Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toe cleavage

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 no consensus. Since there are still delete arguments, this is not a speedy keep candidate, and there isn't a clear consensus here. --Coredesat 03:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toe cleavage

Toe cleavage (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

non-encyclopedic; dictionary definition; linkless Ling.Nut 04:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Retract nomination; change to Keep as per Uncle G. Thank you, Uncle G, I confess I never would have dreamed. Thank you for keeping us on our... toes?--Ling.Nut 15:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

  Rimshot.

• "What the..." delete. Nom says it all. -Amarkov ^babble 04:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Change to weak keep. Maybe merge with some fashion article? -Amarkov ^babble 22:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete dictionary definition, per WP:NOT. Gwernol 04:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism, possibly archive it on BJAODN.--TBCΦtalk? 04:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete despite being hilarious. Keep per the G family. Wow. Chubbles1212 04:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

  You should see us at Thanksgiving. We make Kenny G sit at the card table. Wavy G 00:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is one of the funnier things I have seen on Wikipedia though. James086 ^{Talk | Contribs} 05:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 05:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with Amarkov, what the...?! I know there are foot fetishists, but this article is just bizarre. JIP | Talk 06:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

*Delete. And transfer to WP:BJAODN. Great stuff. Black-Velvet 08:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. In light of recent proof of how pathetic the mass media is and why we all shouldn't follow fashion. Black-Velvet 07:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. It's nonsense, but almost funny. Spinach Dip 10:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Disturbing Delete - transfer to WP:BJAODN as per Black-Velvet. --tgheretford (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• It appears that a lot of editors only read the article and didn't do the necessary research. Prepare to be amazed. This article isn't nonsense or an attempt at humour. It is a genuine, albeit niche, concept in ladies' fashion. It has been written about by columnists such as stylist Susan Conterno, by columnists such as Meredith Broussard (Meredith Broussard. "Foot for Thought", Philadelphia City Paper, 2003-04-23. ), in Warner Brothers' magazines (Erika Dykstra. "Peep Toe Pumps", The OC Insider, WBEI. ), in the New York Times reporting people undergoing surgery "for the sake of better toe cleavage" (Gardiner Harris. "If Shoe Won't Fit, Fix the Foot? Popular Surgery Raises Concern", The New York Times, 2003-12-07. ), by the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (Foot Fashionitis? — Foot Surgery A Perilous Mistake for Fashion. American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society.), and by others (The Ultimate Makeover: Cinderella. LifePath Retreats.). This is a very poor stub, but it is a stub, and, in particular with what the AOFAS has to say on the whole subject, there is scope for expansion. Keep. Uncle G 15:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Per my uncle. Cleanup/expand article and cite all those sources. Hey, there's a Buttock cleavage article, so why not? Wavy G 16:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Per Uncle G. --Falcorian ^(talk) 19:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Uncle G. (Good work!) -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Completely silly, non-encyclopedic article. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 22:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• In its current form, I would say most definitely Delete. But on the condition that Uncle G's references are integrated... I'd go for Keep. An excellent example of the importance of citing sources. --Nehwyn 22:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Get real. Stupidity at its finest.Akanksha 05:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep on the grounds that the AfD author requested it be kept. --Dennisthe2 08:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

  The WP:CSK criteria also requires that nobody other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, which is clearly not the case here. Not a legitimate speedy keep. GRBerry 21:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per UncleG. I'll be damned. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as if that wasn't already a foregone conclusion. This is proof that in order to really know what to keep and what to delete, you have to have a bit of imagination, assume good faith (even when it seems improbable), and be willing to do some research. The topic hasn't changed a bit, but the perception of it has been matured by UncleG's treatment of it. Even the first two sentences are virtually identical to their original stub version. Great work UncleG. Unfocused 22:05, 15 November 2006 (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.