Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bow tie wearers (5th 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 - a unanimous verdict, except for the nominator. A well sourced list with a reasonably clear inclusion criterion. Not a snowball's chance of a deletion consensus developing in the next 24 hours. Non-admin closure. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Completely trivial. Category:Lists of people by activity does not have any other articles related to an article of clothing (the only other possibility is List of drag queens, but that is a much more involved activity and the persons there are famous for that activity--Winston Churchill is not known for being someone who wore a bowtie.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep- Because Bowties. Are. Cool. Now that I've gotten the Doctor Who reference out of the way, the list is competently sourced. Criteria for inclusion is specific, and wearing a bowtie is considered a distinguishing characteristic for a person, thus allowing this to pass WP:LIST. It might be silly, but its a silly topic that gets attention in reliable sources, and being silly is not the same thing as being non-encyclopedic. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Response Several of the sources are just pictures on Wikimedia's servers--that's not proper sourcing. And many of the other sources simply depict the person in question with a bowtie rather than claiming that it's a defining feature of that person's public life. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Several of the sources being flawed is hardly a damning flaw in a list. There's currently 155 sources listed in the article, and the majority of them are independant and reliable sources. Remove the entries for which the sourcing are flawed, and we're still left with a viable, policy compliant list. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Rather than remove those sources, examine why they're linked as Wikipedia images, rather than from the original source. If you read the article that accompanied the original image, you'll find that the text makes reference to the wearer's habitual wearing, customary wearing, .... There are many notable folk who occasionally wear a bowtie that are not listed. You're welcome not to like the article; make specific complaints about specific references or list members, and we'll address (and almost always fix) them, or remove them from the list. Destroying the entirety of the list because of a minor, remediable fault is unencyclopedic. htom (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't think anybody ever attained fame just for wearing a bow tie. However, there are people who are notable and who are commonly associated with wearing a bow tie (such as Paul Simon (politician)). Those are the people this article is supposed to be about, and I believe that the article is largely achieving that (as opposed to listing non-notable bow-tie wearers, or notable people who have worn bow ties only on limited occasions). This may be an unusual topic for an encyclopedia, but I don't think it's problematic to have this page here, particularly given that the sourcing is decent. (I have worked on this article in the past, but not since 2008.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The nomination is clearly false. For example, "Sir Winston Churchill has a well known penchant for bow ties" in the journal of the American Bar Association. Warden (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep A pointless list that is very well referenced and nicely wikified.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 00:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep An example of how a list article should be done—well-referenced, nicely laid out and structured. Of course Churchill and the other people on this list are not famous because they often wore bow-ties—it's not supposed to be a list of everyone on the planet who wears bow-ties—it's a manageable list of people famous for other more important reasons who are noted to frequently wear what is a fairly distinctive item of clothing. --Canley (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep for reasons I gave at AfDs 2, 3, and 4. --Orlady (talk) 03:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:BURO. It is a whimsical but well done article that helps make Wikipedia fun. Greg L (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep for its value to the pop-culture compendium. Encyclopedic value near zero, but that's not all that Wikipedia represents to users and we shouldn't forget that. But really, how can anyone take this list seriously if the extremely influential bow-tie wearer Louis Farakhan isn't included? Yikes. Carrite (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It would help if I spelled his name right... Carrite (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge: list could use some improvement and context. Comprehensiveness should not be a goal. But a fix should not resemble deletion. Gillicutties (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Bowtie? I guess that would be possible. Actually might be a good idea since the image of the bowtie is more important that its substance. Wolfview (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Long articles generally should not be merged to create longer articles. Bow tie is currently 11k long, with several images, and this article is 65k, with numerous images. Readers would not be well-served by merging them. --Orlady (talk) 02:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep By WP:Ignore all rules. Lists (like other topics) are not supposed to be originated here, by WP:No original research. I just voted to delete one on that basis. However, call me inconsistent, this one expands human understanding and does not violate WP:Living persons by defaming individuals. Rather it uplifts our spirits by celebrating them. Perhaps not quite enough to make me go buy a bowtie however. Wolfview (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Wow, what a fun article. I thought it was going to be silly, based on the title -- and it is. But this is both intellectually rigorous, and also the kind of thing that makes an encyclopedia a delight for readers. Wxidea (talk) 04:39, 11 July 2011 (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.