Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of celebrity hairdressers


 * 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 with a possible rename to List of hairdressers. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ  21™  03:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

List of celebrity hairdressers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete - Wikipedia is not a trivia repository and "hairdressers who have celebrity clients" is a pretty textbook definition of trivia. PROD was removed without comment. Buck Winston (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Qworty (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTADIRECTORY is irrelevant as that means that we don't have a Yellow Pages format with phone numbers, price lists and the like. It certainly does not mean that we don't have lists of famous people as we have many such lists. Warden (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is your idea of a "list of famous people"? Half of them are WP:RED!  Qworty (talk) 01:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Red links are especially useful in this case because they help us to create articles about neglected topics. For example, I have now started the article Champagne (coiffeur) who was so notable that a play was written about him and it is due to this that we have the word coiffeur.  Warden (talk) 07:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep See the Encyclopedia of Hair: A Cultural History for an example of encyclopedic coverage of famous hairdressers, from Antoine de Paris to Vidal Sassoon. The topic therefore passes WP:LISTN. Warden (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The other encyclopedia you mention is an example of WP:ALTERNATIVE. Just because information belongs somewhere else does not mean it belongs on Wikipedia. Qworty (talk) 01:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you point to one of the examples in WP:ALTERNATIVE that this book would fall under? This is leaving aside for the moment that WP:ALTERNATIVE is not an essay that attempts to define what sources are and are not reliable/acceptable (and is, further, merely an essay). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  05:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can. Read this: "In an effort to foster a spirit of WikiLove, this page provides some referrals to alternative outlets which do allow content that Wikipedia does not."  There is no such thing as a "celebrity hairdresser," since few, if any, hairdressers limit their clientele to "celebrities," itself a term that cannot be strictly defined.  Since the term "celebrity hairdresser" is meaningless, we obviously can't have an article about it.  True, there are similar articles on WP, but that's WP:OTHERCRAP.  Thus, since this "celebrity hairdresser" stuff is nothing more than errant nonsense that is used by self-important barbers in order to promote their barbershops--uhm, excuse me, "salons"--the information can easily be transferred to anyplace on the Internet that allows patent nonsense--and that would be just about anywhere, except of course here.  Thus, WP:ALTERNATIVE. Qworty (talk) 07:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your suggested WP:ALTERNATIVE is not appropriate because that encyclopedia has already been published and so is not open for contributions in the way that Wikipedia is. You could use the same argument against all topics on Wikipedia which have sources.  It's an argument for not having Wikipedia at all.  Warden (talk) 07:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Please don't WP:CANVASS on this AfD . Doing so goes against Wikipedia policies. Qworty (talk) 01:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Such posting is permissable if it is limited and neutral, as it was. The person in question may have a special interest for several reasons.  They have worked upon the article hairstyle, e.g. adding an image of a celebrity.  She is the CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation and so is herself something of a celebrity.  And she has campaigned about the way that women and female topics are neglected on Wikipedia. Warden (talk) 07:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, cuz this belongs in a category, not an article p  b  p  04:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The rules state there is no reason not to have both a list article and a category, and you should never destroy one because you believe another would be better.  D r e a m Focus  04:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you should, in this case. What constitutes a "celebrity hairdresser" versus a regular one? This list violates the premises needed to have a list on Wikipedia. And, if you think that the rules state that there are "no reason[s] not to have both", I think you'd better read them again p  b  p  05:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Dream Focus is correct - the relevant policy is WP:CLN which states that lists should not be deleted to prefer categories. Lists are superior in several ways &mdash; they enable citations to be supplied and may include red links, as in this case.  