Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High heel policy

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. Overall consensus relative to guidelines and policies is for the article to be retained. Of note is:

The article was significantly expanded after the AfD nomination (diff), and now provides an overview of the overall topic (diff), rather than being based largely upon the PricewaterhouseCoopers incident. The PricewaterhouseCoopers incident is only covered in one paragraph in the article at this time.
A delete !vote in the discussion cites WP:ONEEVENT as a rationale for deletion, but this guideline is based upon people notable for only one event, rather than events themselves. Also, the article is not based largely upon the PricewaterhouseCoopers incident at this time.
Several users have stated that the scope of the topic extends well beyond the recent incident coverage, which is also evidenced in the article at this time.
WP:ROUTINE has been cited in the discussion as a rationale for deletion based upon the recent incident coverage, but additional content and sources in the article cover many other aspects of the topic.
Discussion regarding the article's content and a potential merge can continue on its talk page, if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

High heel policy[edit]

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

This is a news article from a single event triggered by this. It's a top story on a slow news day and it's about one individual not complying with the "policy" (I use that term losely) of one company. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: (page creator's comment) Yeah, the topic is triggered by a single event but it's not restricted to that (Nicola Thorp's event and her petition). I mean you can find sources focusing on the very 'high heel' shoes as a dress code. (See [1], [2] and [3]). --Mhhossein (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stupid company policy that was quickly resolved by rescinding the policy once it was called out. Unless the UK bans corporate high heel requirements by law this is just a literal WP:ONEEVENT. Nate • (chatter) 05:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was a notable incident so, per WP:ATD, we should be considering merger with pages such as High-heeled_footwear#Contemporary_scene or Western dress codes rather than deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 08:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you explain how it meets WP's notability standards? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's notability standards are based upon the existence of sources. This topic is covered by numerous sources. Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having sources does not equate to being notable. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: On italian TV the public TG news reported the fact after the petition is going to be discussed in enlgand parliment. The event has international relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.246.24.159 (talk) 12:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because it was WP:ROUTINE coverage. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. WP:ROUTINE refers to repetitive news items such as the daily weather or weekly football matches. This incident was nothing of the kind. Andrew D. (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you're wrong. This is filler for a slow news day. Sad you can't see that. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See what? Lugnuts has presented no evidence to support his "slow news day" theory. My understanding is that this particular story broke on 10 May and has been building for a week, as politicians joined the campaign and the UK companies involved scrambled to change their policies. And, of course, we can take an even longer and broader view of the topic. For example, it is easy to find sources covering this issue from years ago. For example, see Smart Women, Stupid Shoes, and Cynical Employers: The Unlawfulness and Adverse Health Consequences of Sexually Discriminatory Workplace Footwear Requirements for Female Employees. That's from 1997 – nearly 20 years ago! Andrew D. (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - as you can't see it. It's not notable. Saying "there are sources" does not equate to notability. For example, thanks to you user page, Google images and some other sites, I can find plenty of links (shall we call them "sources") about you. Does that make you notable? No. Your logic is flawed at best and embarrassing at worst. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still no evidence for the "slow news day", eh? We should note that Lugnuts says himself that this was a "top story" and presents a link to a substantial article by BBC News. And if we check for fresh coverage, many days later, here's the Scottish Herald, reporting the First Minister's position: Sturgeon backs receptionist denied work due for refusing to wear heels. Andrew D. (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for your help, Davidson. You still don't get WP:NOTNEWS. Duh. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with dress code. Lugnuts is right, this is just WP:ROUTINE filler for a slow news day. Reyk _YO! 17:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

dress code article is very general and we can't merge such a specific article to that. We could of course do it, if there were a Dress code in UK. --Mhhossein (talk) 03:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although the recent incident in London has sparked media interest in this policy, it has actually been around for many years. Worth keeping and allowing editors to expand it with some historical background on the policy, pros/cons etc. It is also a slightly different topic to "dress code" as "dress code" covers issues for both men and women, but this is a particular issue for women. MurielMary (talk) 09:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was actually very common in the days (50s to 70s say) when stiletto heels were a mass thing, from damage/safety concerns. I have added stuff and references - the peak period of high heel panic was actually say mid-1950s to mid-60s. I'd urge those not around then to check out the article again. Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the kind of incident where one incident made a lot of headlines but is clearly part of a bubbling-under concern that goes back a long time. Sourcing looks pretty good. Blythwood (talk) 10:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with high-heeled footwear. "High heel policy" is not a notable enough concept to warrant a separate article. Kaldari (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This clearly started out as a non-notable news story and was beefed up to try to salvage its notability. As a result the article is a grab bag of "things that involve high heels." The fact that an article is a mess may not be grounds for deleting it, but in this case it shows that there is "no there there." AnthroMimus (talk) 05:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The news story alone is clearly notable by our standards – please see the WP:GNG. It broke on the 10 May, which is over a week ago now, and is still generating significant coverage. Here's a selection of fresh sources from the last day or so. The issue is going to be debated in Parliament and so it's too soon to say when and how this will conclude. Andrew D. (talk) 07:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew D. (talk) 07:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a valid argument for having an article about the incident, but this article isn't specifically about the incident. Rather it seems to be about any policy at all related to high heels, whether it requires them or prohibits them or just suggests they be avoided. Kaldari (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've got it! So? Johnbod (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it seems like the general consensus is that the Nicola Thorp incident is notable, but the rest of the content isn't. If this ends up being kept, it should probably be moved to a more specific title to focus on the Nicola Thorp incident. Kaldari (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is the consensus at all - especially as most earlier commenters were clearly unaware of a wider context. Johnbod (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The trend for the topic has been to generalise it rather than to focus on one case. There are many other cases and we're just getting started. For example, I read in the Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy about the case of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. And then there's Kiss My Foot – another high heels protest movement in 2001. It's good to pull this material together because our goal as an encyclopedia is to present information in a summary style. Andrew D. (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: After reading the arguments more carefully I think you're right. It seems many of the commentors completely ignored the actual scope of the article, but there's no reason to count that against the notability of the actual scope. Kaldari (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How did just Kaldari get into this conclusion? Mhhossein (talk) 12:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, if you look at the history you'lll see that it has expanded considerably during the debate (me and others) & their comments may have been reasonable given the article as it was at the points they saw it. But the closer needs to bear this in mind. Johnbod (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Andrew D. - there are a number of similar cases in this area (of requiring high heels to be worn) and it's extremely useful to have an encyclopedia article which brings them all together. MurielMary (talk) 09:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The issue's been around for a while - so ongoing coverage, not just news - and the article now reflects that. This 1997 piece by a law professor [4] talks about the history in the context of labor law and tabulates the heel requirements of US-based airlines at the time. This article's content could be summarized in the High heels article. I suggest that searches for coverage include high heels workplace, high heels labor law, and high heels OSHA. The last search, for instance, brought up a statement from this good secondary source: "...high heels do not meet the standards for health care facilities." [5]. Novickas (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2016 (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.