Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socks in sandals


 * 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 per WP:SNOW. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Socks in sandals

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

We regards this topic as highly biased. We tried to add our point of view but it was repeatedly deleted. So we think that this topic violates some basic principles of Wikipedia. ' In fact, this topic is wrongly formulated. Wearing socks in sandals is quite normal thing. So there is no reason there is a special topic about it. On the other hand "anti-sock-in-sandals" meme si something that requires an attention. And it is not a matter of fashion. It is a matter of irrational intolerance. So it is potentionally dangerous thing.Varenucha (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This article was incorrectly nominated. I have re-nominated it correctly and transcluded it to the log. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - this is a classic example of WP:POINTy behaviour: Nominator (as IP 88.146.137.45) twice tried to add info which was removed because it was sourced to Facebook (not reliable). They (referring to themselves as a group, for whatever reason) subsequently blanked the page, which was again reverted. They then created an account to bring it to AfD. I don't want to comment on the merits of this nomination (though I will if asked to), but I do want to point out the recent history here. Ansh666 19:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply to Comment - 1) Facebook was not there as a source but as a reference (just for the purpose that someone who reads the article might find it interesting that such a group exists). So deletion of edited content was classic example of "deleting without thinking". Someone sees "Facebook" and deletes content without actually reading it. 2) Funny thing about that "Facebook is not a reliable source" - recently I refered somewhere to Wikipedia and it was denied because "Wikipedia is not a reliable source". In my opinion this attitude leads to nowhere. 3) Nothing of the above makes any change to a fact the the "Socks in sandals" article is highly biased and of low value. Because, for instance, it is not true that "Wearing socks in sandals is considered rather unaesthetic in the Czech Republic" - I am quite informed because I happen to live in Czech Republic. The truth is that most people wear socks in sandals here. And only some influential group tries to make an issue from it. And this is why I think the article should be edited or deleted. It is really about intolerance and not about fashion. It is similar phenomena to jokes about blondes - somebody is trying to create a public opinion that some people are worse than others. And that is why we formed a group (yes, we are indeed a group). Because we promote freedom and tolerance. So "socks in sandals" have some symbolic meaning to us.Varenucha (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I know that you weren't using Facebook as a source, I was just noting that that was the reason it was removed. The problem is, that makes your statement completely unsourced and a prime example of original research, which is probably even worse. Ansh666 20:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, sometimes I see in Wikipedia articles a comment "citation needed" or similar. Which, as I understand it, is used in similar cases.
 * Also: I edited the paragraph about Czech republic "sourced" by one article in Czech language. So according to your policy you should delete at least this whole paragraph. Do you understand Czech? Are you Czech? If not - what would you do if I use some other articles in Czech language that supports what I wrote?Varenucha (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * By all means, go find another article (reliably-sourced, though). That's much preferred to deleting a bunch of content that isn't related to what you have an issue with. Ansh666 20:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It is related. I understand that one of the most important policy Wikipedia is based on is that it does not tolerate intolerance, discrimination etc. The article is wrote in such a way that it supports intolerance. It is not "politically correct", so to speak. What would think about article "Blondes" which would start like this: "In some parts of the world blondes are regarded as intelectually handicaped..." - would you say it is OK? So, when I am in do mood, I am going to edit the article again. I will rename it to "Anti Socks in Sandals meme" and remove the part "Wearing socks with sandals is a controversial fashion combination and cultural phenomenon that is discussed in various countries and cultures. It is sometimes considered a fashion faux pas." I will write someting like this instead: "Anti-sock-in-sandals meme" is a recent phenomena. Few years ago some people started to claim that wearing socks in sandals is a fashion faux pas..." And I hope it will stay that way.Varenucha (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It won't stay that way. I understand that you may feel strongly about this in the Czech Republic, but most editors on the English Wikipedia aren't Czech, and frankly as a Chinese-American I think this whole thing is quite silly. I appreciate you trying to improve this little project here, but understand that there are some things we can't change. It's out of your control, and frankly out of mine. Just try