Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cocktail hat


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 03:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Cocktail hat

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:N big time. With only two references and a barely coherent text, this is not a necessary article.  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 06:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC) 06:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Nonsense article. Mathsci (talk) 12:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's a nonsense rationale. The article is clearly not nonsense, being both comprehensible English and verifiable against the sources cited.  Editors who are actually interested in this subject, which appears to be a widely recognized type of hat, can read the many sources that can be found on it, including newspaper articles covering a span of some sixty years.  (A quick Google News search turns up everything from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in October 1954 through the The Age in September 1953 to the San Jose Mercury News in June 1995.  A quick Google Books search turns up things such as a short pictorial in the January 1954 issue of Jet.) Uncle G (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Given what searching turns up: Neutralhomer, did you make any effort at all to look for sources? Because your nomination reads as if you didn't look anywhere at all beyond the three sources cited in the article.  Notability is governed by what sources exist, not by solely what sources are currently cited in a stub article.  It's incumbent upon everyone at AFD to put deletion policy into practice, and that includes looking for sources before nominating articles for deletion.  Your and Mathsci's widely-known personal conflicts with Childofmidnight (this article's creator) have no place at AFD, and I remind you of Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.  Not disrupting to make a point includes not nominating articles for deletion because of some personal vendetta.  AFD is not your battleground.  Uncle G (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Uncle G, don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. That's what you do in AFD. Joe Chill (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And you're pretty good at making AFD a battleground yourself. Joe Chill (talk) 02:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article seems to satisfy WP:N, barely by the references given and yet more obviously from the added info that Uncle G provided. On the other hand, I completely agree that AfD is not the place to attack a nominator; focus on why the article should be kept in your argument, not what the nominator's motivations might be. I do see why NeutralHomer might have nominated this for AfD because the article contains very little content and isn't heavy on the sources. On the other hand, Mathsci's comment about the article being "nonsense" is completely unjustified. --  At am a chat 17:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Eight minutes after being created? I think if you knew more about the history you wouldn't be so inclined to assume good faith when one editor chooses to slap another in the face. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Assumptions of good faith aren't required to fly in the face of plentiful evidence. The dispute between these three editors (and, in fairness, some others too) has come up on the Adminstrator's Noticeboard many times over the recent couple of months.  If you want to familiarize yourself with the soap opera, start with archives 548, 550, 555, and 556 of WP:AN/I.  If you do, you'll find it glaringly obvious that this is spill-over from that dispute.  Uncle G (talk) 04:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets the notability guideline. Plenty of sources available here and here.  The left orium  19:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Three good references and plenty more available if someone decides to expand the article. Clearly notable. Wish I'd known before that there was a template - useful, and in this case decisive. Eight minutes from creation to AfD nomination does seem a bit over-hasty. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * After making the above comment, I asked an expert. After a ten-minute dissertation I was assured that a lengthy and interesting article could be written on the subject, and that I should try searching for "Balenciaga Cocktail Hat", "Dior Cocktail Hat" and "Coco Chanel Cocktail Hat" to find some famous examples. What do I know? But I do know that the result of an image search on "Cocktail hat" proves notability immediately. Think this discussion is a waste of time. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  —  Lady  of  Shalott  03:09, 10 August 2009 (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.