Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloven hoof


 * 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 Keep, AfD is not cleanup. Article tagged for references, which is all it needs. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Cloven hoof

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Has been totally unsourced since June 2006; it therefore fails WP:NOTE, WP:VER and WP:RS. It's got to go. Rambutan (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, important anatomical classification, as well as one with cultural referents, thus more than a dicdef. Sure, it needs references. Is AFD the best way to go about getting them? --Dhartung | Talk 18:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. AFD is not cleanup, and are you seriously trying to argue that cloven hooves are non-notable?! Zetawoof(&zeta;) 18:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep and close WP:RS and WP:V are grounds for cleanup not deletion, and clearly needing references does not mean it fails WP:N (which is a guideline anyway, not a policy). Inappropriate venue for request for references. ~ Eliz 81 (C)  19:03, 17 September 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.