Red links are helpful in building the encyclopedia when the topic area is neglected, as here. Warden (talk) 07:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Many of those on the list have their own Wikipedia articles, they notable for being hairdressers with famous clients.  D r e a m Focus  04:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So? That doesn't make the category itself notable, and certainly not notable enough for an article. Richard Nixon, Danny Romero, and several other people with Wikipedia articles went to the same high school, so should Whittier High School (Whittier, California) people be an article? No! Notability is not inherited, and frankly, this "Keep" vote should be ignored due to not having any basis in policy whatsoever p  b  p  05:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Richard Nixon is not notable for having gone to a particular high school. The hairdressers in this list are notable for being hairdressers, and one source covering the list's topic as a group has already been supplied in this discussion. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  05:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If a group of things are notable for the same characteristic, it belong in a category p  b  p  05:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The rules clearly state WP:CLN you do not destroy a list just because you think it would be better as a category, that both list and categories for the same thing can exist without problems.  D r e a m Focus  13:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The nominator's argument is a bit glitchy given that "hairdressers who have celebrity clients" is not the stated definition of the list's scope. This is a list of "famous hairdressers" -- hairdressers who are themselves celebrated in their field, not "hairdressers who have celebrity clients." In any event, Warden has already referenced reliable coverage of the topic of this list taken as a group, which helps it pass muster with regard to the relevant notability guidelines. User:Qworty's rebuttal of Warden's source is unclear to me; that is, the manner in which Qworty puts it is such that his rebuttal could be applied to almost any source. And WP:ALTERNATIVE is an essay that offers suggestions for other places that an editor can submit content to when that content wouldn't be acceptable by Wikipedia standards. It's certainly not an essay that attempts to define the relative value of other types of sourcing (and interpreting WP:ALTERNATIVE to mean that we don't accept printed books with the word "encyclopedia" in the title is quite a stretch in any case). Regardless, WP:LISTN looks for reliable coverage of a list's topic as a group, and Warden has supplied that. That the coverage is itself an encyclopedia does not make it faulty coverage. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  05:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, thank you for twisting my words around into your own private knots. You could have just as easily admitted that what I was saying was way over your head.  I am arguing for deletion.  There is no such thing as a "celebrity hairdresser," because very few, if any, hairdressers limit their practice to celebrities, and there are plenty of hairdressers who have cut just one celebrity's hair just one time--this includes my own stylist, who once cut Bill Clinton's hair.  Since the article therefore does not belong on Wikipedia, I am arguing that The Encyclopedia of Hair: A Cultural History, a book that was mentioned by another editor, is in fact the perfect place for "information" such as this.  Thus, WP:ALTERNATIVE.  Do you get my point now?  Thank you. Qworty (talk) 06:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - When nominated the article looked like this and its text other than the list of names was "List of celebrity hairdressers is a list of hairdressers and hairstylists who work for celebrities." It was then changed to read "List of celebrity hairdressers is a list of famous hairdressers." before it became "This is a list of notable celebrity hairdressers. Hairdresser is a term referring to anyone whose occupation is to cut or style hair in order to change or maintain a person's image. This is achieved using a combination of hair coloring, haircutting, and hair texturing techniques. Most hairdressers are professionally licensed as either a barber or a cosmetologist." The list was conceived as a list of hairdressers with celebrity clients before the scope was changed without discussion.
