Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smelly socks


 * 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. When I saw the title as the last one open, I was wondering how it didn't get snowball deleted, to my surprise, well, as suggested, there's no consensus to be found here. Courcelles (talk) 04:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Smelly socks

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article should be deleted as it is only a repository for trivia about foul-smelling socks. The only useful information in this article is the second sentence in the introduction ("The aroma is a mixture of ammonia, fatty acids, and lactic acid.") and the five short sentences in the "Air contamination" section. This information can and should be merged to Foot odor, Sock, and/or Human foot. The remainder of the article is pure trivia; simply a list of various trivial situations in which smelly socks are vaguely connected. Here are some examples of information provided by this article: The list of trivia goes on and on. Just because sources can be found which mention "smelly socks" doesn't mean that we need an article devoted to the subject. I can also find plenty of sources for Brown socks and Knee socks and Crusty socks and Discolored socks, or any other adjective preceding the word "socks", but that doesn't mean we should have an article about brown socks including a list of films in which actors wore brown socks, and a list of flowers and animals reported to resemble brown socks, and a description of sexual fetishes involving brown socks, a list of all plane crash victims who were wearing brown socks, etc. etc. etc. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Snotty Wong  gossip 19:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Smelly socks smell like stale poppers, a recreational drug used during sex.
 * Smelly socks were used in commercials for British Knights sneakers.
 * Smelly socks are used in the making of powerful spells and charms.
 * Smelly socks are used to cure the common cold.
 * Smelly socks arouse people with foot fetishes.
 * Smelly socks smell like White Plume Grevillea flowers.
 * Comment: But brown socks are not notable.--Milowent (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's ironic. Neither are smelly socks.    Snotty Wong   confess 20:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you've never smelled them, tenderfoot :-)--Milowent (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, let me put it this way: my smelly socks are not notable, but maybe yours are... ;)    Snotty Wong   squeal 20:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, both of ours can be used to fight malaria, just one of the examples in the article, from real press coverage. On the surface it seems silly (I stumbled across it some time ago), but it really is a notable subject.  On the less serious side:--Milowent (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge to Foot odor. Please, let's just all agree on this. Foot odor is a valid encyclopedia topic, and the source of the stink on socks and shoes is the feet. As an aside, "Smell" is grammatically incorrect; "Stink" is better. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are quite mistaken. The feet have no particular smell as they have no apocrine glands like the armpits.  The smell arises from action of bacteria upon the socks soaked in sweat.  The socks are there precisely to absorb the sweat and so it is they which are the source of the smell. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If feet have no particular smell, then why is there an article on Foot odor Are you suggesting that Foot odor should be merged into Smelly socks, since feet don't actually smell?    Snotty Wong   converse 22:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, but where do the bacteria come from? Also, the term "foot odor" is more widely used, and encompasses feet, socks and shoes. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge to foot odor. Sources or not, I am kinda frightened by the continued existence of this article... not sure whether it's because it uses the word "smelly" or because it uses a British spelling of the word odor... Mandsford 20:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I notice a disturbing prejudice against British English in the comments here. Please see WP:ENGVAR which explains that "The English Wikipedia does not prefer any major national variety of the language. Within the English Wikipedia no variety is considered more correct than another.". Colonel Warden (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It kinda sounds like you're arguing that the British spelling is more correct than any other. Either that or British socks are smellier than American ones.  I'm pretty sure Mandsford was just trying to bring some levity to the discussion.  Let's all take a deep breath.    Snotty Wong   comment 22:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge to foot odor - not an encyclopaedic topic, no significant coverage outside the encyclopaedic topic of foot odor. "Smelly" is not a suitable word to have in an encyclopaedic title. Claritas § 21:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC which explains that this is begging the question and so an argument to avoid. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The topic is notable as demonstrated by the numerous sources about the highly distinctive odour of smelly socks. Proposing deletion is therefore as absurd as proposing that we deleted other articles about other sensations such as Violet, Umami or Sound of fingernails scraping chalkboard.  The nomination is self-contradictory in that it proposes that the article be deleted and then immediately counter-proposes that its content be merged.  It can't make its mind up whether the material is useful or trivial and mostly just splutters in outrage.  The nomination therefore fits WP:SK in being erroneous, harassing and vexatious. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your speedy keep rationale is what appears to be spluttering in outrage. My nomination doesn't contradict itself at all.  I'm simply stating that there is a minimal amount of useful material in this article, which can and should be merged to the appropriate article (I didn't even find Foot odor when nominating the article, but now I see that this article is essentially a content fork of Foot odor).  After having done that, the remaining majority of the article is utterly useless and should be deleted.
