Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue hair (3rd nomination)


 * 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. One two three... 04:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Blue hair
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

I'm boldly nominating this for deletion per WP:N. It's mostly filled with trivia, and I fail to see a reason why blue should be notable. This is "blue-fan-cruft". Think of green, purple, red, yellow, pink... and then of course lightgreen, may-green, neon-green, olive-green, middle-of-yellow-mix-green, fishbowl-green, turquoise-shade-green... The history-trivia are of words that someone translated as "blue," or some legends that say there were blue-haired people... And then we have the rant section about some kid being expelled for blue hair, of course... is this some typical thing that only happens to blue-haired people? Is this a "social stigma"? c'mon... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC) *
 * Keep It has coverage in both historical text, as well as modern. This is totally different than the previous article here by this name.  And we do have red hair already.  In fact, we have articles for Auburn hair, Black hair, Blond, Brown hair, Chestnut hair, and Red hair.  Gray hair however is just a redirect, strangely enough.  Such a massive industry to hide it, and coverage of what it represents should justify an article on it.   D r e a m Focus  03:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Err... excuse me... people are born blond, brown, red... Is anyone born blue? Will you support an endless list of stubs covering all possible artificial colors? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If it gets coverage, by all means.  D r e a m Focus  20:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment However, have other non-natural colors of hair been so prominently used throughout history as blue hair has? Silver  seren C 04:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's a basket of sentences. Not even a stub. Keep only if it's successfully  d. &lt;( User:Couch on his Head and Smiling (talk) )&gt; 04:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand basket of sentences to mean that it has a jerky style. But we don't have a policy which says that we should delete articles which are not written fluidly do we?  Otherwise, we'd be deleting 99% of our content.  Polishing the English style is the stuff of an FA review, not AFD.  But let me explain how this arises.  For a topic of this sort, I find that one has to write defensively, using multiple sources and summarising them in a staccato way so as to avoid complaints of plagiarism and OR.  One might call this the Joe Friday style in which one reports "just the facts".  If one instead writes in a more expansive and discursive style then the article is often brought here for being an essay.  That is an equally silly argument for deletion as our articles are supposed to be essays.  But at this stage of development it's best to focus on the facts and the sources.  The copyediting can come later.  Colonel Warden (talk) 07:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The "basket of sentences" quality goes beyond style to content -- to the fact that most of the sentences are unrelated to each other, except via the title. The article is simply a grab-bag of unconnected mentions (medical, figurative, artistic, fashionable, sociological) of "blue hair". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a basket of sentences, and I may be stealing that phrase in the future. It's really a meandering list of people and characters who have blue hair doing a poor job of trying to be an article. Until some cohesion and notability can be established, this needs to be deleted... yet again. AniMate  05:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Well sourced. Our own personal impressions that something sounds unlikely should not take precedence of the actual evidence.  Since I've come here, I've discovered a great many things in the world are notable  that I would never have thought so. That's what an encyclopedia  is for.    DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: If we have a red hair article then certainly we can have a blue hair article. --Monterey Bay (talk) 06:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Read the red hair article. It has info on genetic-origin theories, chemistry of pigments, as well as geographical mutations and distribution, prevalence in populations and phenotypes, and scientific discoveries on possible relations to pain-insensitivity and reception. None of that can be given for blue &mdash; unless you think that dying your hair blue or putting on a blue wig will alter your DNA, and will cause you to pass it on to your children by producing blue-haired babies. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: WP:IINFO indiscriminate collection of unrelated mentions of blue hair. No depth of coverage, and no sources drawing these isolated occurrences together into a common theme -- so no WP:Notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: AFAIK, no mammal has naturally occurring blue-pigmented hair. So comparisons between this article and ones on naturally occurring hair pigments are misleading. A more correct comparison would be to Hair coloring -- which gives blue hair only passing mention. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There are breeds of blue rabbits. You can see a nice picture of one on the cover of Rabbits as a new pet. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No. There are breeds of rabbit called "blue", but which are actually more of a grey (similar to the 'blue fox'). The "nice picture" in question appears to be an unrelated white breed with lighting giving it a slight bluish tint. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Nothing specifically special about blue hair. If this article is kept there should be ones about every other possible unnatural color, the list of which is endless. TomCat4680 (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "... the list of which is endless." Must you give people ideas? AniMate  15:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to Hair coloring. Non-natural hair colors are all properly discussed there.  There are no other articles for non-natural hair colors.  Snotty Wong   converse 18:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Well referenced from reliable sources and big enough for its own article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Since people are going to clearly ignore my comment above, i'm just going to vote. I agree that we do not need articles on every possible artificial hair color out there. However, as far as I know, no other artificial hair color is so documented throughout history and religion as blue hair is. It's use in various mythologies makes it a fairly notable hair color and one that I believe we should have an article on. Silver  seren C 22:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you possibly provide a source that discusses blue hair in depth. Trivial mentions do not an article make. AniMate  00:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This has two fairly long paragraphs about it, in terms of historicity. Silver  seren C 02:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What we in fact have is a source that spends at least as much time discussing the lack of corroboration of this practice, as the purported practice itself -- meaning that we cannot be sure that it existed in fact as well as in art. And it would appear to be you that has 'clearly ignored' my point above that we have "no sources drawing these isolated occurrences together into a common theme" and thus a "WP:IINFO indiscriminate collection of unrelated mentions of blue hair". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an indiscriminate collection of mentions. This has to be the worst. Some guy named Freddy writes a letter home during WWII and we're parading this out as some sort of reliable source. Pathetic.  AniMate  04:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: &  seem to turn up a similar level of scattered mentions to blue hair -- so I think it would be hard to make the claim that blue hair is in some way special. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, they have news hits, but that's to be expected. Considering that the vast majority of the sources used in this article are books, which are being used to show the historicity of blue hair, do green and pink have the same sort of historicity? Green hair would have some, i'm sure, since it's the other kind of hair color that is affected from mining, copper for green. But I don't think pink hair would come up with anything of historical importance. Silver  seren C 05:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "The historicity of blue hair"? Some Anglo-Saxon artwork (with explicitly no confirmation that this occurred in reality as well as in art), "some guy named Freddy writes a letter home during WWII", an ancient Greek figure of speech (presumably similar to the more modern "hair standing on its end" or "hair going white" in fear) & a scattering of artwork depicting mythical characters? None of this even establishes that anybody in history EVEN WORE BLUE HAIR. Ancient WP:IINFO is no more encyclopaedic than modern WP:IINFO. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You have clearly not been keeping up with the evolution of the article. This source that has already been added to the article proves that it was a practice by Anglo-Saxon women and even identifies what they used to get the blue color. Silver  seren C 06:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No it has not been 'proved'. See below. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I just want to point out that Novickas is doing an amazing job at sourcing the article. Silver  seren C 05:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: And I just want to point out that this article has about as much coherence as an article on People in history called Robert. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And it is good that you have an opinion. But it is clearly one that others disagree with. Silver  seren C 07:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * For people in history called Robert, see Robert. We have lots of articles like that and they seem well-established. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Colonel Warden: please do not insult my intelligence by pretending that you don't know the difference between an article and a disambiguation page. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per Silver and per sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has multiple good sources in which blue hair is part of the title such as Gods' blue hair in Homer and in eighteenth-dynasty Egypt. This demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that the topic is notable.  The nomination complains that the matter is trivial but provides no evidence to support this claim.  Blue hair, in fact, seems to be quite non-trivial because it is such an unnatural colour that it excites comment and is attributed to gods and other extraordinary people.  The appearance of blue hair in history and legend is good scholarly stuff while contemporary coverage is a matter of fashion which will be of interest to our neglected female readership.  There doesn't seem to be any policy-based case against the article - just variations on WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  Our editing policy is to keep such well-sourced and notable material and so it should not be deleted.  Colonel Warden (talk) 07:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Colonel Warden for that WP:BATTLEGROUND warcry. Thank you for violating WP:TALK & WP:AGF by misrepresenting the opinions stated here (WP:IINFO="doesn't seem to be any policy-based case" my arse!). Thank you for misrepresenting a scattering of unrelated mentions as "demonstrat[ing] beyond any reasonable doubt that the topic is notable." Thank you for your WP:OR interpretation of the meaning of blue hair. Thank you for demonstrating how spuriously-based your participation on AfDs all too frequently is. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Dude, WP:CIVIL, please. You're getting way too worked up about this. Silver  seren C 18:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:SPADE "d ud e". And there is nothing in the least bit "civil" about CW's unsubstantiated accusations and misrepresentations. It is high time somebody called him on his gross & pervasive misbehaviour. If the the CW-cheerleader-squad doesn't like this being pointed out, then the door is thataway. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: "It has been suggested that English men dyed their hair and beards blue with woad, on the evidence of the dark hair colour often used for hair in the Hexateuch; however the use of colour in Anglo-Saxon art is not realistic (see my remarks in the previous chapter, pp134-135) -- green is used effectively for hair in the Tapestry -- and there is no need to assume dye was used on the hair." -- Dress in Anglo-Saxon England By Gale R. Owen-Crocker. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable and reliably sourced. I wasn't previously aware of the cobalt phenomenon - thanks to whoever put that in. I don't think it would be appropriate to merge this into Hair coloring as that is more about hair colours chosen for cosmetic reasons. Nor do I think we should greatly concern ourselves with the number of artificial hair colours that might or might not require articles - each such article would need its own sources and can be argued on its own merits, after all there aren't that many major colours in total.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  17:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.  <span style="font:13px 'Copperplate Gothic Light';border:#AAAACC 1px inset;background-color:#DDE4C4;color=#225DC8">Snotty Wong   confess 20:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Also notice the result of all of the previous AfD's. <span style="font:13px 'Copperplate Gothic Light';border:#AAAACC 1px inset;background-color:#DDE4C4;color=#225DC8">Snotty Wong   confess 20:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've looked at both previous articles and their AFDs,(there have only been two). The first article was a redirect to Blue rinse as that was what the article was about. the second was about Blue Hair, but was basically a list of Blue haired characters. As you can see from the AFD discussions, both those articles were substantially different to this one.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  21:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - This incarnation of the article is encyclopaedic and reasonably well-sourced, sufficient to demonstrate notability of the topic. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep As an encyclopedic topic backed by reliable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 05:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per stunning improvements. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: not denying notability, can somebody tell me what makse blue hair notable, and green hair not-notable? :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * An article for green hair just hasn't been written yet. See Occupational, industrial, and environmental toxicology - it seems to be common when people swim in chlorinated water. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: Somewhat silly topic has sources.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r  18:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * 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.