Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoes on a table

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. John254 00:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shoes on a table (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Sources are unreliable, notability in question. Proactive primrose (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC) — Proactive primrose (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep or merge somewhere. The superstition is real but it probably doesn't warrant a separate article. Barbara Mikkelson from Snopes.com says: "The oldest caution against placing shoes on the table in my copy of Opie and Tatum's "Dictionary of Superstitions" comes from 1869. "If you do so, there will certainly be a quarrel in the household.

Other entries echo this, or suggest a generalized attraction of bad luck." Whether the other variations currently mentioned in the article can be verified is uncertain for me. The sources are indeed unreliable - none of the people posting say where their info comes from. They should be removed until verified (or described as popular but unfounded belief. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is sourced, and more verifiable sources can easily be added [1] Mandsford (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Numerous sources in article, more listed by other editors. Edward321 (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, useful and has plenty of sources. Nominator is acting awfully troll-like. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really have to disagree wtih that statement. This was not a "destroy this article" nomination, but one that said the nominator didn't believe that the subject was notable, and that the sources were not reliable. Regarding the sources, I'd have to agree -- one was a list of superstitions associated with shoes, and the others were bulletin board postings on things like "Ask Yahoo" and "WikiAnswers" -- I don't fault the author for that, this being a first submission and the author was at least looking for sources. There are just better ones out there, such as in books. Regarding notability, I'm not convinced that this is worthy of its own article, but it seems notable enough. Eventually, I think it would be part of a larger article about shoe superstitions. We can and should challenge nominations, but let's try to assume good faith on the part of the nominator. Mandsford (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2008 (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.