Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Clear Heels - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Andy Dingley (talk | contribs) at 14:34, 11 November 2010 (Keep). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:34, 11 November 2010 by Andy Dingley (talk | contribs) (Keep)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Clear Heels

Clear Heels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article about, well, shoes with clear heels. Fails WP:GNG and many, many more. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep For those of you who try to delete something, please click the Google news and Google book search BEFORE you make a decision. Ample results for both appear. Dream Focus 15:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge into high heels. It's a notable aspect of high heels; however I'm not sure it merits a standalone article. Daniel Case (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article now passes notable, is sourced with significant sources, and has an original image. Clear heels are an important subset of high heeled footwear. Carolyn Baker III (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - The sources that have been used to prop up this piece of trollbait do not actually contain the facts they are alleged to cite. I replaced a few of them with citation needed tags, but my changes were reverted by Colonel Warden. I won't bother to fix it since this isn't worth any more of my time. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm with Delicious on this one. I just went over each and every one of the "sources" that the Keep proponents now claim show notability. Not a single one of them discuss the subject in significant detail. Heck, only two use the neologism "clear heels" at all, although another uses the words "clear" and "heel" separately. I also strongly suspect bad faith to be at play. Let's go over the sources one by one.
1) The Insider web article cited is about shoes, yes. Clear heels are not depicted (and are only mentioned the once) in it.
2) The Fort Wayne News-Sentinel article which inclusion infers it's about clear heels isn't; there is no mention there.
3) The third item attributed to Tracy Hoskins is a blog entry about dressing generally that has the single sentence "And if you have a pair of clear heels, save them for “play” time at home."
4) The fourth entry is another blog that does not mention "clear heels" at all. It does have a single sentence referencing "perspex-heeled shoes featuring neon lights or filled with roses, glitter and pearls."
5) The Laughing Mad book has a single parenthetical expression "to don part of the stripper's new uniform - clear heels" in a nearly 300-page book.
6) The Detroit News article is not about clear heels either; it's about the running back John Fuqua, and I'll pop into the BPL tomorrow to see whether it says at all what the editor claims it does.
7) The Prince article (oddly attributed to the UK Sun, when in fact it's the Baltimore Sun) doesn't say what is claimed here.
This is a heap of BS and chaff thrown up to distract us. The GNG holds that ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content." What in the hell, did the editors frantically trying to save this article hope no one would bother to check these "sources?"  RGTraynor  03:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Clear heels are clearly mentioned and depicted in The Insider article. As there seems to be something wrong with your browser or vision, we need waste no further time on the rest of your complaints. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. The Insider article has two references to different types of shoes which have "clear" heels, and that's all. In neither case does the article discuss the heels themselves, or why it's important for those shoes to have clear heels - the only reference is in describing two unrelated types of shoe. OK, so it shows that clear heels exist, which is fine I guess, but it does absolutely nothing to show significant coverage of the subject. That source does absolutely nothing to support the statement it references in this article. The other sources are similarly flawed, as RGTraynor indicates - the articles do confirm that something known as "clear heels" exists, but none do the slightest bit of work in describing what clear heels are, exactly, and why they are notable or significant. There may be a useful redirect target here, but what target that should be is unclear; something for the closing admin to bear in mind, I guess. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 13:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The Insider source does more than indicate that clear heels exist. It makes the point that they are associated with "strip joints and bedrooms" and so are unsuitable for wear elsewhere. Other sources make similar points and so the matter seems well documented. Other sources provide other information and so the topic develops in accordance with our usual practise. Note that the article is still fresh and it does not seem that you or other editors have done the work which is required by our notability guideline: "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article.". All you seem to be doing is throwing inaccurate abuse at the work done so far. What we have here is just the start, not the last word on the topic. I found another good source in a brief search this morning and my general impression is that there's more to find. In such cases, our editing policy clearly indicates that we should retain the article for further work. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Reply: I am unsurprised that you cut off your quote there before reaching the sentence "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." The article's notability has been challenged, and I hope that the closing admin looks at these so-called "sources" before making a decision. Not a single one of them discusses the subject in much of any detail at all, let alone "significant detail," and our usual practice is to delete all such articles. I'm frankly wondering what Colonel Warden's agenda is here in hotly defending an article with such threadbare sources.  RGTraynor  14:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The passage you quote is not relevant because this is a new article which is not yet a week old. It is our clear editing policy to nurture such weak starts rather than to delete them. The list of sources is not yet complete and I have now turned up quite a good one: Walter E. Cohn (1969), "The Transparent Shoe", Modern footwear materials & processes: a topical guide to footwear technology, Fairchild Publications. This definitely discusses the topic in significant detail, discussing the technology and styling of such heels, and so our policy of giving topics the benefit of the doubt is vindicated. As for my agenda, I was asked politely if I would help rescue this article. I like to respond positively to such approaches and, if a job is worth doing, it is worth doing well. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
And unsurprisingly the vast majority of keep votes come from users affiliated with the "Rescue Squadron". I wonder if that counts as some sort of canvassing? WikiuserNI (talk) 22:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The same can be said for "red heels" or "black heels" or any other relevant adjective plus "heels". That doesn't mean we need a separate article on them. In fact, "clear heels" only gets 34k Ghits, whereas "black heels" gets 367k and "red heels" gets 219k. According to that logic, Red heels and Black heels should exist before this article does. SnottyWong  19:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • If they get the same kind of coverage, then yes, they can have their own articles also. And it doesn't matter who got an article first. Whether something exist yet or not, has nothing to do with whether another article should exist. Dream Focus 03:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
What information would you merge? High-heeled footwear is long enough. Should each type of heel get three paragraphs? Do you mean replace article with a redirect and that it? Dream Focus 11:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Right now, the article consists of 3 short paragraphs of 2-4 short sentences each. I don't think that merging that material to High-heeled footwear (which really isn't that long) is going to be problematic. SnottyWong  19:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. Of the 4 types of heels mentioned in the "high heeled footwear" template, only stiletto heel seems to have enough information to be able to stand on its own (and since most of that is completely unreferenced, perhaps a closer inspection will trim it down to a size comparable to the other articles). So I see no problem with adding the notable information to High-heeled footwear and turning this one into a redirect. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:NOTPAPER There is no shortage of space on Misplaced Pages. If there are enough reliable sources for the article's subject, then there is no reason not to have its own article. Dream Focus 02:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, at best deserves a one line mention at High heels un der materials used or styles, not notable enough for its own article. Heiro 05:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge to high heels. Even if we've got sources saying that clear heels are popular, that doesn't mean they're notable. --- cymru lass ⁄(background check) 08:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not an encyclopedic topic. Not every google search deserves an article. In order to be suitable for an encyclopedia article, the subject has to have received sufficient notice in reliable sources as a coherent topic. Nothing about "clear heels" is distinguished enough from any other kind of heel in the sources. Quale (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep They clearly exist, there seems to be enough interest in them specifically to warrant a distinct article from high heels. In particular, high heels is mostly about the wearing of them, and the cultural implications of that style of dress. Clear heels (and if we wished, the cork wedges of the 1940s) are instead a topic for shoemakers on the history of fashion, materials and design. A niche interest certainly, but that's what we do he. Just from the polymer science aspect, I'm now fascinated by the manufacturing of clear heels and I'm wondering just how far back they date. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Categories: