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. v/r - T P 20:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of music videos featuring barefoot females[edit]

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

Not notable (except maybe as a reference list for foot fetishists to find wanking material, which isn't really our mandate here), not properly sourced, not particularly maintainable. Yer basic WP:NOT violation, really. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per article talk page.Sjö (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary list. Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, guess it's a goner. Thought with this List of music videos with censored explicit content, mine would be alright. Delete away. Might as well go into my edit history to find more deletable stuff.Civic Cat (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you agree with the distinction or not, that list at least has the rationale that something specific and potentially notable, such as an airplay ban or a debate in real media over whether the video's content was acceptable or not, happened because of the video's content — and while the list does have sourcing problems as currently constructed, it is generally sourceable that the response to a particular video's controversial content was notable in some way. In many cases, you can find coverage in real media which talks about the ban or the controversy as a social or cultural phenomenon in its own right. Your list, however, serves only as a directory list of content that doesn't have any real verifiability in reliable sources as being a notable feature of music videos — its only discernible purpose is as a consultation guide for foot fetishists. Which is not to say that there's anything wrong with that (hell, I have a bit of a thing for feet myself, albeit men's rather than women's) — but Wikipedia just isn't the right place for it. Bearcat (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTEVERYTHING--this is a textbook non-encyclopedic cross categorization, because "barefoot females" is not a subset of "music videos" content that is either obviously distinct nor commented upon by reliable sources. Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fetish-related deletion discussions. Ma^t_chups 03:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as textbook WP:LISTCRUFT. Tavix | Talk 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As a random categorization of no navigational utility and no encyclopedic merit. Big words for Listcruft. Carrite (talk) 05:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And a Comedy Gold Barnstar for the nominator: "Not notable (except maybe as a reference list for foot fetishists to find wanking material, which isn't really our mandate here)..." Carrite (talk) 05:58, 23 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.