Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bow tie wearers (2nd 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. Mango juice talk 17:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

List of bow tie wearers
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article, originally nominated for deletion in January, is as it states - a list of famous people who wear bow ties. On first appearance the article is well sourced and has a large opening as to its point but upon reading the text it becomes apparent that this should be probably be part of the bow tie article and not part of this article as it relates to the effects that the bow tie goes under when worn by famous people.

Once this opening section is looked over the article is nothing more than its title, which is about as useful as a list of people who have pocket watches. This articles existance is based on its opening sections which shouldn't be in the article in the first place and serve only to give the impression this list should exist. –– Lid(Talk) 10:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. While it would be logical to merge this content into Bow tie, the resulting article would be too large, and the list would overwhelm the rest of the article content. List of bow tie wearers has a file size of 39,436 bytes, while Bow tie has a file size of 7,065 bytes. Combining the articles would merely create a new problem needing a new solution (and I predict that the first suggestion would to recreate List of bow tie wearers).
 * As for the title and concept, back when bow tie wearers were listed in the bow tie article, they were called "Men known for their bow ties." It is true that many of these people are "known for their bow ties" (actually, they are notable for other reasons, but are strongly associated with bow ties in the minds of many), but that title is problematic because it requires someone to make the difficult determination of whether a candidate for listing is actually "known" for bow ties.--Orlady (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment the length may be too large but that does not mean the information should be placed o a page it has nothing to do with simply for a place it needs to be. The information is the only thing keeping the list afloat and it shouldn't be there. –– Lid(Talk) 14:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. As soon as you delete this page, someone will start the list in the bowtie article, the list will grow, and then it will be moved over to something like this page. We've had this deletion discussion before, and will have it again and again. This is Wikipedia, not Minimalpedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OtterSmith (talk • contribs) 14:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The reasons provided for deletion are insubstantial. This article is one of the best I've seen on Wikipedia.  I am encouraged to try wearing a bow tie more often myself... Colonel Warden (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Madness. This is a fantastic list cum article and should (after some work perhaps) be a featured list. --Dhartung | Talk 21:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, The article section has no place on the list, and a fair bit of it does not relate to people who wear bow ties but bow ties in general that should be on the bow tie article. The actual list itself is the issue here, its existence is precipitated upon a false premise. –– Lid(Talk) 22:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - indiscriminate list of unrelated people. These people bear no relationship to one another beyond wearing bow ties. The wearing of bow ties may or may not be some sort of cultural signifier; if so, then it can be explored in the main article along with representative examples to illustrate the point. That an editor may or may not start listing more examples in the main article or generating a list is not a valid argument. We should not encourage the lamentable practice of maintaining garbage dump articles out of fear of cluttering the main article. Otto4711 (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment As you've already noted, they are related, and the trollish labeling of the article "garbage dump" is probably not the most persuasive argument you could make. htom (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, they are not related. Are you seriously suggesting that Dave Garroway, Louis Farrakhan and Donald Duck share an encyclopedic relationship based on neckwear? Otto4711 (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. People can be related in ways other than birth and marriage. Marines, Lutherans, architects, ... various flavors of Wikipedian editors, and bow tie wearers. htom (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The notion that wearing a bow tie creates the sort of encyclopedic relationship that is created by religion, profession or military service is ludicrous. Otto4711 (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As opposed to a list of Wikipedians by the number of edits? List_of_wikipedians_by_number_of_edits htom (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You can point to any list or article that you care to and my answer will be the same. The existence of the one does not serve to justify the existence of another. If you think that the Wikipedians by number of edits is unencyclopedic then feel free to nominate it for deletion and I'll weigh in with an opinion there. That opinion, just like that list, is irrelevant to the discussion of this list. Otto4711 (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - merge the article bit and a severely trimmed representative list into Bow tie, and maybe categorify the rest. David Mestel(Talk) 16:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for public notable figures, the characteristic clothing they use can be a common notable relationship. The world contains more types of important relationships than "religion, profession or military service" . There's a good deal more than that to life. DGG (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll ask again: what is the association between Dave Garroway, Louis Farrakhan and Donald Duck? What is the association between Stan Laurel, William Durden and Les Nessman? What is the relationship between Walter Gropius, Steve Jobs and Opus the Penguin? Is there any association beyond their often or even usually sporting a bow tie? No? If the only thing that links all of these people and fictional characters together is the wearing of a bow tie, then the association is loose and Wikipedia is not for lists or repositories of loosely associated people and fictional characters. No one on this list became notable because they wore bow ties. They became notable, and because they were notable and thus often written about, their ties were sometimes mentioned in sources about them. Not the basis for a list and no amount of fluffy quotes from puff pieces or jibber jabber from bow tie salesmen is suddenly going to change that. Otto4711 (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No one became notable because they were of a given religion, or profession, or military service either--and those were the examples given. That's not what justifies collecting in a list. I agree this doesnt hold for every possible form of clothing, but for many of these it was distinctive or commented on. DGG (talk) 04:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? No one ever became notable for being of a given religion? There hasn't ever been a single person notable for being in the military or in connection with their profession? Do you honestly believe that? Or are you just saying it because you think it bolsters your case? And I'm sorry, but the fact that one or even a bunch of the people on this list had their bow ties commented upon does not mean that they are associated with each other in any meaningful way. Lots of people have all sorts of things "commented on" in the course of a public career; that doesn't make a list of everyone who's gotten commented on for the same thing encyclopedic. Otto4711 (talk) 05:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Otto, you seem to be Begging the question. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I am asking the question, what is the association between the people on this list? If it's limited to "they wear bow ties" then the looseness of the association puts the list in violation of policy. Otto4711 (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I must confess that several times I've been in a social gathering and someone's come up to me and said something like "I remember you, you're x, the y who wears a bow tie" -- even if I wasn't wearing a bow tie at the time. Whether you're notable or not, a bow tie can help set and trigger peoples' memories of you. Were those in the list more noticed or more remembered because they were bow tie wearers? Perhaps. Is this because of the relative scarcity of bow ties in general life? Probably. You do a thing that sets you apart, and people remember you and your work more. This can -- not will -- lead to you being notable. htom (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't follow your point, things that trigger memories does not mean articles listing who possess them. A hypothetical I could think of would be "you're the guy with that tattoo", which would apply to many people who are known for tattoos. Does this mean we need a list of tattoo wearers? Unlike bow ties tattoo likely last until death and are a constant on the individual howeveer we do not because the connection is entirely irrelevant. Being notable in someones memory is not the same as being notable. Hypothetical "hey you're the guy with the pierced chin and eyebrow" may make you memorable butdoes not lend itself to a required list of people with pierced faces. –– Lid(Talk) 09:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The old saying is that you never get a second chance to make a first impression (I think that overstates, but second chances are very rare.) The list is not of people who were notable because of their bow ties, but notable for other reasons and who frequently (often enough to be noted) wear bow ties. Whether the notablity was because of, or in spite of, the bow tie wearing is not a factor in making the list. Were they promoted or accepted or hired or granted tenure or ... or fired because of the memory nudge provided by the bow tie? We don't know. We also don't know, for most of them, when in their career they started, or why; it may have been a family tradition, a practical thing, ..., they consider it to be an "I've made it!" badge.  They are notable, AND they wear bow ties. (If there was a list of notable people with pierced faces, I'd probably defend that, too; a list of otherwise non-notable people with pierced faces, probably not.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by OtterSmith (talk • contribs) 18:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)  I thought I signed this. htom (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You've just made the case against this list. The people on the list, as you acknowledge, are not notable because they wore bow ties. Their reasons for wearing bow ties are undetermined, possibly undeterminable. The wearing of a bow tie by any member of the list has no demonstrable connection to any other member's wearing a bow tie. It is listification based on coincidence of dress, on trivial intersection, on non-association. Otto4711 (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Listification? The reasons that anyone does something are rarely completely determinable, even if you ask them. The reasons that some one is a Lutheran, ..., a Marine, ..., an architect, ..., or a Wikipedian, are usually complex, and the consequences of those decisions affect how others may or may not see them (some decisions are essentially invisible (circumcision), and do not usually, as such, have such affects.) Wearing a bow tie, however, is a rather public and obvious statement, especially in the last fifty years or so. The list provides examples of bow tie wearers who have succeeded, demonstrating that "you'll never get promoted wearing a bow tie" is not always correct. I understand that you think it's trivial; I used to think that about a lot of things, until I ran into the amount of prejudice people had about the so-called "invisible handicaps". Non-association? You've never worn a bow tie other than with a tux, have you? Two of the most frequent comments to me by strangers when I'm wearing one is "Aha! Another bow tie wearer!" and "I wear them too, but today ...." htom (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You want the list in part to advocate a point of view about wearing bow ties, which is completely inappropriate. You're also taking this discussion far too personally because of your own experiences. Whether I've worn a bow tie never, only with a tux or every day of my life is not relevant. The point still remains that if the only association between the people on this list is an article of clothing then the association is too loose to serve as the basis for a Wikipedia article. Otto4711 (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to want the list removed because you think it's trivia and coincidence, and seem to refuse to hear that there could be anything else to it. Let me try to sign this one. htom (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am always willing to be persuaded but there's been nothing said in favor of keeping this list that's at all persuasive. Otto4711 (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. This discussion has been singularly uninformative so far. However, I think I discern that Otto4711's principal objection to this article is to the introductory content that focused on the use of famous bow-tie wearers to help sell bow ties.
 * I agree that commercial aspects of the list were over-emphasized, and I have made some changes to the article with the intent of diminishing the commercial focus. More changes could be made along those same lines.
