Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barefoot

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. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barefoot[edit]

I stumbled across this article whilst reading the perfectly respectable Elle Bishop article and personally I think the page in question is a useless article of non-notable, fetishist trivia. It should be deleted for its failure to comply with the notability guidelines and the vague creepiness that accompanies it. POV I know but I think a lot of editors will agree with me on the above statement. Maybe I'm a tad prejudice because I hate feet but I really don't think bare feet warrant an article at all. Who agrees? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 12:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. I fail to understand your logic, but maybe it's may fault. Tizio 12:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I share the nom's sentiments, but this is a topic of cultural importance and it really doesn't need to be deleted at all. JuJube (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep excellent article, well referenced, notability established the usual way. This is the kind of thing that makes Wikipedia a worthwhile resource, no reason to cut off our nose to spite our face. Wily D 16:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs some more sources here and there, but not outright deletion --Numyht (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~because this is important to us foot fetishists~~ because there are sources about this topic, it definitely doesn't seem like just a dicdef/trivia mix. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nonsensical nomination. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean, nonsensical nomination? The only nonsense here is the fact that anyone has the absence of mind to disagree with me. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is noted. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems encyclopedic enough, and goes well beyond a dicdef. --Michig (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Definately notable, well written, culturally important and not simply a definition.Theseeker4 (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This edit summary doesn't demonstrate very good faith on the part of the nom. JuJube (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but ... I was going to cite WP:DUH for this, but it's not a totally nonsensical nom. I thought for a minute and it almost falls under WP:NOTDICT. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 21:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ becomes Strong Keep per JuJube. Planninefromouterspace (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2008 (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.