Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military boots


 * 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   speedily redirected to combat boot. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Military boots

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No notability established. PROD was removed without explanation or improvement. Sitush (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * For now, swiftly redirect this to combat boots, just like Grandma used to wear. The current text seems to be an advertisement or fan page for a product that makes no particular claim of encyclopedic importance: Military boots are a high side womwns boot that is often worn with just bare-feet. They were designed in 1972 by Richard strech. Recently desiners have made the boot so it fits comfortably round a bare foot and rejuces sweat.  I am mildly surprised to find nothing better in history, since this title seems a very reasonable search term.  This looks like an Obvious Right Thing, and I'll likely just do it within the next several hours unless someone objects quickly.  Making military boot a redirect as well, in case it doesn't already exist. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think it might actually be a fashion item, and originally designed as a fashion item, as with the Ugg boot etc. It may never have had a military purpose. OTOH, who the heck is supposed to know given the information provided? It is an extremely awkward term to GSearch on. Perhaps I should try with the alleged designer's name? But perhaps I won't. Off out shortly, so if a redirect happens in between times then that's ok by me. - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Searching for "Richard Strech" (and "Richard Stretch") don't yield anything talking about fashion on the first several pages.  Feet and footwear: a cultural encyclopedia, by Margo DeMello, yields no non-military fashion definitions in those portions Google is letting me see.  Still looks like the obvious answer to me; then again I see no strong reason to delete the history, either, in case anyone finds something. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have made no more progress than you with searches. There are clearly issues with spelling in the article but the permutations of the alleged designer's name are endless. Forgive me for not understanding your references to the history (presumably article history) being of any great significance. I do understand CC-BY-SA/GFDL issues with moving/merging, or at least I think I do, but in this instance a straight redirect does now seem to be the most obvious solution & the article history would be preserved by that method. Perhaps I should have boldly done that in the first instance rather than tie up AfD. - Sitush (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. For technical reasons involving the various licences involved, which I am not a close student of, it's undesirable to delete revisions except when they are the sort of thing that ought to be low-level erased rather than simply removed (libel and such).  Any editor could have redirected this, but AFD works too. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:44, 3 June 2011 (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.