Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foot girl

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 with foot fetishism.--Kubigula (talk) 03:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foot girl

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

Possibly a non-notable neologism, and is kinda dicdef-ish. I suggest either a deletion or a redirect to foot fetishism. Could not be anything more than a stub. Google seems to just turn up porn, and no apparent reliable sources. Nothing in the mainspace links to it, either. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom, and because it verges on POV by referring to adult women as "girls" outside quotation marks. SparsityProblem 19:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think it's acceptable in some informal situations to refer to young adult women, colloquially, esp. under the age of 25, as "girls".--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• However, an encyclopedic article should be written in a formal style, and colloquial language is almost never appropriate (except in some limited situations like quotations). SparsityProblem 20:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with foot model. I do agree that "girl" in this context is just industry jargon. --Dhartung | Talk 20:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Didn't notice there was a foot model article - that'd be an appropriate merge and redirect, but with emphasis on the different contexts of a "foot model" and a "foot girl".--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• I would rather merge to foot fetishism than foot model. It's not clear how important fetish modelling is compared to modelling for advertising, and devoting two-thirds of the foot model article to fetish modelling might be undue weight. I also suspect that reliable sources treating "foot girls" are more likely to be about foot fetishism in general than about foot modelling in general. EALacey 20:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• That's a valid point actually, as I kind of noted above.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Foot model was good, quick thinking, but per EALacey and HisSpaceResearch, merging to foot fetishism seems most appropriate. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with foot fetishism. 82.153.19.100 21:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. I support the foot fetishism merge with the relevant policy being WP:V as I do not really see any references. I also suspect that those found will be lean more heavily on foot fetishism. SorryGuy 20:32, 22 November 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.