Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toe cleavage (2nd nomination)


 * 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; 02:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Toe cleavage
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is to help who wanted to nominate the article, but couldn't because IP addresses can't start new pages (i.e. the discussion page for AfD). Until the editor states his reasons here, interested people can find them on Talk:Toe cleavage. Aditya (talk • contribs) 23:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep No reason to delete is provided. The subject is obviously notable and the article is well-sourced.  Why should we wste time on an WP:IDONTLIKEIT from an editor who is too lazy to even register? Colonel Warden (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I dunno, to me this falls under WP:BITE. Reasons were given on the talk page by a registered user who promised an AFD for notability (but recommended a merger, which does not require AFD). It's a fair enough nomination. --Dhartung | Talk 08:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete In short, this is a definition of the phrase with two brief comments on it. WP is not a dictionary. I will expand upon this a bit more later as I am just about to sleep. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 00:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This debate is about the article, not the nominator. The sources provided include 1 newspaper article that makes only brief mention of toe cleaveage, and 2 blogs. Pretty low on the notability scale. Please don't bite the newcomer. Beeblbrox (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep sufficient sourcing. Best name for the article can be deiscussed on the talk page for it. DGG (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable through usage and promotion by known shoe designers. Sounds silly at first glance but is actually used quite seriously. --Dhartung | Talk 08:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge. The article is now extensively footnoted. It's too bad there isn't an article like Shoe design or Fashion shoe, since I think the topic is best as part of a larger article. But given the alternatives of deleting or keeping, it's clearly worth keeping. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes I think it's a goofy idea, but the article now has references coming from fashion designers, office etiquette, and the fetish community.  I don't think you could ask for more diverse sourcing. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * keep per Broughton and Squidfryer. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Like Cleavage (breasts), it hardly Non notable. Also third party sources establish its notability--NAHID 15:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Subject's article features much more than a defintion, and features serveral sources, and is therefore completely encyclopedic. – Dream out loud (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2008 (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.