Deletion of Camel toe (2nd nomination)

Comment: Enough realworld notability to meet 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Decide whether to substitute with a soft redirect to the Wiktionary entry by ordinary talk page discussion.  If there's a point to be made here, that point is that there is ''no need'' for an administrator to delete the page history of this article - apart from a lack of information, there's nothing to object to.  To the contrary, if that is done, it means that the original contributors who created the stuff I moved over to Wiktionary will no longer be properly credited.  Also, there are some bits and pieces of content which, while rather obvious, I didn't manage to stuff into the Wiktionary article as quotes.  Someone with experience in that project might be able to scrounge up something else to transfer over.  I started a discussion along this line at 's talk page, though it didn't sound like I was getting enough support last I looked - nonetheless, I feel my logic is right, especially for this example
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICT)

Comment: Meets  notability in that it has enough |reliable sources. We can find a subject to be silly, juvenile, offensive, disturbing, disgusting, puerile, idiotic, or have a thousand other negatives. That doesn't remove notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)