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. This discussion has served its purpose — no one has maintained the notion to delete and the article has been greatly improved. — cj | talk 04:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round bottom shoe

[edit]

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

This article was brought to my attention by its creator, who requested, if I thought it was appropriate, a redirect to the article from a related one which had been repeatedly speedied and subsequently protected. On viewing the article, I found that it had been nominated for speedy deletion as a duplicate of the protected one. In light of its good faith creation, however, and with a quick comparison to the other article, I disagreed with the assessment and declined the speedy request. I submit the article for further consideration here, given its perhaps tenuous notability, though I offer no opinion as to whether it should be deleted or not. cj | talk 09:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For what it's worth, I as the creator am interested in seeing an article on the generic item stay. No wish to advertise for companies that sell these but simply put out detail about a style of shoe that's becoming increasingly apparent when you go outside and see people walking/exercising. Will change my vote if someone shows me a good reason.
As far as I can see it would satisfy WP:NOTABLE.? Donama (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that you started from the snake oil, the advertisements from the shoe manufacturers and the fashion world puff pieces in the newspapers. To the people to whom shoes are science, rather than marketing and fashion, the world is somewhat different. When I saw this article, I imediately reached for a book that I had, ISBN 0953762203, covering this. Bird (the author, who is a podiatrist) calls these things "rocker bottoms". And that is the name that you'll find used in podiatry and biomechanics, for many years now. There are plenty of scientific and medical sources to be found if you search for that (or "rocker bottom shoes"), rather than for hokey brand names. ISBN 9780323041454, for example, has a section on "outsole modifications" on pp. 158 et seq. which explains who it was that primarily advocated "rocker" and "roller" soles for many years, and what actual scientific study reveals (which is actually quite complex). ISBN 9780443068836 pp. 133 et seq. explains that there are numerous different types of "rocker" shoes, from "heel-to-toe rockers" through "toe-only rockers" and "double rockers" to "negative heel rockers", and again shows the actual science belying the one-size-fits-all marketing puffery. You'll find a similar typology in ISBN 9780080451077 pp. 217–218. Go to the actual science and medicine on this, rather than the trend-following newspaper articles and marketing puffery. It's quite a different world, you'll find. Uncle G (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - So is that a keep or delete proposal? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to rocker bottom shoe - "round bottom shoe" is virtually unknown to Google. I have also re-instated Masai Barefoot Technology as a redirect.

I've started the process of a move as you suggested. Donama (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current article is better than most in this area (compare Earth shoe and Dr Scholl). Just needs work in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2010 (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.