Deletion of Social impact of thong underwear

Comment: being a sourcable and well-sourced topic that has |extensive coverage in multiple reliable sources, allowing the topic to be |worthy of note. Any perception that any article on any notable topic might be itself |poorly written, is a call for cleanup through regular editing. Perceived as not encyclopedic? Considering the RVE|wide and persistant coverage of this topic, and its |sourcable societal impact, that is a |decent reason to wish addressing perceived style and format flaws, but not one justifying deletion... that said, a proper merge to an expanded section at Thong (clothing) ''might'' be discussed on the article's talk page
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:N||WP:UGLY||WP:NRVE||WP:V||WP:HANDLE)

Comment: Seems to be fairly well written and would meet . "''This article is one of the worst I've come across on Wikipedia''". Really? The worst you've come across? Was this the first and only article you've read on here? What '''policy''' does this violate that warrants deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: While  is a very important ''essay'' in understanding notability, this article hardly is in violation. Rather it complies perfectly with , the relevant ''guideline'', including  (coverage, significance, independence and reliability). On top of that the article contains content forked from the mother article (Thong (clothing)), a process that follows , the most relevant ''content guideline'' here. I see no reason for a deletion or even a merger. All that it requires is a cleanup. But, of course, a cleanup is hard work, while arguing for deletion is not so at all. Thank you
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COAT||WP:NOTE||WP:GNG||WP:CONTENTFORK)