 * Also, your examples are perplexing. The best argument you can come up with is that the fundamental concepts regarding the human perception of color are equally as notable as smelly socks?    Snotty Wong   chat 21:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to confuse the ordinary functions required for selective editing and merger with the special function required for complete deletion which is our purpose here. If material is to be kept, then our licensing terms commonly require retention of the edit history and deletion is then not appropriate.  Per our deletion policy, If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.  See also our editing policies. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Colonel Warden, I've been here long enough to know the editing policies of Wikipedia. There's no need to quote them for me, or attempt to use them in a confusing manner to imply that this nomination is somehow invalid or improper.  You and I both know that AfD's often result in merges and redirects which retain the edit history.  If the community decides to merge and redirect, then that is a perfectly valid result.  If the community decides that none of the information is worth keeping, then deletion is another valid result.  That happens every day, and I know you're aware of that.  In my opinion, 5% of this article is worth keeping, 95% is worth deleting.  If the community decides to keep that 5% and put it somewhere else, then that's just fine and it doesn't invalidate this nomination in any way, nor does it qualify it for a speedy keep.  I think it's clear that wikilawyering is not going to speedily close this nomination at this point.    Snotty Wong   converse 22:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not one editor has supported your proposition that the article be deleted and so WP:SK is quite appropriate. It also seems relevant that you have recently been in conflict with me, per your complaints on my talk page, and so there seems to be a pointy element of hounding in this nomination. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your perception of hounding is only your perception. The fact that this article was created by you is coincidental.  If I was going around nominating all of the articles you've created, that would be hounding.  As far as I'm aware, I have never nominated one other article that you have created (or even substantially contributed to), and I have nominated a lot of articles.  It's true that none of the above !votes have agreed that the article should be deleted (which, incidentally, is clearly not grounds for a speedy keep, especially since only a few hours have elapsed since nomination), however they all have agreed that the article should be merged, which indicates to me that the consensus (so far) is that the article has a bit of useful info, but overall it doesn't require/deserve its own article.    Snotty Wong   confess 22:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have created nearly 200 articles and yet you nominate the one that I happen to be working on following our conflict. This does not seem to be a coincidence Colonel Warden (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If all of the articles you create are about similarly trivial subjects, then it is inevitable that I would nominate one of them. If you believe that I am hounding or stalking you, then feel free to start a discussion at WP:ANI.  This is not the proper forum for a lengthy discussion about your bad faith assumptions.    Snotty Wong   chat 23:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Calling it trivial is evidence of ignorance and a hatred of knowledge. Do I really believe that? No.  How'd you find the article Snotty?--Milowent (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I owe anyone an explanation, but in the interest of good faith, I'll be honest: The good Colonel and I were recently involved in a minor conflict on an unrelated article (which was resolved with a minimum of drama), and we are also involved in numerous discussions on multiple AfD's, as we are both frequent contributors to AfD discussions.  I routinely check the contributions of editors with whom I am having a lot of interaction, to see if they have made any updates to the AfD's or articles that we have been discussing.  I checked Colonel Warden's contributions for this very reason, and to check if he had added anything to the complaint thread I started on his talk page regarding the above-mentioned minor conflict (because I don't have his talk page and other relevant pages on my watchlist).  While briefly perusing his contributions page (as I have done with many other editors), I came across an edit on Smelly socks, and the title of the article was so ludicrous that I was compelled to look at the article to see if it was a hoax.  Upon reading the article and looking at sources, I nominated the article for deletion (using Twinkle), and up until that point I didn't even realize that Colonel Warden was the original creator of the article until the Twinkle window said "Notifying original contributor: Colonel Warden".
 * I assure you that, while I did find this article on his contributions page, there is no stalking or hounding going on here, and I truly had no idea that Colonel Warden was the original contributor to this article until after the nomination was completed. If I had known, it probably wouldn't have stopped me from nominating it anyway.  This is not a frivolous nomination made with the intention to piss someone off.  The article is clearly very questionable, and had anyone else nominated it there would be no question of the validity of the nomination.  Even if this article doesn't end up getting merged or deleted, it is still clearly an appropriate nomination of a debatably trivial subject.
