Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let's trim our hair in accordance with the socialist lifestyle


 * 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, per WP:SNOW, WP:HEY. Editors interested in a merge or rename are invited to discuss the matter on the article talkpage. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh  22:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's trim our hair in accordance with the socialist lifestyle
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

After checking library resources, I have been unable to find any reliable sources outside of a brief burst of news coverage. A short outbreak of "Oh, how odd!" news coverage is insufficient to establish notability. There are not enough sources to craft a good article. The available sources permit us to do nothing more than create a rephrased news article about a one-time burst of coverage (which seems at odds with the principle of WP:IINFO). Vassyana (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - This was a state television show that apparently ran for 5 episodes (It later had additional episodes &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC) ) and promoted a not-very-well-founded idea that excessive hair growth hinders intelligence. The show was covered, even if briefly, in multiple reliable sources, which in my mind establishes notability.  This was not one event, this was a television show.  I do not feel that WP:IINFO applies in this case.  Criteria 1 to 4 don't apply.  Criterion 5 "News reports" talks about evaluating the historical significance of an event before creating an article.  All in all, I may not be articulating myself very well, but I think this show is notable enough for its own article, or at the very least inclusion in some sort of synthesis of propaganda in North Korea or similar. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you perhaps point us to the sources you mention? Skomorokh  21:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The subject had a very brief period of news coverage in early 2005. Vassyana (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are three media sources that specifically mention the article name. I'll see if I can find others. --Phenylalanine (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Vassyana and Phenylalanine beat me to it. Thanks! &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:INFO should not have been brought into this matter. PickingGold12 (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC) — PickingGold12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Neutral — I agree with LinguistAtLarge that even if this specific topic does not deserve its own article, it certainly can be discussed within a broader context in an ancillary article about North Korea. --Phenylalanine (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The two good sources discussing it as the main topic in length featured articles from RSs are enough. I see theargument as an attempt to apply oneevent to events. Obviously this is absurd. Nation network television series are notable. DGG (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The two existing sources are sufficient to support the article.  As a government campaign from 2004, this is not a story created by the news media.  Writing small articles like this based on existing reliable sources is to be encouraged.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources can be brought inline. Artw (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions.  —PC78 (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Definitely notable, deserves own article. Extreme limitations on freedom of the press in NK should be a factor in how many sources there are.  As it is, the western press is starting to get here  .  Flying  Toaster  01:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: I've made some changes, writing a bit on the background of "sartorial regulation" under the current leadership, wikifing, adding references, including inline. T L Miles (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Sad to say but my first impression is that deleteing this article borders on Western Cultural bias. It may have a title that needs work but, then again, it's the title that got me here. Notifiable, verified, reference...It is Worthy. Help edit the article and inform our customer.--Buster7 (talk) 04:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, a rename is a good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per SmokeyJoe above. Could be merged into a new article about Human rights in North Korea, but that's not a reason for deletion. It's certainly too large for merging into the existing HR in NK article. MuffledThud (talk) 07:33, 14 March 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.