to stay out of trouble, okay? Thanks, Ansh666 21:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course it is silly. That is why I recommend that article for deletion. It is about silly subject and violates the principle of neutrality and objectivity. On the other hand intolerance IS NOT a silly subject. It is a serious problem. And intolerance regarding a silly subject might seem ridiculous but in some cases can lead to harassment, bullying etc. And than it is not ridiculous anymore. Therefore my effort here. Recommended reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Absolute_at_Large :)Varenucha (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources now provided in the article show that the combination of sandals and socks is a notable fashion topic. I have no opinion on anything else involved. Borock (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral - I don't want to say delete since it's probably notable, but right now it's basically a trivia/gossip section and little else. Ansh666 21:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep and improve a lot - not really a problem with this article (except that I think it's silly), so needs more work so I don't think it's quite as silly. Ansh666 04:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Well-referenced and I think it's an interesting concept. I don't see why this should be deleted. Reply to comment above: "right now it's basically a trivia/gossip section and little else" - that's to be expected from a new article. It should become better over time. Ginsuloft (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, notability demonstrated. And if we don't have this article ... how else are vacationing North Americans supposed to do more than just roll their eyes at the easiest indicator that their fellow tourists are indeed European? (To be fair, I didn't see much of this in either China or Hong Kong during our recent visit there for Wikimania 2013; however as it was rather hot (especially in Shanghai) I doubt any sensible person would have worn socks with sandals ... I sure didn't. Daniel Case (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notability demonstrated. This is certainly a style I have seen plenty of references for and commentary on in multiple sources, so it is definitely notable. Although it is a quite rough new article, I've seen many worse. One observation - should it not be Socks and sandals? Mabalu (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep Notability has been demonstrated and many reliable sources exist. Also, the overwhelming majority of responses are in favor of keeping, so it is extremely unlikely that this page will be deleted. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:GNG and seems to meet WP:NPOV—closely enough, anyway. — rybec   05:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The nominator explains clearly that he wants this deleted because his personal POV was rejected. See WP:SK, "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion". Warden (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and consider possible sanctions for the nominator. He has admitted to being the IP address which vandalized the article - and his page blanking is as clear an example of vandalism as one could find - and has proclaimed numerous times his/her lack of concern for and even opposition to site policies. MezzoMezzo (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That said, nominator is clearly Czech and from what I can tell doesn't understand more advanced English, let alone wiki-jargon. Any block would be for competence issues in this regard. Ansh666 21:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know, even with the competence issues, shouldn't the page blanking bring sanctions as well? (Not rhetorical - I really don't know for sure.) MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd say it was in good faith (however that works...), and besides, sanctions are supposed to be preventative and not punitive. I'm not an admin and not too well-versed in adminy things, but I'd say a warning is enough. Ansh666 08:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment by the article's creator I've tried to compile this page in a neutral way, with the help of reliable sources. I think the topic is notable but still remains in the sphere of "gossip" or "trivia". Therefore it was quite difficult to build up a coherent and informative page. I admit that the article isn't perfect, I was forced to work with information available in reliable and independent sources, and the information itself is rather incoherent - please check the sources. It should be noted that an attempt of organized effort to delete this article has been proposed on a Czech Facebook group promoting wearing sock in sandals: "I urge to all who can speak at least a little English to participate in the discussion. We should show the world that we mean it seriously!" (loosely translated comment by a Facebook user - our User:Varenucha ) @User:Varenucha: This is not how Wikipedia works, this project doesn't serve as a defence or advocacy of someone's personal opinions. Wikipedia should describe the world around us in a neutral manner. I'm sorry if it doesn't comply with your agenda. On a side note, this becomes really funny ... you wouldn't believe that, but I'm quite a fan of wearing socks in sandals. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:53, 19 August 2013 (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.