Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical Christian hairstyles


 * 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. The article does not fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE and the article is indeed encyclopedic and notable. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy  ( talk ) 07:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Historical Christian hairstyles

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

Unencyclopedic. This article could not ever possibly serve any useful purpose to anyone. Ever. It was prodded just after creation, citing WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and the author removed the prod. &mdash; Music  Maker  5376  02:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Apparently, this is taken, in part, from the public domain 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia. So, at least one encyclopedia thought it was a legitimate topic. Zagalejo^^^ 03:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep- it does seem like an odd topic but if the Catholic Encyclopedia people thought it was a legit topic, that's enough for me. Reyk  YO!  03:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and add a section about hairstyles of the 1970s. WillOakland (talk) 04:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Frankly, I really would never have believed that there was enough information out there to write even this much about historical Christian hairstyles. It only has one source, and I firmly believe that there isn't a chance in hell another one will be found. Perhaps merge with Christian clothing?  L'Aquatique [ review ] 04:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Historically, regulation of hairstyles was fairly important, and could denote all sorts of things (like social status) that would be unimaginable to citizens of a free society. Granted, this article doesn't make those differentiations except most loosely, but it might grow with time. I don't think this topic is that indiscriminate. RayAYang (talk) 05:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Reyk. Disagree it falls within WP:INDISCRIMINATE and that the fact that only one source is currently cited is grounds for deletion. --Matilda talk 05:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, definitely. In the modern world, Buddhists and Jews have unique hairstyles. Why is it surprising that religion should be associated with a hairstyle? - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Without references, a few statements and conclusions are questionable - ex: "... but the exceptions were considered ridiculous." Regarding the 1913 content, is such considered a reliable source for hair styles?  Probably not. DustyRain (talk) 08:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per RayAYang and Richard Cavell. It needs some work but that's no reasn for deletion. Dpmuk (talk) 11:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This article is very encyclopedic. May even be extremely useful to some. e.g. Director of a film checking to see if his films hair styles are period; to give an amateur the approximate date of an undated medieval portrait through the hair style, etc.... It is having a wealth of information like this that makes an encyclopedia useful. Yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems dull and non-notable to me, but it may very well be useful for someone looking for fashion styles. Encyclopedias should be diverse and I think this article suits a far too broad range of people to be deemed per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The article could use some facelifting, though. Admiral Norton (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. For more information, I'd suggest incorporating perspectives from the chapter "Influence of Politics and Religion on Hair and the Beard" from Mackay's Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.  There probably is a better title for this, but I'm drawing a blank trying to think of one. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Absurd nomination which offers no proper reason for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep with some reservations; I don't think the nomination is "absurd" but on balance I think the article could be considered of encyclopedic interest (though it'd obviously never make it into a paper encyclopedia). Could we work a mention of Timbuk3 into it one way or another? Nah, probably not. --Trovatore (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep- very amusing title, and of some interest Astrotrain (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Since I adapted this from the Catholic Encyclopedia, I'll just record my view that both the content and topic are encyclopedic. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - note, I've commented on the article talk page in the past as to why this should be kept. I'd still be interested in whether this article made it into the New Catholic Encyclopedia. As for ideas for titles - in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, the title was "Hair (in Christian Antiquity)", which in our title style could be Hairstyles in Christian Antiquity. Though the article's creator has extended the title to cover Christian hairstyles throughout history, but that wider coverage hasn't arrived yet, but hopefully it will one day. Carcharoth (talk) 13:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Interesting article. Since it is in the Catholic Encyclopedia, then it should also be in Wikipedia. It is encyclopedic. Lehoiberri (talk) 01:33, 14 July 2008 (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.