Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crotch

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. No prejudice towards merging discussion or editorial discussions about scope. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crotch

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

This article is about the term crotch, not about crotches per se. Per WP:NOTDIC, Wikipedia articles are not normally about terms, particularly when one term covers multiple topics. That is the job of Wiktionary, which already has an entry for crotch. There is also little chance that this article can be expanded into something encyclopedic. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 18:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have begun expansion with some high quality sources. It will take someone better versed in art than I to do that section justice, and I'm sure there's an anatomical discussion to be made in this article. There is a real topic here. LadyofShalott 01:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 02:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 02:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 02:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I expect the anatomy is covered under more technical terms. I can see Crotch in art and Crotch in fashion working well. Johnbod (talk) 04:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I sure hope it's covered. And I anticipate it groin into a more comprehensive article. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this can be expanded beyond a dicdef. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Casliber. --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't scratch this crotch. The limited expansion already in evidence demonstrates this is an encyclopedic subject. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant discussion in multiple high level quality secondary sources of varying types. — Cirt (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With the recent developments made to the article, it seems that User:LadyofShalott sees this as an article about human crotches, and not crotches of, say, animals, trees, or clothing. If this is so, how would the crotch article differ from the groin one? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 04:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- While I was indeed focusing on human crotches, it would be fine if others wanted to add material about other sorts of crotches, although it might be better for that material (should someone write it) to be split up into separate articles. As for whether there's a distinction between what belongs in an article on human crotches versus human groins, I'm not sure. My searches were based upon the term crotch, not groin, but if someone saw fit to merge the articles, I'd be fine with that. LadyofShalott 04:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll see when someone finally claims those still-unclaimed bonus points. Next time that you see an article that says that the subject is a part of a plant, but that is an echo chamber of total ignorance on the matter, try seeing what botanists have to say on the topic. Uncle G (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2013 (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.