Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanker boot


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Tanker boot

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Long-unreferenced article about item of combat gear. The term appears not to be the official name of any item of clothing in any military in the world (at least not the is apparent from the web, anyway), but there are a number of commercial sellers of items with this name, including some that are clearly not the item described here. The only good looking ref I can see in the first dozen pages of google books is which I don't have access to the text of (there are many, many, many passing mentions of course). Most of the contributors to the page are IPs delivering what appears to be first-hard knowledge of footwear known by them by this name. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 02:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 02:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. It didn't take but a couple Google searches to confirm this really is the correct name for a particular type of boot, that the term is well-known (it even appears in literature, e.g., here) and does in fact refer to a boot with the characteristics described, including straps rather than laces.  I agree with the nom the article lacks sources but that is not a reason to delete if sources exist.  I saw enough to convince me they do.  Msnicki (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment That URL isn't showing me any text. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know why. It's a Google Books result and it works for me through Chrome, IE and FF.  It should display a page out of Surviving the Reich with the passage, "While I was sitting on the floor, savoring my meal, a tall German soldier came and stood next to me.  I stand six feet three inches, and he must have been about that height, too.  He placed his foot next to my tanker boot, and seeing that it was his size, he ordered me to remove my boots." (emphasis added)  Msnicki (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Uncle G/On common Google Books mistakes will tell you why. Uncle G (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's it. I wasn't giving a link to a Google search, which could be different for different people (because of the way Google localizes results and changes them over time), but rather, a link to a particular result, which hasn't changed.  That should be the same for everyone if they can read it at all.  I'm suspicious that a more likely explanation may be (given the lack of specifics of what Stuartyeates saw instead of the intended result) that Google may blocking some pages in some countries for copyright or other reasons.  (Stuartyeates, I notice you're very interested in topics related to New Zealand.  Do you live there?  I'm in the US.)  In support of that, I notice that while the link still works for me when I click it directly, it does not work through an anonymizer, instead displaying the message, "You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book."  Msnicki (talk) 16:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I just pointed you to a page that told you precisely that. Uncle G (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see that I missed your discussion of copyright issues, further down your page. The top part seems to focus more on search results being different, which is obviously not what's going on.  Perhaps you might consider making that point more clearly  earlier on.  Msnicki (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep There are now two good sources. I feel strongly that additional sources for this CAN BE found, eventually, which satisfies WP:V. The article is quite well written. The "Lore" section is obviously summarized from somewhere, but as so often happens, newbies do all that work of summary, but leave no citation (sigh). Ironically, had they copied it, we would have an easier time tracking down where it came from. That is one of the reasons I find copyvio deletions so irksome; the 'professionals' at WP only bother to delete stuff that they have the skill and sources to make additions with. Anarchangel (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → B  music  ian  02:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, crosses the bar for verifiability. Article definitely could use more sources. - Mailer Diablo 03:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs more sources, but it certainly exists, is verifiable, and shows up on the prohibited footwear list for Air Force ROTC cadets. Trivia, but may indicate notability. Intothatdarkness 17:18, 6 July 2012 (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.