONTKNOWIT
1146:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
1134:Midas Clothing
1118:
1117:
1097:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1055:DenmarkEuroB11
1047:
1030:
1029:
1013:DenmarkEuroB11
1005:DenmarkEuroB11
989:
988:
987:
986:
957:
956:
919:
918:
900:
887:
886:
872:
871:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
837:
836:
824:
823:
808:
791:
779:
763:
730:
700:
690:badlydrawnjeff
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
654:
653:
629:
628:
619:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
613:
612:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
534:
533:
510:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
503:
502:
501:
488:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
481:
480:
468:
467:
457:
442:
441:
385:Man in a skirt
378:
377:
360:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
317:
279:
278:
260:
173:
172:
169:
163:
155:
149:
100:
99:
84:
83:
82:
81:
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1890:
1877:
1875:
1870:
1865:
1864:
1859:
1856:
1852:
1847:
1843:
1840:
1839:
1838:
1837:
1834:
1820:
1817:
1814:
1811:
1808:
1805:
1802:
1799:
1796:
1793:
1790:
1787:
1784:
1781:
1780:
1778:
1774:
1773:
1772:
1771:
1770:
1767:
1762:
1757:
1755:
1754:
1751:
1747:
1743:
1739:
1735:
1731:
1730:Henry Pollack
1727:
1722:
1720:
1717:
1713:
1709:
1706:
1705:
1704:
1703:
1700:
1692:
1689:
1686:
1683:
1681:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1667:
1663:
1659:
1655:
1651:
1650:
1649:
1646:
1645:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1637:
1634:
1631:
1627:
1624:
1622:
1617:
1616:
1610:
1607:
1602:
1594:
1591:
1588:
1584:
1581:
1576:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1564:
1561:
1557:
1553:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1546:
1543:
1540:
1536:
1535:
1531:
1529:
1525:
1521:
1516:
1512:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1503:
1492:
1485:
1478:
1470:
1466:
1462:
1458:
1453:
1449:
1444:
1440:
1436:
1432:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1422:
1420:
1415:
1410:
1409:
1404:
1401:
1397:
1396:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1382:
1380:
1375:
1370:
1369:
1364:
1360:
1356:
1352:
1349:
1347:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1325:
1321:
1318:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1309:
1305:
1302:
1298:
1294:
1290:
1286:
1281:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1266:
1265:
1250:
1247:
1246:Corvus cornix
1243:
1242:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1231:
1228:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1217:
1214:
1213:Corvus cornix
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1203:
1200:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1189:
1184:
1179:
1178:
1173:
1169:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1158:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1116:
1113:
1112:Corvus cornix
1109:
1105:
1101:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1077:
1074:
1070:
1067:
1066:
1059:
1056:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1046:
1040:
1038:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1009:
1006:
1002:
998:
994:
991:
990:
985:
980:
975:
974:
969:
965:
961:
960:
959:
958:
953:
949:
945:
941:
936:
933:
929:
928:Men in skirts
924:
921:
920:
917:
911:
910:
904:
901:
899:
896:
892:
889:
888:
885:
882:
878:
874:
873:
870:
867:
863:
859:
856:
855:
848:
845:
841:
840:
839:
838:
835:
832:
828:
827:
826:
825:
822:
819:
818:
812:
809:
807:
803:
799:
795:
792:
790:
787:
783:
780:
778:
775:
771:
767:
764:
762:
758:
754:
750:
748:
744:
738:
734:
731:
729:
726:
724:
720:
716:
712:
708:
704:
701:
699:
695:
691:
687:
683:
682:
675:
672:
668:
664:
660:
656:
655:
652:
649:
645:
641:
637:
633:
632:
631:
630:
627:
624:
620:
617:
616:
615:
614:
610:
607:
603:
599:
598:
587:
584:
580:
579:
578:
575:
571:
570:
569:
566:
561:
560:
559:
554:
549:
548:
543:
538:
537:
536:
535:
532:
529:
524:
520:
515:
512:
511:
500:
497:
493:
489:
485:
484:
483:
482:
479:
476:
472:
471:
470:
469:
466:
463:
458:
456:
453:
451:
446:
445:
444:
443:
440:
435:
430:
429:
424:
421:
418:
414:
410:
407:
404:
400:
396:
393:
390:
386:
382:
381:
380:
379:
376:
373:
369:
364:
361:
359:
356:
352:
348:
344:
340:
337:
336:
329:
326:
322:
318:
316:
313:
309:
308:
307:
302:
297:
296:
291:
290:
289:
286:
281:
280:
277:
273:
271:
269:
261:
259:
254:
249:
248:
243:
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
210:
209:
208:
205:
201:
197:
194:
190:
186:
181:
179:
168:
161:
154:
146:
142:
138:
134:
129:
125:
120:
116:
112:
108:
107:Men in skirts
104:
103:
102:
101:
98:
96:
91:
86:
85:
80:
77:
73:
72:
71:Men in skirts
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
1873:
1866:
1845:
1841:
1830:
1818:
1812:
1806:
1800:
1794:
1788:
1782:
1745:
1742:Miami Herald
1741:
1733:
1725:
1724:
1723:(see below)
1707:
1695:
1674:
1642:
1625:
1614:
1605:
1600:
1589:
1533:
1532:
1514:
1510:
1498:
1418:
1411:
1393:
1378:
1371:
1350:
1326:
1303:
1285:Jbruyndonckx
1267:
1240:
1239:
1175:
1171:
1167:
1099:
1068:
992:
971:
922:
907:
902:
890:
857:
815:
810:
793:
781:
765:
746:
742:
732:
710:
706:
702:
685:
601:
545:
522:
513:
426:
419:
411:), formerly
405:
397:), formerly
391:
367:
362:
347:WP:IWEARTHEM
338:
293:
267:
245:
202:
198:
182:
174:
94:
87:
69:
58:
1654:a permalink
1295:) has made
1130:Mindstation
1091:) has made
1023:) has made
950:) has made
913:uel Wantman
719:neutral PoV
707:list at AfD
528:Alan Pascoe
59:12 May 2007
49:2007 May 13
35:2007 May 11
1851:Callelinea
1833:Callelinea
1766:Callelinea
1712:notability
1699:Callelinea
1539:Callelinea
1502:Callelinea
1359:PMAnderson
1308:Bulldog123
646:either. –
216:, also at
1716:Athaenara
1630:FCYTravis
1331:WP:CSD#G4
1138:Menintime
831:FCYTravis
786:FCYTravis
399:Mugaliens
1708:Restore.
1293:contribs
1089:contribs
1021:contribs
993:Overturn
948:contribs
709:This is
703:Overturn
542:WP:UNDUE
492:WP:UNDUE
423:contribs
409:contribs
395:contribs
343:WP:UNDUE
321:WP:GHITS
230:WP:UNDUE
185:User:JzG
44:2007 May
20: |
1658:Amarkov
1590:Restore
1534:Restore
1520:Amarkov
1477:restore
1448:protect
1443:history
1343:GRBerry
1304:Endorse
1268:Restore
1241:subject
1170:. And
923:Restore
811:Restore
798:Krimpet
782:Endorse
766:Restore
745:n Yerri
663:WP:NPOV
640:WP:NPOV
600:NOOO -
372:W.marsh
153:restore
124:protect
119:history
1552:verify
1452:delete
1317:antiXt
1081:Bsherr
1073:Bsherr
940:Antixt
932:antiXt
667:WP:NOT
659:WP:ATT
644:WP:NOT
636:WP:ATT
413:Dr1819
128:delete
1846:These
1593:WP:DP
1579:desat
1484:cache
1469:views
1461:watch
1457:links
1400:Xoloz
1227:Bards
1199:Bards
1183:Help!
1154:Bards
979:Help!
881:Bards
844:Bards
757:stalk
671:Bards
648:Steel
623:Bards
583:Bards
574:Steel
565:Bards
553:Help!
496:Bards
475:Steel
462:Bards
434:Help!
355:Steel
325:Bards
312:Bards
301:Help!
285:Bards
253:Help!
204:Bards
160:cache
145:views
137:watch
133:links
76:Xoloz
52:: -->
16:<
1744:and
1662:moo!
1615:talk
1601:Jody
1575:Core
1524:moo!
1515:talk
1465:logs
1439:talk
1435:edit
1289:talk
1172:that
1136:and
1085:talk
1044:Gaff
1017:talk
944:talk
802:talk
774:Ezeu
753:talk
741:Dami
739:. --
705:and
694:talk
688:. --
686:List
665:and
642:and
417:talk
403:talk
389:talk
368:this
353:. –
349:and
268:Nick
236:and
224:and
218:kilt
189:here
141:logs
115:talk
111:edit
32:<
1855:MCB
1761:JTV
1750:MCB
1656:? -
1644:DGG
1560:MCB
1491:AfD
1337:or
1280:Jan
1177:Guy
1106:?
973:Guy
909:Sam
866:pgk
817:DGG
723:DES
711:not
606:Doc
547:Guy
544:.
450:DES
428:Guy
425:).
295:Guy
264:--
247:Guy
232:at
167:AfD
22:Log
1467:|
1463:|
1459:|
1455:|
1450:|
1446:|
1441:|
1437:|
1291:•
1283:—
1274:,
1087:•
1079:—
1019:•
1011:—
946:•
938:—
906:--
804:)
759:)
755:|
661:,
638:,
621:.
323:.
143:|
139:|
135:|
131:|
126:|
122:|
117:|
113:|
42::
1606:B
1518:-
1494:)
1488:|
1480:|
1474:(
1471:)
1433:(
1287:(
1185:)
1181:(
1083:(
1041:—
1015:(
981:)
977:(
942:(
800:(
751:(
749:k
747:c
743:a
555:)
551:(
436:)
432:(
420:·
415:(
406:·
401:(
392:·
387:(
303:)
299:(
255:)
251:(
170:)
164:|
156:|
150:(
147:)
109:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.