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. I see no substantial, policy-based reasons for deletion, and the consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the article. -- Atama頭 18:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Camel toe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Recently a more complete Wiktionary entry has been created for this term. Also, this article's deletion will pave the way for an article of arguably encyclopedic to be tentatively created on the subject of dress/fashion through the ages and profiling of the groin. (See guidelines wp:DICTIONARY, wp:NEO.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my above nom. Any content from current dictionary-type entry that might fit in another article or articles of course could be contributed there.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on grounds that is was dubiously nominated. Nominater has recently made various efforts to rename/move/merge the article to those that he saw as being more accurate. Once those were closed per snowball, he has nominated the article for deletion, citing Wiktionary. Suspicion is that once this article is deleted (should it come to that,) he will simply recreate it as his prefered version with the previously rejected names and content. Hence suspicion is that user is playing the game. a_man_alone (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my reference to guidelines, this AfD was dubiously nominated, according to an assumption of bad faith? How does the fact that !voted to delete the Moose knuckle article (to which you refer) fit into your solipsistic arugument?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; while the current content is largely dictionary content and should be transwikied, the concept of a camel toe is quite notable beyond merely the term used for it. We can and should have an article on the concept. Powers ^T 20:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If the sources only told us the definition of the term over and over, thousands of times according to Google, then we'd only have a dictionary definition. This is the case with a number of related genitalia-obsessed neologisms that have been acting out for unwarranted attention of late. But this article cites at least three [1][2][3] sources which both use the term camel toe and give more information and insight than the definition alone. The article should be improved by expanding content based on these sources, and deleting or de-emphasizing the Common circumstances and Camel toe vs. bulge sections. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep This is a POINTy nomination, as described by a_man_alone. The nom is sore because his recent articles about visible penis line and moose knuckle were deleted, and he'd like to take away everybody's marbles. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I at first agreed visible penis line should be deleted, then changed my mind and believed it a straightforward description of groin profiling in fashion. As for moose knuckle, I agreed that it should be deleted as nommed.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep nominator is losing a requested move (see Talk:Camel toe) so is nominating article for deletion instead. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 03:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge It is only a short article about which there is not a great deal to say. I think it could be incorporated/merged into the article Wardrobe malfunction Amandajm (talk) 09:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a different concept, about actually displaying body parts. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The term has actually made main-stream vocabulary (see songs written about it, and a product that is dedicated to prevent said problem). More than enough references to establish notability and article is more than a dicdef. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Enough realworld notability to meet WP:GNG. Lugnuts (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, WP:POINT. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Slang term; no encyclopedic content. Wikipedia is not the Urban Dictionary. The definition is at Wiktionary where it belongs. The illustrations are idiotic. Yeah, we get it: "I can see pussy lips through tight shorts!" Yeah, we get it: "Haw haw, those jokesters inserted a picture of a real camel's toe!" Wanna know why we have a problem attracting female editors?!? Gimme a fucking break. Puerile. Idiotic. No serious content extant or possible. I don't care if this is 27-to-1 in favor of Keep, there is no rational argument to be made for retaining this. Carrite (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]
• Keep Satisfies GNG, also, as Malik says above, I have concerns that the AfD may be WP:POINTy in nature. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 00:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Meets notability in that it has enough reliable sources. We can find a subject to be silly, juvenile, offensive, disturbing, disgusting, puerile, idiotic, or have a thousand other negatives. That doesn't remove notability. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which legendarily awesome "reliable sources" are you referring to? Might it be "Cameltoe Alert" in Salon.com? Or perhaps the exhaustive coverage of the encyclopedic concept in "Fashion Tip in Rap for Brooklyn Girls" in the New York Times which explains about a song lyric "Cameltoe is slang for a fashion faux pas caused by women wearing snug pants." WOW!!! That's a reliable source, the New York Times used the word once! How about "Anatomy of a Cameltoe, part 1" in that legendary independent, substantial, and reliable source, Fashion Incubator. Ooooo, they made it a two-parter. There ARE no reliable sources, this is a dictionary definition of a slang term with humorous photos. Closing administrator: This is not a vote. Decide this nomination on its merits. Carrite (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• keep this is elitist, deletionist stuff and nonsense, brought up only as moose knuckle is wrongly up for deletion. Both terms are subject to enough comment that a comprehensive encyclopedia entry is justified. Wikipedia is not finished and not paper. μηδείς (talk) 04:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Dictionary is UD:NOTFINISHED and UD:NOTPAPER either, which is where this belongs. Carrite (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This "point" contention is going over my head. For example, from the !vote on grounds of dubious nomination, "I don't understand your premise I'm sincerely here for clarity. You wrote: "Nominater has recently made various efforts to rename/move/merge the article to those that he saw as being more accurate. Once those were closed per snowball, he has nominated the article for deletion, citing Wiktionary. Suspicion is that once this article is deleted (should it come to that,) he will simply recreate it as his prefered version with the previously rejected names and content. Hence suspicion is that user is playing the game"--isn't Wikipedia an encycliopedia-"Wiki" that anybody can edit, each edit subject to the consensus of the community, with wp:BRD as always in play? What is the harm in my suggesting that a future article possibly cover the concept of groin profiling in fashion, per my nom? It seems the gist of these pointy arguments is a personal one: namely, are about "this editor (not this edit, this concept, etc.) that is bogus," then adding whatever arguments ad hoc, whose only rationally consistent theme is to oppose me personally. This is how it feels to me, anyway. Thanks.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems fairly clear to most editors here, but to summarize; You suggested changes to the article that were not accepted by the consensus, so have instead put it up for deletion, whereupon you will almost certainly attempt to once again reintroduce your prefered versions into any new pages created, as per your own comments at the top: "this article's deletion will pave the way for an article of arguably encyclopedic to be tentatively created on the subject of dress/fashion through the ages and profiling of the groin" a_man_alone (talk) 14:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got the "normal editing of Wikipedia" part, per you recitation of events (my wishing to have a narrow term deleted and a broader one used instead). What I don't get is the "disruption of Wikipedia" identified under wp:POINT part.

