Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Navel in popular culture

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. There is a rough consensus that the various base requirements for an article are met, with some other arguments not necessitating deletion. There is also a significant opinion that the article needs significant reworking to remove non-reliable sources and resolve NPOV issues, which I encourage those interested to do so. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Navel in popular culture[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Mostly OR and full of poorly sourced material. Not notable in the current state. WP:STARTOVER Carl Fredrik^talk 22:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Physiology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot see any one searching for this. Vorbee (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Hi Vorbee: Just FYI, the page has received 4,146 page views in the last thirty days as of this post. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is the likelihood of someone searching for an article (and/or evidence of popularity) a legitimate argument at AfD? I have not seen this before. --Theredproject (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I fail to see how this is military related, should be delisted. Kges1901 (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops read it as navy in popular culture. De listing. Edit: And I think I was perhaps thinking of naval. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename The navel in popular culture. I haven't read the whole article, but the parts I did gaze at looked okay to me, and there seem to be plenty of acceptable references. Barbara Eden's navel coverage, for example, is fairly well-known. Afd is not for cleanup. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Afd is a fully valid venue to WP:STARTOVER Carl Fredrik^talk 08:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Clarityfiend. I also note this is a particularly gendered topic, and encourage all !voters to consider their implicit biases. --Theredproject (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of acceptable sources. "Mostly OR" is a very odd opinion. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 05:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

T0mpr1c3 How is it an odd opinion? Carl Fredrik^talk 08:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Show me the OR. Where is it? Does it justify removing the entire article? T0mpr1c3 (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you want to WP:STARTOVER, deletion isn't necessary, as WP:STARTOVER implies that an article doesn't need to be deleted if this is an option. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 15:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- An article with 354 references is a very substantial one. The navel in popular culture would certainly be a better name. If it lacks NPOV, as one tag implies, that is a matter to be resolved by editing, not by deletion. WP:OR is usually about material with no citations, which might be the editor's invention. It might be complained that this is an essay, but I do not think that is a valid criticism. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2018 (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.