 * I am not suggesting that the subject of celebrity as it relates to hairdressing is not notable. That doesn't mean that a list of famous hairdressers is any more encyclopedic than a list of hairdressers with famous clients. If the list is supposed to be for famous, which is to say notable, hairdressers, then the list becomes completely redundant to Category:Hairdressers and its subsidiaries. An article on the culture of celebrity hairdressing would be a welcome and encyclopedic addition to the project. A list of every famous hairdresser isn't. And making it a list of "celebrity" hairdressers makes the inclusion criteria hopelessly vague and subjective. Buck Winston (talk) 06:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The phrase celebrity hairdresser seems to be the common name. For example, I added a source which has a entire chapter devoted to the topic which is entitled The Rule of Celebrity Hairdressers.  If sources use such language then we should follow them rather than devising our own terminology. Warden (talk) 07:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying your nomination, Buck; I see that the rationale was certainly more applicable to an earlier version, and apologize for the oversight in my own argument. It doesn't change my overall conclusion, but certainly changes my former assessment of your rationale. As for Qworty, I don't appreciate your obnoxious suggestion that your argument "was way over my head," but that's beside the point. Your response to Warden's source seemed clearly an attempt to dismiss it, and you referenced WP:ALTERNATIVE in doing so. Put another way, you, having already determined that the article's subject doesn't exist (based on your own reasoning), are dismissing a source explicitly covering this supposedly non-existent subject simply because it represents the kind of source that covers non-existent subjects (or "patent nonsense"), I guess. That's something of a fait accompli, and is also based on interpreting the list as covering only hairdressers who have celebrity clients and not famous hairdressers, which is its current (and more defensible) scope. If I'm still not fully comprehending the dazzling complexity of your argument, I surely apologize for my insufficient intellect. Perhaps you can rephrase your argument in terms more more easily comprehended by those of us without your advanced Wiki-fu. Cheers, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  14:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Per Nom. As to subsequent arguments that this is a list of hairdressers who are THEMSELVES celebrities (would that matter?), the article content is clearly (partly at least) a list of hairdressers who dressed the hair of the famous (as per the nomination), making that point irrelevant. Celtechm (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * How is it irrelevant? AfD policy requires us to judge the article on how it might be improved, not to delete it because it's inconsistent. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete List is too indiscriminate. Every biography on Wikipedia is arguably a "famous" person and they each have a hair cutter! That's millions of possible entries. A list of famous hairstylists would be different story since it can be controlled through sourcing requirements, it's a discriminate list. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The list currently has just 11 entries. Talk of "millions" is therefore an absurd complaint. Warden (talk) 08:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Those 11 were mostly added by one person when the article was created two years ago. You may be right that no one really cares to add more will keep it in check. My concern is COI, it will only attract editors who want to add people they know and become a somewhat skewed and odd list. The list of potential is very high vs. how many are actually listed will be very small. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It only list those who get coverage in reliable sources for being hairdressers to famous people.  D r e a m Focus  13:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If the article is kept, suggest making the criteria for inclusion explicit in the article itself and set the bar somewhat high. Since the list is defined by having sources, it needs to say "this is a list of hairdressers that have sources". See for example the header at the top of this list. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've doubled the number of entries up to 22 now. All that's needed to keep the list under control is either a blue link or a reasonably respectable source.  Warden (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Move to list of hairdressers since we currently do not have a list of notable hairdressers, and the article introduction/rationale now refers to hairdressers in general not merely cutters of celebrity hair. It's reasonable to have a list of notable hairdressers that also includes any notable people whose hair they've cut. People arguing for deletion should read WP:CLN which clearly states that having a category is not reason to delete the list.  A list of hairdressers would easily pass WP:L and related policies, so there's no reason to delete this. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, could we stop making the gender gap on Wikipedia WORSE by deleting anything which might conceivably be of more interest to females than, say, the minutia of scores for every soccer team ever, or lists such as List of sports films etc.? Seriously, guys. Think this one through. This is of interest to others... just not to you. Those arguing that there is no such thing as celebrity hairdressers clearly don't know much about the topic. KillerChihuahua ?!? 09:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Why are you making the sexist assumption that females would intrinsicly be more interested in hairdressing than males? It appears that the list as it currently exists includes both male and female hairdressers and the person adding material is, as near as I can tell, male. "It's interesting" is not a reason for keeping material. Someone finds every article subject interesting; otherwise they wouldn't have been written in the first place. Buck Winston (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep this does seem to be an item which works better as a list than a category as there is necessary annotation, who their clients were, which would not work as category. I had though that it could be expanded to list of hairdressers per Colapeninsula but that would leed to problems of inclusion criteria.