Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children's feet (2nd nomination)


 * 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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Eternal Shadow   Talk  21:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Children's feet
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

What is this?! I can't believe this? I've never seen an article so bizarre before. What is so notable about children's feet that we have to keep a page on it?! Why can't this just be on the Foot article? I swear whoever made this is messed up in the head. Jullianorange (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 24.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 21:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Give it the boot (or in this case, bootie), lest we be inundated with Children's heads (bigger proportionally compared to Children's bodies), Adults' fingers, Teens' stomachs (bottomless), etc. Yeesh, only one of the references even mentions children. (However, this is far from the most bizarre articles I've ever seen, not even close.) Clarityfiend (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: seems to be mostly focused on the medical aspects. Perhaps the article should be renamed to "pediatric podiatry" or something like that instead of this weird title. Spicy (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename to foot problems in children or pediatric podiatry, as a well considered aspect of medicine. the first AFD had a pretty clear consensus to keep and rename. It looks like there's a fair bit about the topic. See journal articles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and many more. Web sources include: NHS, Victoria "Better Health". Of course not WP:MEDRS, but there's news coverage as well: Baltimore Sun, The Seattle Times in The Albuquerque Journal, Forest Park Review and many more. I don't like it is not a valid rationale. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per WP:CSK. If the nominator actually read the article instead of assuming everything about children's feet is related to sex, they would see that this article clearly satisfies GNG with at least 3 WP:MEDRS. Also there was clearly no reasonable WP:BEFORE that was performed because a super quick search through PubMed revealed these MEDRS:, , and . Also, WP:NTEMP. This article was AFDed before resulting in keep. Not much changed between then and now to necessitate a re-evaluation of the notability of this article. I agree with others and from previous AFD that the article could have a more encyclopedic title, but this isn't WP:RM.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 22:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 22:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 22:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep & Rename to pediatric podiatry or something similar, per above. The article is largely focused on the biological and medical aspects of childrens' feet, which, as shown, is pretty extensively covered in reliable sources.  It should be renamed to reflect that, however, and possible restructured slightly to lose that rather silly and obvious lead in informing us that children have smaller feet than adults and thus wear smaller shoes.  Rorshacma (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Concure with fellow editors - that it's a keep and rename. Bizarre title! Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong keep and rename to developmental podiatry or some such. --Lockley (talk) 05:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. AfD is not for re-naming. There were literally hit songs and entire textbooks about the topic. Bearian (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2020 (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.