- 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. Michig (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Slingback (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No refs. No non-advertisement coverage online. Mr. Guye (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "About 11,100,000 results (0.62 seconds)" 11 million adverts would suggest some level of interest in these items, especially when Boxer shorts only gets 8.3 million. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- [1],[2],[3],[4]'[5], Some examples in liturature. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If you prefer news then:[6]'[7],[8],[9],[10]'[11]. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Please read WP:NEXIST - this nomination is a surprising slip-up from an experienced editor. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. That said, the nominator properly notes the total absence of references. Fiachra10003 (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately you're incorrect here. "No refs" definitely isn't a reason to nominate an article for deletion. Per WP:NEXIST, it's the sources that can be found through carrying out a WP:BEFORE search that matter. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - A staple style of shoe, widely worn and published in multiple sources. This should never have been nominated for deletion based on even the most cursory WP:BEFORE check. I would note that Fiachra is CORRECT to say that there is an absence of resources, especially as she wasn't saying it was a reason for nomination, just that it was something that needed pointing out. Mabalu (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Passes WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:49, 26 March 2017 (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.