 * Now, can we actually discuss the article as opposed to the conditions under which it was nominated?   Snotty Wong   converse 00:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing the air, if you will. The merits only here on out!--Milowent (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Colonel Warden has been a major contributor to this article. --Bxj (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no COI as I've had my socks checked and an independent nose has confirmed that they are not smelly. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I would have thought a merge to subsections of sock and foot odour were best. I'm not convinced it is a search term on its own. Can we get some data on wiki search terms? Casliber (talk ·' contribs) 01:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep There is a large industry dedicated to smelly socks. I added some references and information to the article.  Smelly socks are in the news quite often, there plenty of coverage out there.    D r e a m Focus  02:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The way these sources are cobbled together is a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS, a policy. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia synthesis requires that a new position be synthesized that is not in the original material. Adding information from diverse sources into an article is just called research. If we didn't synthesize an article from facts here and there we wouldn't be creating an encyclopedia, we would be cutting and pasting from other encyclopedias. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I list a news mention of a product to eliminate smelling socks, showing that there is an industry for that. Other odor eater products could easily be found as well.  I link to the special locker they use to store the smelly socks of prisoners in one area.  I link to news articles about using smelly socks to keep deer away.  Of an actor's smelly socks, as reported in the news article linked to, being sold.  I started a popular culture section to list examples of smelly socks in the media, it a common enough comedy theme.  Which bit are you referring to a synthesis violation?   D r e a m Focus  03:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, you have added even more trivia to this article. And now we've added the tell-tale In Popular Culture section which infects almost all trivial articles.  I think your edits actually give more weight to a delete/merge argument.    Snotty Wong   yak 03:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, odor eaters are for smelly shoes, not socks.   Snotty Wong   express 03:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean the name brand Odor Eater, but instead anything that ate/destroyed the odor. And there are enough valid news articles about "smelly socks" to warrant an article.  Hopefully people are mature enough not to try to delete something simply because they don't want one section of it.  Of course many seem to be trying to delete this simply because they don't like the topic of smelly socks.  The topic receives ample coverage, so there is no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't have an article about it.   D r e a m Focus  03:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with you that this is a real, interesting and important subject. But the subject is called "foot odor" more than anything else. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The WP:POPCULTURE thing you link to is an essay, written by people expressing their opinions on something they don't like. It has no bearing on anything.  D r e a m Focus  03:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In other words, it criticises something you love and is therefore evil, irrelevant and wrong. Reyk  YO!  03:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you know the difference between essays, guidelines, and policy? Anyone can write an essay, saying whatever they feel like, and someone can write one that says the opposite.  If enough people support something, it becomes a guideline.  Anyway, its a real thing, getting plenty of coverage to prove that.  That's all that matters.   D r e a m Focus  00:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge to Foot odor. As it stands, this article is disjointed, rambling trivia. Reyk  YO!  03:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for Rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.   Snotty Wong   verbalize 05:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * CLARIFY: The article under discussion here was tagged for Rescue by User:Dream Focus in seeking assistance with its improvement.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge any relevant content to foot odor. Keeping this article would open the door to all varieties of "smelly" clothing. Gobonobo  T C 05:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But only if they have received significant coverage in independent sources.--Milowent (talk) 12:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge relevant content to foot odor. This article seems to be an indiscriminate collection of trivia related to the subject rather than an encyclopedia article. –Grondemar 05:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge and relevant content to foot odor. Not only is the article trivial and silly, but this discussion is trivial and silly as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.204.187.222 (talk) 07:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand, foot odor is related, but not identical. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have a secondary source that explicitly states this? Abductive  (reasoning) 01:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per R., not identical. Many sources speak of sock odor as a distinct entity and don't always mention feet. (Prosthetic users have the problem too ).A couple other things that could be added to the article: the popular Type 2 diabetes med metformin has this smell and some people stop taking it ; dogs love smelly socks as most of us with dogs know, and self-medicate their separation anxiety with them, they're used in training , . Then you have the slew of results that comes up in Google scholar for sock odor study . Useful as mosquito bait Some papers evaluate the effectiveness of the sock material additives. For instance, Nanosilver-impregnated socks, while apparently well-received for this purpose, may have deleterious environmental effects. , page 5. But please change the name, it made me laugh in an un-encylopedic fashion. Novickas (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge/Delete why is this article here, its the shortest most unproffessional article I've ever seen, delete or merge it with foot odour--Lerdthenerd (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is far more proffessional than the loads of footballer articles i've been improving lately! Why is everyone racist against smelly socks!