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. Davewild (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mooseknuckle[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. References are humorously bad and only mention the subject in passing. The second one, Balderdash & Piffle, says that the term "allegedly" describes its subject; of the first five references, the others only use the term once and do not discuss it at all. (I got tired of checking the references after looking at those five.) I think that User:Freidnless lnoner is a vandalism only account engaging in sneaky vandalism as a bad joke, and should probably be stopped before he does too much damage. Sammy1339 (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The was a previous deletion discussion about a related term before I created the article, but I can't remember exactly which one. In the arguemnts, the main objection was that there was too little content. One commentator made suggestions. I used the comments on that discussion page to aid me in creating this page. One reason I think this article is important and possibly borderline vital is because our strict gender roles assume only women should have self-consciousness and inhibition about body-image issues. Contrary to this sexist and misandrist assumption, the reality is that this is an issue that affects men too. Plus considering that in this day and, with increasing single-mother households, and statistics that show that teachers in both secondary and primary institutions are primarily staffed by women and that western society is growingly indivodualistic, young men need all the info they can get on the societal peculiarities of clothing, even if it consists of slang, because some men lack male role models. Thats why the third section appears to mirror female objectification instances. There are many magazine outlets that provide columns on this subject thus making it an encyclopedic subject. I do not frequently read such magazines therefore can't add content on it, but on an open collaborative website such as this I am optimistic someone will eventually come along and contribute to this page. Another reason this article is so important is a single look at the "human appearance" category. Almost all the links as well as the links in the subcategories speak about women. Very rarely about men. Therefore if anything, if pages on the male appearance and other pages similar to this are created, it should be either lauded or expanded. Why would you delete articles on topics where wikipedia is severely lacking? The last thing that should be done is that a subject where we are lacking is gutted even more than it already is. Even if we were to assume that nobody cares about the balancing our-gender balance in coverage of "human appearance", the subject of what constitutes a wardrobe malfunction tends to vary in each society and is a topic that receives coverage on other wiki-pages, hence I assume is notable. In my opinion the above nomination was lazily thought out. Freidnless lnoner (talk) 05:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note, Freidnless lnoner is the author of the article. LaMona (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism. Checked some of the refs and some are just about bulges, others mention the term once. (Wikipedia does not exist to moderate the gender wars.) LaMona (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has long ago set a precedent where it attempts to shore up articles on content that is minimal. More recently this invovled recruiting female editors, to shire up female related content. It has also included shoring up content related to Africa, due to only a small minority of our editors being African. Why can't we expand the same logic we applied there here? The precedent exists doesn't it? Freidnless lnoner (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO, sources that use the term are not the same as sources about the term. Insufficient coverage about the term in reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG and elevate this from a subject worthy of a dictionary entry to a subject worthy of an encyclopedia article. Freidnless lnoner's argument to keep the article appears to be in good faith (as opposed to the nominator's suggestion of being a VoA), however it fails to take into consideration that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not the proper venue to solve societal gender issues. Under-representation of certain demographics of editors on Wikipedia may be a problem, but that does not relieve us of only publishing content that is notable and verifiable. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 18:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with regards to WP:NAD and more specifically WP:NEO. Most of the sources do not talk about the subject, and I don't think the term is yet in common enough use to merit its own article (distinguishing it from the rest of Category:Sexual slang. I agree with Nick that the article was probably made in good faith, but I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia. ~~As a side note, one of the two articles in the 'See also' section is Sex noise, which is not actually related to the article, but is another article Freidnless lnoner has written.~~ crh23 (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The previously linked article has now been deleted crh23 (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:DIC article fails WP:NEO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and WP:DIC clearly states 'Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon or usage guide." Brad Dyer (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was tagged on this because I was listed as the creator, but all I did was create a redirect to camel toe. --Bobak (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2015 (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.