Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cameltoe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

[edit] Cameltoe

The result was Keep per WP:N. Non admin closure NAHID 19:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Cameltoe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is a dictionary definition of a neologism (ignore that bit please, I seem to have made a mistake describing it as such) parading as an encyclopedia article (WP:NOT) and, dare I say it, an excuse to put some pretty pictures into the encyclopedia. Nothing encyclopedic here; suggest transwiki and/or deletion. kingboyk (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - This subject is clearly notable and, although badly written at the moment, is notable enough to be included. I'd go and find sources myself if I didn't think my fiance would think I was looking at anything I wasn't meant to be looking at (If you get what I mean). Spawn Man Review Me! 00:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    • It's a well known word, but that's all it is: a word. That's what Wiktionary is for. I'm struggling to see how anything encyclopedic could be written on the topic. Is that a cue for me to do some research? :) --kingboyk (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC) (e/c)
  • Keep, badly written and needs better sourcing, but it's not really a neologism. Though I have my doubts about that first reference... Corvus cornixtalk 00:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - You forgot to tag the article for AFD - I did it for you. :) Cheers, Spawn Man Review Me! 01:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The script I use must have failed. Thanks for taking care of it :) --kingboyk (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep agree with Corvus cornix that it needs a rewrite and better sourcing (and probably only one salacious image). This has achieved WP:N however. JJL (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. It's definitely not a neologism, and the sources seem to be legit. I have no idea how it could be expanded, however. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Mansour's Pop Culture Encyclopedia of the Late 20th Century (ISBN 0740751182) devotes exactly 3 sentences to the subject, one of which is a personal opinion. Uncle G (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Corvus cornix. Clearly notable, references need improvement. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment it gets some Gnews hits: [1], [2], [3]. Other hits are for a Toronto-area band of that name (e.g. [4]), probably different from this band [5], [6] and this band [7], [8]; here's a CD by that name [9]. How many bands have to name themselves after it before it becomes notable? Here's a NY Time story on the phenomenon: [10]. Certainly it's at the Urban Dictionary [11], but many blog and video clip hits too. JJL (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    • :..( - Spawn Man Review Me! 02:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Ok, and per Spawn Man (notwithstanding his fiance issues). Geeesh. --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Corvus cornix. The NYT story helps; I'm reasonably sure there's enough information around for a decent article. Maxamegalon2000 06:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Please tell me there's a conspiracy...? ;) Spawn Man Review Me! 06:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and don't forget to peek at Handbra. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Subject is notable enough for inclusion. Rray (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Ten Pound Hammer. Article has multiple sources.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wiktionary. Article should be a definition, as it isn't really encyclopedic. --MacRusgail (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
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.