--Milowent (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge redundant to foot odor. Merge helps build consensus since even the delete comments mention merge as a reasonable outcome. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete this is ridiculous, and not a valid topic for an encyclopaedia (which is the point here). Per WP:NOT and WP:NOTE this should be deleted and redirected to foot odour. This is trivial and pathetic. Verbal chat  16:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What makes it not "valid"?  Why does one draw a value judgment against smelly socks?  Do only children recognize their intriguing nature?  The articles cited show otherwise.--Milowent (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What is "ridicolous" is claiming WP:NOTE is a valid deletion argument in an article that has multiple reliable sources about its topic, and therefore passes WP:GNG without any problem. Your comment amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:UNENCYC, apparently.-- Cycl o pia talk  16:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * See Dethlock99's comment below. There are no WP:RS that show this concept meets WP:NOTE, just a lot of stuff and nonsense dressed to make it look notable. There is no "I don't like it" here, just an inherently stupid article which deserves deletion. Verbal chat  12:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep / Merge : Funny article name, but it is indeed well reliably sourced (no WP:GNG concerns at all) and much better than I could imagine given the topic. I'd say a good merge with Foot odor could be in the long term the best option, but in the meantime the article has no reasons to be deleted. About the trivia concern, it simply seems a case of the nominator not liking some of the article content. -- Cycl o pia talk  16:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge A lot of this is true, however, 'Smelly socks' is not really a very good entry for an encyclopedia. The information belongs somewhere else. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge per several other user comments. VQuakr (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficiently reliably sourced such that any discussion of merging really falls into a normal editorial process. An argument that material is used in a SYNTH/OR manner is a de facto admission that there is enough material with which to write an article. As you can see by the above discussions, there's nuanced arguments here--not an AfD discussion, really, more like an RfC discussion. Merge, kept, edited... those are all variants on a "keep" outcome. Jclemens (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A discussion in which nobody has provided a source that elevates "smelly socks" above the more common "foot odor". A discussion where the term "foot odor" gets Google Books snippits such as "Foot odor is actually a combination of odors emanating from your shoe, foot, and sock," says Herbert Lapidus, Ph.D., ... And Dr. Lapidus knows his foot odor..." or "Judging by the number of patients I have who complain about their own foot odor, and if my patients can be considered a cross section of North ...", and "smelly socks" gets hits such as "Smelly Socks Toddler-style sachets can be made from infant socks." A discussion in which the members of the Article Rescue Squadron have all not-voted the same way. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ummmm, I, a card-carrying ARS member, have not voted to keep. But there are ENTIRE BOOKS dedicated to this subject!.--Milowent (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is also a children's book entitled Stinky Smelly Feet: A Love Story. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Umm, you actually haven't !voted at all, you've just made a series of silly comments. :P    Snotty Wong   express 21:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. The sources are more WP:BOMBARD and WP:MASK than WP:RS.  Dethlock99 (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BOMBARD and WP:MASK are personal essays and you don't even get them right. WP:BOMBARD is about repetitious sources saying the same thing which is not what we have here.  WP:MASK is about phoney sources but, again, that's not what we have here.  It better describes your !vote - an attempt to dress up a personal opinion by pretending that you're citing policy when all you have is fluff. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I thought his reference to WP:MASK in particular was quite relevant.    Snotty Wong   comment 22:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Bombardment is the placement of a large number of references in an article in hopes that this will prevent it from ever getting deleted." and "Or, the sources may not directly address the subject of the article, but instead give trivial details about it. An article could be interpreted as synthesis, a form of original research." Both from WP:BOMBARD That is why I think it is relevant. Dethlock99 (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia is not a system of laws. Deletion processes are discussions, not votes, and we encourage people to put forward their opinions. Sometimes, they will find an existing project page which sums up their reasoning already, and rather than reinventing the wheel they will link to it (with a suitable explanation of why it applies). If someone links to an essay or guideline, they are not suggesting "WP:EXAMPLE says we should do this", but rather "I believe we should do this, WP:EXAMPLE explains the reasons why"." and "Essays, in general, serve to summarize a position, opinion or argument. Frequently, this is done with reference to policies and guidelines, so to glibly brand them as "only an essay" may be misleading. Some may also consider it insulting, as it essentially suggests that their opinion (as well as those of the people who originally wrote the page) is invalid when it may not be. There are many reasons why some arguments presented at deletion debates are invalid, based around the substance of the argument or the logic employed in reaching it. "The page you linked to is an essay" is not one of them." from WP:ONLYESSAY  Dethlock99 (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:VAGUEWAVE which explains that it is not enough to point to some WP: canned argument but you have to explain how this is applicable. In the case of WP:BOMBARD, for example, one could use this in a hand-waving way to attack any article which happens to have a lots of sources, as if having lots of sources were a bad thing - obvious nonsense.  