Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smelly socks (3rd nomination)

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. A rename to a more encyclopedic title (Sock odor, perhaps?) may be warranted. BD2412 T 03:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smelly socks

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Frivolous, trivial, over complex article, with very niche content. Possible violations of WP:GNG and WP:Unencyclopedic subject. Very few sources are directly about content Groiglery1217 (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as absolutely frivolous, though it did get a laugh out of me. Maybe it can go on WP:DAFT. WPancake (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not think this belongs in an encyclopedia, however I see the effort it took to write and source. I hope that the author redirects this skill to cover relevant topics. Wm335td (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well-made and can stand on its own feet as notable and distinct enough to not warrant a merge to Sock Thepenguin9 (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Thepenguin9: I don't think that just because an article is well-made it deserves to stay. Under that logic, I could write a lengthy article about the school I went to when I was 8, and it wouldn't be deleted. Groiglery1217 (talk) 12:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see quite a few reliable sources in the article that are directly about the subject:
- Kent Mensah (21 June 2010), "Smelly socks to fight malaria", Africa News
- Chamila J. Denawaka, Ian A. Fowlis, John R. Dean (18 March 2016), "Source, impact and removal of malodour from soiled clothing", Journal of Chromatography A, 1438: 216–225,
- Active Interest Media, Inc (Sep 1998), "Toxic Sock Syndrome", Backpacker, 26 (171): 24
- "A New Solution Found for Dirty Sock Syndrome". The Air Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration NEWS. Retrieved 2010-07-09.
- "New Invention Creates Odor-Free Socks, Infection-Fighting Scrubs". University of California. 2000-10-03.
- Moskvitch, Katia (July 7, 2011). "New solution can help 'permanently get rid of germs': A new anti-microbial treatment that can make clothing - including smelly socks - permanently germ-free has been developed by US scientists". BBC News. BBC. Retrieved July 7, 2011.
- Dixon, Robyn (August 14, 2011). "Smelly socks could help curb malaria". Los Angeles Times.

It's a subject that sounds funny, but things that sound funny can be notable too. I think there's enough here to demonstrate notability. Concerns about the article being overly complex and trivial should be resolved by normal editing. -- Toughpigs (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- @Toughpigs: Yes, I agree that some things in the article are notable, but, I think it would be better just to split this article's information among multiple articles: ex, the stuff about fighting malaria could go in the Malaria article, etc. Groiglery1217 (talk) 12:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. but it might be sensible to changethe title ti something like "Sock odor" DGG ( talk ) 10:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, certainly enough properly sourced stuff here to make an article. I agree with DGG that a name change would probably be a good thing. And I want to know how (see article photo) how one can tell that the socks in the pic are smelly?TheLongTone (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the prvious AfD discussions, amend to Merger to foot odor>TheLongTone (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- As the nominator, I would be fine with a merge. Groiglery1217 (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a classic WP:ODD article. I would not oppose a move or merger, but the content and sources are acceptable for our encyclopedia. Bearian (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP There is ample coverage specifically about smelling socks such as what I added to the article the first tmie it went to AFD. [1] It still passes the general notability guidelines and is clearly a notable topic. Dream Focus 10:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many aspects to this topic but being "overly complex" is not a reason to delete. The aspect of combatting malaria is not trivial; it is quite significant as that disease kills over 400K people every year. The title of the article is fine per WP:COMMONNAME and, per WP:EUPHEMISM, we should not disguise this with a more pompous title – "Do not assume that plain language is inappropriate". Andrew🐉(talk) 11:33, 16 March 2020 (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.