Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Side Butt

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 delete and redirect to Buttocks. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Side Butt[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I thought initially if "side boob" had it's own page, this may be notable enough for it's own wp page. Then I clicked on "side boob" on the page and it was a redirect to "Cleavage." If side boob isn't relevant enough for it's own page, I don't think we can make the jump to side butt having its own page. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 00:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect with Buttocks. I don't find that this falls into the realm of notability on it's own but(t) it is an aspect/point of view for ones buttocks. - Pmedema (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 contribs 00:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect with Buttocks. Doesn't seem notable enough to warrant own separate article. bojo | talk 15:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing notable about this topic. People looking this up in an encyclopaedia are in the wrong place. MartinJones (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep, anyone who follows social trend in tabloids will notice that this is an increasing trend among celebrities. As such believe that since fashion trends are interesting we should cover it. Since the trend is also relatively recent I predict we will start seeing more high quality sources beginning to cover this as well as reliable publishers. We already several analogous articles such as Buttock cleavage. As a sidenote, even if sources do not use the term it would still be notable since we are currently living in a climate of increased controversy surround clothing and appropriate attire, plus the aticlecould also be expanded beyond the current focus on fashion towards a focus on the specific anatomy of that region, which currently lacks a corresponding article. As such, why would important social discourse (or for that matter missing anatomical pages) remain blank on the world largest encyclopedia? Wishhunniezulliej (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Gossip magazines/columns/tabloids are not reliable sources and so don't contribute to the subject's notability. That looks to be all we have here, along with a listicle on the Cosmo website. Fails WP:GNG/WP:NEO. I don't think there's enough to merge into buttocks, where it would be WP:UNDUE weight to include (i.e. there is a ton of reliable source coverage of the subject 'buttocks', and almost nothing about this). If it's not in that article, it doesn't make sense to redirect. Maybe it will be notable in the future, but it doesn't look to be now. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.