Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abandoned footwear


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Abandoned footwear

 * – (View AfD)

Doesn't comply with notability requirements. Disputed prod. PhilKnight (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, unencyclopedic. Abductive (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 *  Redirect  to Shoe tossing as that seems to be the only substantial element to this subject. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'd be ok with a redirect to shoe tossing. PhilKnight (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Change to keep. The expanded article now shows that the subject has been written about enough to sustain a short article separate from shoe tossing, which is significant enough to justify its own article rather than a merge to here. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think the article is cobbled together and unencyclopedic. Abductive (talk) 10:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean but there still seems to be something in there. Maybe just isn't put together right. I would lose the quote for a start. Maybe I should have made it a weak keep, but I won't change my vote again lest anybody accuse me of being a flip-flop. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC).


 * Keep Someone seems to have gutted the article and so I've restored most of the missing content. There are thousands of sources that touch on this in some way.  Having browsed them, there seem to be two common themes - large piles of abandoned shoes as the sign of some catastophe, such as 9-11, and abandoned shoe(s) as an artistic theme.  It doesn't seem to be an easy subject to develop but it deserves better than to be cast aside like an old boot (a popular metaphor which is documented in many works). Colonel Warden (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to shoe tossing. "shoes seen abandoned in random places" lacks multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage, and thus fails notability. It also head off an infinite series of articles about similarly abandoned hubcaps, newspapers, keys, school books, sofa cushions, eyeglasses, combs, playing cards etc. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Edison (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken - there are numerous sources which cover this topic and I have taken some time to cite some of them. [[Image:Life_Preserver.svg|20px]] Please walk a mile in the shoes of a topic before condemning it. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No cohesive rationale for the topic. Anecdotatal "stuff" at best -- perhaps we need one on Sock-eating dryers?   I can find plenty of cites for them.   Not notable as a topic. Not well defined as a topic. Potential catch-all for anything about single shoes. Collect (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There appears to be some interest in this subject, although limited, in modern photography, art, photography, philosophy and of course humor. The article now has sufficient external references to establish  notability.  The Four Deuces (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for sure. This article would fit in some 'cool facts' website, but not a serious encyclopedia like wikipedia. If there is one for abandoned footwear, there should also be an article like List of Martian Invasions in Popular Culture. I suppose there isn't any. Kayau (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see Category:Mars in fiction for numerous articles on that topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - currently, three of the article's eight total paragraphs discuss a single non-notable book. Once that's removed (because it should be), there's not much left. To me, this article is summed up in the first paragraph where it says "It is not known why old shoes and boots seem to be publicly abandoned more often than other articles of clothing." Given that that's what this article is ostensibly about, If we don't know that, then there's no article. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As a child, I remember having a game which had several fish and a boot in it, which would vibrate after being wound up, and you'd move a switch to make a fisherman reach down with their pole to catch it. Going fishing and getting a shoe, was once very common in cartoons and comic strips.  Back when leather was used for shoes in America, and seldom anything else, you'd have plenty of old shoes found about, it lasting far longer than any other garbage.  So going fishing and finding an old boot, was not uncommon.  It is a wonder more scholars haven't documented such an important aspect of society already.   D r e a m Focus  08:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)\
 * Delete. Why, Martian invasions and economy class food should have aritcles of their own then, no? Abandoned footwear just isn't fit for encyclopaedias. You can't keep this article unless you just found something about abandoned footwear in the Holy Bible or one of Shakespeare's plays or Chaucer's poems. Revision as of 20:41, 15 June 2009 (edit) (undo)Kayau (talk | contribs)


 * Keep and develop very interesting article. I learned something today. Granite thump (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. arbitrary collection of anecdotes and factlets; totally non-encyclopedic. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't you include urban myths as well? They ARE interesting and you COULD learn from them.Kayau (talk) 03:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We do - please see Category:Urban legends. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for sure with no doubt. What about economy class food then? Have you got one about that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayau (talk • contribs) 06:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure - do you mean Fast food or Airline meals? Colonel Warden (talk) 07:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither. I mean how disgusting economy class food is.Kayau (talk) 04:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Judging by the work done by several of the !vote editors as well as this 9-11 New York Times Article, which mentions abandoned shoes at least twice and a sampling perusal from some of theseabandoned shoe News articles, a unique topic of abandoned footwear does exist. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, it needs a bit of work but it seems notable enough for inclusion and distinct enough from Shoe tossing to be a standalone article. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - How sad. Does no-one have any joie de vivre any more? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The purpose of encyclpedias is to provide basic information, not give 'fun facts' or 'cool facts' that entertain.Kayau (talk) 04:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Even sadder that you associate "joie de vivre" with "'fun facts' or 'cool facts' that entertain." - you have completely missed the point. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Multiple good quality sources. --Nate1481 14:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is not whether the sources are good, but the information is unencyclopedic. Besides, I dare say not too many people need to rely on Wikipedia - or anything at all - to seek info on abandoned shoes. Who would be funny enough to research on such a topic? Kayau (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because you don't see the merit in researching this topic, doesn't mean that there is none. This article already references at least two cultural phenomenon that might be central to, or even just part of, research projects now or in the future. I'm not sure if there's an equivalent to Rule 34 for research projects, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is only slightly more restricted. Thryduulf (talk) 09:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * to clarify Multiple good quality sources --Nate1481


 * Keep Clearly documented as a notable cultural phenomena. I agree with Pdfpdf: light-hearted does not automatically mean un-encyclopedic. jmcw (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Once again, some come in with some ghits and extrapolates that to notable coverage. Mentioning the term isn't coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article, when you look at it again, sounds a bit like a trivia section, only the facts are categorised into paragraphs.Kayau (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2009 (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.