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. Keep arguments haven't effectively refuted the essential deletion argument that there aren't the sources to expand this beyonga dicdef and its already covered in wikt Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moose knuckle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Dictionary definition of a neologism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. see WP:NOTDICT; Wiktionary has it covered. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visible penis line. Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is the definition of a dictionary definition. tedder (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — tedder (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 200,000 plus google hits including news outlets. For sexist equality, see camel toe. μηδείς (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom and Tedder.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - AfD for "Cameltoe" successfully addressed the scope of an encylopedia entry versus that of a dictionary article for a term of dress. Google books sources? check. Scholarly sources? Ditto. News sources? Umm-humn.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my new !vote below.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• comment - Howev, w/concern this term's--"negative," I guess one could say? --connotation/tone: Don't know if deletion would really be tantamount to a net victory or defeat toward achieving the goals of, say, the fat acceptance movement. Still, it's interesting to speculate: would an AfD for a term like handbra, applied solely to photography of BBW's or to homoeroticism be more likely to pass or fail at a AfD, given the editors' predominantly heterosexual-male wp:BIASes?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears they kept Cameltoe soley because it's a widely used word, with mention in some mainstream newspapers. Nobody cited any sources that provided any encyclopedic content other than the definition. Misguided deletion decisions like that make me wonder if they don't just need to decide that Wikipedia is both a dictionary and an encyclopedia. If we can get rid of Visible penis line and moose knuckle, I'd be happy to re-nominate cameltoe, in the hopes of getting away from these dictionary definitions and back on track. Same goes for handbra. On the other hand, trying to delete dictionary definitions of slang terms could easily turn into a full time job, considering how many editors like writing dictionary definitions. Why don't they just go to Wiktionary and define slang terms to their heart's content? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge (a re-!vote, from above; per wp:NEO) with cameltoe or a catch-all that would include somehow camel toe, although I don't know what that might be). The difference between an encylopedia and a mere lexicon is depth of coverage and grouping overlapping entries, I beleive, would help in this regard, if an appropriately descriptive term could be formed for it. (On this note, note the last graf at the guideline on neologisms):

  ... ... ...

  Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.

  Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles.

  In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.

  --Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete with exactly the same reasoning as my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visible penis line ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 07:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question is what sources are available, not how many are currently cited. There are many sources available. (In any case, the ones included are not all self-published, per your claim).--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for published sources, we've got Vanity Fair and Chuck Palahniuk, as well as a mixed drink recipe, making it kind of hard to claim this is just a dictionary entry. μηδείς (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Popular_Culture#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FMoose_knuckle μηδείς (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The WIktionary entry seems to do an adequate job, obviating the need for this stub. Got to spin a better yarn if this is to be kept. So far, it's just a few trivial mentions of this neologism. Failing deletion, we might find references to Kirk Douglas' chin before long. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, Ohconfucius, what can we do? I'm afraid that unlike "Handbra"--or even "Cameltoe"--the topic of, um, "Mooseknuckle" just doesn't inspire that much passion---.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Its obvious from even the discussion above there is sufficient material and references to write more than just a definition. DGG ( talk ) 16:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Please cite this material specifically. We need to see encyclopedic content about the term. Not just proof that the term is being used. That only proves existence. See, again, WP:NOTDICT. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The topic is probably legitimate and notable once it has been widened a bit to include phenomena such as codpiece, koteka, and possibly also tanga (clothing) and cameltoe. I am pretty sure this must be a notable topic with significant coverage including technical information for fashion designers. I just don't know how and where to look for it. As a first measure this article should probably be merged with visible penis line. Hans Adler 17:03, 14 June 2011 (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.