"A commonly used shortcut to this page is WP:POINT. However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it, which is the only type of behavior which should be considered "POINTY". It is worthwhile to study the above examples, to gain an understanding of this guideline's purpose."---Wikipedia:NOTPOINTY

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are wasting all of our time with this nomination - hence disruption. I'm done here. No further comments from me. a_man_alone (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my AfD. Indeed, if we can break the sort of frat boy wp:OWNership logjam, guidelines be damned, that occur at articles of this type (due the biases of such articles' habitués) and move encyclopedic coverage of this slang term to an article whose topic is (A) more NPOV in its connotations, if possible (2) more all-inclusive in its scope, through its encompassing, for example, more eras of fashion or even, I dare say, both genders (3) more inclined to be supported by scholarly sources--it would be a good thing, worthy of Wikipedia's ideals and goals. Yet, those who argue "POINT" reveal themselves (A) AGAINST openly debating such things (in order to subject them to a careful parsing of WP's guidelines and analysis of WP's ultimate mission and objectives)! (B) IN FAVOR of clogging up discussion pages with considerations of user conduct (when the guidelines clearly indicate the same is NOT to be done in discussion areas)!--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone intends to take action against you for disruption at this point, but I also think that you should heed the consensus that this campaign of yours is unhelpful to Wikipedia, and stop it. Andrewa (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Decide whether to substitute with a soft redirect to the Wiktionary entry by ordinary talk page discussion. If there's a point to be made here, that point is that there is no need for an administrator to delete the page history of this article - apart from a lack of information, there's nothing to object to. To the contrary, if that is done, it means that the original contributors who created the stuff I moved over to Wiktionary will no longer be properly credited. Also, there are some bits and pieces of content which, while rather obvious, I didn't manage to stuff into the Wiktionary article as quotes. Someone with experience in that project might be able to scrounge up something else to transfer over. I started a discussion along this line at WP:DICT's talk page, though it didn't sound like I was getting enough support last I looked - nonetheless, I feel my logic is right, especially for this example. Wnt (talk) 02:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It may not be the most important topic, but it's encyclopedic and this has now been repeatedly affirmed by rough consensus both here and at WP:RM, so strongly suggest giving it a break. Andrewa (talk) 07:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • See further comment to this effect above. Andrewa (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• With all due respect to your status as an admin, user:Andrewa, I simply believe that it plain and simple that bogus accusations of WP:POINT (namely, the characterization of my having filed the Camel toe AfD as an illicit campaign) OUGHT to be brought to the appropriate forum and sorted out, to avoid such false accusations from being bandied about as a bullying tactic to stifle debate--since, of course, by any reading at all of best wp:EDITing practices on Wikipedia, what most definately is helpful to the project is to debate various interpretations of the guidelines offered in good faith, as, of course, it is exactly just these types of debates that establlish what the current editing consensus on Wikipedia should be thought to be. Further, 'tis the vio of Assuming Good Faith and the clogging up of discussions with commentary about other editors that is not in line with WP's most basic policies.(I also posted on this question here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Why_is_it_OK_to_.22emptily.22_accuse_good_faith_AfD.27s_as.2C_quote.2C_pointy.2C_unquote.28.3F.3F.3F.3F.21.21.3F.3F.3F.29.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not acting as an admin here, and wouldn't regard it as proper to do so now, having cast a vote. I was just trying to give some advice, as any user can, and frankly I still think it good advice. See also User talk:Andrewa#With all due respect to your status as an admin, sir <smiles>. Andrewa (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - As a paraphrase of the old legal saw, "If the guidelines are on your side, lay out your argument according to a detailed examination of the guidelines; if the editing histories are on your side, lay out the applicable diffs; but if neither are on your side, confuse the matter by attacking your disputant's motives and character." I have absolutelly no idea where anyone got the impression I have posted more than one AfD and one RM on this topic. The record plainly shows, after another editor moved most of Camel toe to Wiktionary, in good faith I posted this present AfD--my first and only one ever on this topic--on June 18 and that prior to this Wikitionary entry having been expanded, I had suggested alternate rubrics for the slang term camel toe via an RM--likewise my one and only, ever--here: Talk:Camel_toe#Requested move. To draw an analogy from the essay wp:Don't revert due to "no consensus" [first paragraph of essay's lede]:

  "Sometimes editors will undo a change, justifying their revert merely by saying that there is 'no consensus' for the change, or by simply asking the original editor to 'first discuss'. Except possibly on pages that describe long-standing Wikipedia policy, this is not very helpful. After all, that you reverted the edit already shows that there is no consensus."' "[¶ ... ¶ ... ¶ ...]"

  --in this case, we have a wolfpack of editors alleging I am conducting some kind of campaign due to my personal preferences and therefore having been guilty of violating wp:POINT. If that makes for a so-called consensus, despite there being no detailed explanation backing up this claim, then such consensus is meaningless. That's why we have ANI. These points (pardon the pun) should have been hashed out there and not on the discussion pages themselves IMO.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Lugnuts (talk · contribs) ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 15:10, 24 June 2011 (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.