--Salix (talk): 09:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep but move to list of hairdressers; a distinction between film stylists and the rest would be useful, though there is some overlap. A chronological approach would also be preferable. Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't see a real problem here, perhaps it was not well explained in the nomination. The title appears a bit problematic with "celebrity hairdressers" in it. It seems to suggest that any hairdresser who worked on a celebrity should be in it. The content however seems adequate for a WP:SAL. It includes only hairdressers which are themselves notable (for their work, which may of course include that on celebrities). Tijfo098 (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the last few comments. I agree that "celebrity" is a problematic term, but plenty notable hairdressers do exist, so List of hairdressers would work on the same level as List of fashion designers and similar, with someone to maintain it and ensure that it was kept red-link free. Mabalu (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to list of hairdressers and expand to suit the broader topic. The current article title can be read two ways: list of celebrities who are hairdressers or list of hairdressers of celebrities. Either way, this is a subsection of a much more notable topic. I don't see the need for this to be separate from the main topic, and the notability of this minor topic is much more dubious than that of the parent topic.  Them From  Space  21:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Of the three choices presented: List of hairdressers who have cut a celebrity's hair; list of "celebrity hairdressers"; and "list of hairdressers", as the nominator the only one that makes sense is the last. If a list article is needed, one that encompasses all hairdressers without qualifying it based on the "celebrity" status of their clients or the "celebrity" status of the hairdressers themselves is the only one that makes any possible sense. I see no real need for a list of hairdressers but if we end up with a list of them, there we go. Buck Winston (talk) 05:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as valid navigational list of our WP articles on notable hairdressers per WP:LISTPURP, as a complement to Category:Hairdressers per WP:CLN. I think a rename is in order to drop the "celebrity" from the name simply because we don't state "notable" or "famous" in list titles even if their entries are limited only to those who merit articles. The confusion over whether the list is intended to be hairdressers who are celebrities or hairdressers who have celebrity clients is really beside the point given that a hairdresser who has celebrity clients likely got them because he is famous or became famous because of those clients, but ultimately restricting it to notable hairdressers only renders the distinction moot to the extent there is one. postdlf (talk) 05:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Postdlf (who posted my thought exactly). Satisfies WP:LISTPURP. The scope of the article should read so that it is limited to people who have their own Wikipedia articles and whose primary fame is associated with hairdresser. Not everyone listed in Category:Hairdressers will qualify to be listed in the article. The article should be renamed List of hairdressers as we usually keep "notable", "celebrity", "important", etc. out of article titles since the topic has to be notable to be in Wikipedia. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would the category have different inclusion criteria than the list? postdlf (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep For policy reasons (WP:LISTPURP etc.) already cited by other keep voters. Of course, I can see the point of the underlying rationale for this AfD: fashion and grooming is a trivial, not particularly intellectual topic, which ought to have no place at Wikipedia. It is for this reason we expend so much virtual ink on X-Files episodes, MMA/UFC fighters and Pokémon. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - seems relevant for Wikipedia. Also see the discussion on the gendergap mailing list. Shlomif (talk) 08:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to List of hairdressers, per Postdlf, Uzma, etc., as long as it's crystal clear that this is not a list of people who have dressed the heads of celebrities (per WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS). I'm a guy, and don't give a shit about the topic, but you know what? The deletion nomination does seem to act to confirm our gender bias here. --165.189.32.4 (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and keep Notable, all the ones with lots of articles in WP:RS about them. Hmmm, it would be fun to have one on "Notable people who cut their own hair." I can think of a couple. :-) CarolMooreDC 20:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The topic is certainly not "trivial", it's part of pop culture and certainly worth mentioning. However, the question is whether it's WP:OR because there is probably no secondary literature on "celebrity hairdressers" you can rely on for writing about them as such. If this holds true, I would be in favour of deleting the list, otherwise it should be kept.--Aschmidt (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not encyclopedic, neither Wikipedia is a directory as per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 09:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC for an explation of how that is a circular argument, and none of the points of WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies to this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * strong keep WP:NOTDIRECTORY isn't applicable here. It's a list of notable hairdressers, not hairdressers of notable people, so there is no issue of inherited notability.  It's a little crufty, but the inclusion criteria is pretty concrete... or at least as concrete as the guidelines for notability.  The list length is managable.  I don't see a problem with it.Roodog2k (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Interesting and useful, though I'd prefer to see a list of notable hairdressers without (or regardless of) the celebrity angle. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2012 (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.