Talk:Substantial fascinator

Not Worthy of Its Own Article?
I think that in the term "substantial fascinator" "substantial" merely means "larger and more hat-like than the kind of small, frivolous fascinator that one might wear elsewhere or in the evening." In other words, since there is already an article for "fascinator," this article is pointless. The Ascot rules were merely pointing out the size and design of the sort of fascinator that would be considered appropriate for wear at Ascot.Lolliapaulina51 (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge and delete
merge it with the regular fascinator article and then delete this one, though I don't know how to do this, or if I'm even allowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.228.107 (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What about fascinators that were less fortunate?
I demand a separate article for insubstantial fascinators as opposed to substantial ones!