In the case of this article, I constructed it carefully, making sure that everything had a source.  Some sources are better than others but they all seem reliable and that's good enough for WP:V.  You have quite failed to provide any specifics which would provide a cogent argument for dismissing all of these sources when a good number of them are quite clearly about the main topic.  It seems that, because you can't attack the article for being unsourced, you attack it for having too many sources - a rhetorical Catch-22 or Morton's Fork which, being based upon a little used essay, just seems to be clutching at straws.  Shall I now write a little essay to summarise these thoughts and stick a WP:CLUTCH tag on it to make it seem more impressive?  This seems likely to be wasted effort because it will cut little ice with the closing admin who is usually looking for arguments based upon policy .Colonel Warden (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason to delete is WP:GNG because of WP:BOMBARD, WP:MASK, and WP:RS. I stated above the exact portion that I thought was relevant when you questioned the relevance of the essays.  I will make sure I include more explanation in my initial response to AFDs.  I thought the nominator discussed the trivia adequately and my response was meant accentuate his position by pointing to a policy and explanations.  Sources pointing to a collection of trivia used for notability and the adding of such sources once an article is up for AFD are the issues from essays.  The policies  are a combination of WP:RS and WP:GNG.  I could not find a source that I thought established WP:NOTABILITY.  What two do you think establish notability the best?  All I could find were sources that are tangential or trivial mentions.  I am sorry for not making my argument more clear initially.  Your argument above, however, seems to be a Straw man.  That is a fallacy that substitutes a similar yet weaker argument for the original.  My argument is based on policy and supported by essays, not based on essays alone.  Dethlock99 (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - from a card-carring ARS member. It is certainly odd, but that was never a reason to delete, nor to keep.  "Your mother sells smelly socks in hell!" goes the line from the Saturday Night Live parody of The Exorcist.  There is plenty of text and reliable sources, but also a bit of synthesis, rather than OR.  I am sure that the article can be expanded even more.  So it comes down to community consensus about whether we want to have an article on Eric Ely smelly socks. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ely would have been much more notable if he had smelly socks like this --Milowent (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Classic John Candy.   Snotty Wong   confess 21:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Bearian (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: This article is the last AfD left open from July 7 noms. Don't worry admin core, a no consensus close will not destroy the project. I've found from the BLP Rescue Project that we have many truly unsourced (though not contentious) BLPs out there that need our help more than this needs deletion.--Milowent (talk) 00:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect to Foot odor, or Delete. This is not an article so much as a list of trivia about the smell of socks; as shown by the fact that most of the references are not actually about 'smelly socks', but only mention them in passing. I'm not convinced this is a reasonable basis for an encyclopaedic article. Robofish (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is well written, well researched and provides a wealth  of valuable insight into this important social phenomena.--Modelmotion (talk) 04:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. It was a nice little joke but it's had its moment. Ultimately this is pure trivia and the subject is covered properly at Foot odor. A trout to CW for carrying on the joke too far. I42 (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge any usable content to Foot odor, since the smell of the sock is not independent of the foot odor. First Light (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to foot odor, perhaps creating an independent section about "smelly socks" (probably with a better title). Though I wouldn't mind if we kept it and added it to the list of weird articles.   Bramble  claw  x   17:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wash or its equivalent WP action, delete. Topic is totally unworthy of an article of its own, and cannot become anything other than a list of trivial mentions that belong elsewhere, not on wikipedia. Start a "dirty laundry" wiki on Wikia.  Horologium  (talk) 11:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Merely adding an adjective to a notable subject should not yield a new article. Lets avoid one sock two sock red sock blue sock and just make them all sub headings of sock where they belong. Bonewah (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I went to look at the article all prepared to toss it out, but to my surprise it is a well composed and informative article, well documented with Reliable Sources. That's what it's supposed to be about here - right? --MelanieN (talk) 03:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: being an odd topic or article is not reason for deletion. It currently appears to satisfy our GNG handily, so no notability concerns.  Sure, maybe it's the best article right now, but this encyclopedia isn't finished.  If someone doesn't like how the article reads, they're more than welcome to edit it themselves. Buddy431 (talk) 05:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Well written article on cultural topic which used to frequently feature in children's entertainment.  Easily notable per the existence of dedicated sources specifically about the subject.  No Synth  issues IMO as there dont seem to be any novel synthetic conclusions. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep article could use a bit of a cleansing, but that's no reason to throw it out.--Milowent (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with Bonewah, adding an adjective doesn't make it deserve a new article. Dare I say Smelly socks is a sock of sock.  My 76 Strat  23:56, 15 July 2010 (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.