 * IMO, the commercial discussion misrepresents the main focus of the list, which is on notable people who have (for one reason or another) made bow-tie wearing part of their public identity. It is remarkable how often a man who wears bow ties is described as using the bow tie as his "trademark" or "signature". When profiles of bow-tie wearers are written by third parties, if the bow tie is not identified as his "trademark", the bow tie is usually mentioned within the first 25 words. This is a list of notable people -- in all fields -- who are identified as bow-tie wearers. This article is not an endorsement of bow-tie wearing; more often than not, the sources cited and quotations used are derisive (or at least ironic) about these men's penchants for bow ties.
 * Off-topic: I find it ironic that Otto4711, who is an avowed fan of the Algonquin Round Table, does not grasp the value of this article. The real theme of this article is caricature, a genre (primarily in written form) that is very much associated with some members of the Algonquin Round Table. If Dorothy Parker were alive today, I can imagine her writing "Girls seldom make eyes at men wearing bow ties."
 * --Orlady (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you have discerned that my main objection to this article is to the introductory comments, then your powers of discernment are rather weak. My objections to this list, as I have stated time and again, are that it is an indiscriminate list capturing people and fictional characters who have no association with one another beyond happening to share similar taste in neckwear. "Likes bow ties" or "wears bow ties" or even "is known for wearing bow ties" does not create any meaningful association between the people on the list. These objections have never been addressed in any substantive manner, regardless of what Mrs Parker may or may not have written on the subject were she alive today. Otto4711 (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying the basis for your objections, Otto4711. You are saying that "wearing of bow ties" is a trivial association. Apparently you say this because you perceive the only association to be "similar taste in neckwear." You are entitled to your opinion, but the overwhelming emphasis of the sources cited and quoted in this article is on the bow tie as a major, deliberately chosen element of a man's identity or public image. How else to explain (for example) the university president who capitalizes on his reputation for a "trademark bow tie" by calling his travels around the state "Bow Tie Bus Tours"? Or how about the TV journalist who stopped wearing bow ties when he joined CBS because a network official told him that Charles Osgood was CBS' bow-tie-wearing personality and "We can't have two guys wearing bow ties"? Or how about the politicians who are nicknamed "Bow Tie" by their opponents and/or supporters? Or the fact that Harvard University has kept a collection of Walter Gropius' bow ties? This is an association that goes beyond mere "personal taste." Furthermore, unlike most associations based on a person's appearance (e.g., bald head, big nose, bushy eyebrows, nervous tics), the bow-tie-wearing association is totally voluntary, so there is no risk of defaming a living person by saying he is an "habitual bow-tie wearer." --Orlady (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If a person's bow tie-wearing is indeed commented upon in reliable sources, then by all means that information should be added to that individual's article if appropriate. The fact that one or even several people had their bow ties commented upon or saved by a university or whatever does not mean that every single person who wears bow ties a lot are associated with each other. The fact that some politician gets called "Bow Tie" doesn't create an encylopedic association with another bow tie wearer, even another one called "Bow Tie," any more than being named "Bob" means that we should have a List of people named Bob. That multiple people choose to make a similar fashion statement doesn't convey encyclopedic notability on them for that reason any more than a list of women who sport the same hairstyle or carry the same handbag. All sorts of fashion accessories are used by all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons but that doesn't mean we should have lists of people by fashion accessory. All of these points you're claiming about about the social implications of wearing a bow tie may or may not be valid. If there is encyclopedic information available on the cultural associations of the bow tie, then it should be at Bow tie and not in a catch-all list of people who wore a bow tie, any more than an encyclopedic treatment of Windsor knot or Four-in-hand knot means that we should have a list of people who use those knots to tie their ties. Otto4711 (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, this article is not about "every single person who wears bow ties a lot"; it is about notable people whose wearing of bow ties is a part of their public identity. You say "if there is encyclopedic information available on the cultural associations of the bow tie, then it should be at Bow tie"; however, as I stated in my initial "vote" above, if this content were merged into Bow tie, the resulting article would be too large, and the list would overwhelm the rest of the article content. --Orlady (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The list portion of it should not exist in any article because of its indiscriminate nature and its collection of otherwise-unassociated people. Otto4711 (talk) 19:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Absolutely pointless article which devalues Wikipedia's content. Ros0709 (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete what purpose does this list serve, you could equally have List of Fedora wearers. RMHED (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, although I am not a personal fan of bow ties or ties in general, the list features prose, images, an introduction, references, etc. to establish notability, verifiability, and to satisfy our various guidelines regarding lists. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep List might need some work, but that certainly doesn't merit deletion. --Strothra (talk) 04:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a good sourced list article. If it wasn't, then I would support deletion. Sometimes I think that Wikia should start a list wiki. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because something is sourced doesn't mean it's appropriate for Wikipedia. Otto4711 (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"Well-written" does not equal "encyclopedic." Neither does interesting. "Supported by research" does unless the topic of that research fails policy. An indiscriminate list of bow tie wearers fails policy. Otto4711 (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article is well-written, interesting and supported by research. Isn't that encyclopedic? WWGB (talk) 08:37, 27 November 2007 (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.