Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of women with very long hair


 * 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

List of women with very long hair

 * — (View AfD)

Subjective, uneyclopedic. Delete. Yank sox 20:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Split Infinity (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The individual links are fine, but they stand alone without the subjective, incomplete and ephemeral (hairdressers) article.--Anthony.bradbury 20:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Okay, I have removed part of it. Do you now find the article okay? Longhairadmirer 22:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Burn, per the nominator. Also, I think that the list wouldn't be very helpful anyway. PullToOpen 20:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is a rather new list. Give us a chance to work on it, and suggest constructive changes instead. It is only a list article, not an encyclipedic article. It is not subjective, since it has well-defined criteria. If you wan't to delete a list article, plese refer to a formal Wikipedia criteria for that. Longhairadmirer 20:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't have well defined criteria. It doesn't really have criteria, the mere title of the article is almost enough for deletion. This is not useful, not encyclipedia, which you just admitted. If you look at the upper left hand corner you see "Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia." This article doesn't belong here. Yank sox  21:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I mean, are we talking about long or long cat loooooooooong? Yank sox  21:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The criteria is simply "Famous women with waist length hair or longer". Famous mean that they must fulfill WP:BIO. I don't see the subjectivity. This is a list article, meaning that is lists encyclopedic articles. A list article may refer to a main article, which in this case seemes to be the article about hair fetishism. There is a large interest for this list, since many men adore women who decide to have long hair. Would the article be acceptable if it did not contain nude models? Mange01 21:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So, are you stating that Wikipedia exists for any or all fetishes? This isn't a use of promotion for some guy to click links. It's acceptable to have an article about the fetish, but this is subjective to define "long" and just keep any maintance. Yank sox  21:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Examples of other similar list articles: List of famous tall men, List of famous short men, List of famous tall women, List of big-bust models and performers, etc. Please formulte a consistent principle regarding these lists. And please suggest how this article can be improved. I thought wikipedia was about improving articles rather than deleting. Longhairadmirer 21:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * See that last comment you made is an easy cop out. Yes, we are about knowledge. Yes, we are about improving our quality. But we need to take away what really isn't essential. This isn't new knowledge, this is connecting things that alreadly exist and is extremely subjective and doesn't add to the quality of the 'pedia. Yank sox  21:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - it is probably impossible to give an exact and verifiable defininition of the items in this list (the exact length of hair changes every day, in most cases nobody measures it etc.) - so WP:V is an issue here. --Ioannes Pragensis 21:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Ioannes Pragensis. Listcruft like this in general is not terribly wondeful. Moreschi 21:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This article was also PROD'd, so tag on contested PROD as rationale. Yank sox  21:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * delete per Ioannes, should this also include any "famous" woman who every had long hair at any given point? --Dmz5 21:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * keep (I think your question is answered by the first sentence in the article) 193.10.250.5 21:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The scope of the list is arbitrary, lacks any added value, lacks sources, and I'm not sure what useful purpose it serves.-- danntm T C 23:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or I'll be forced to include my neighbors whose notability would be limited to waist-long hair Alf photoman 23:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. What constitutes very long is biased, and a specific cutoff point would be arbitrary. -Amarkov blahedits 23:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete If this type of list should exist, it should be as a category. --Icarus (Hi!) 00:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Said category does exits, and is also up for deletion. See here. Tabercil 00:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 00:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per Ioannes Pragensis. Given how hair lengths can change drastically, said list would be in danger of on-going obsolescence. Tabercil 00:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP. It very informitive to KNOW who has LONG HAIR
 * I for one did not not know some of those ladies
 * PLEASE add more names this is an INTERESTING search if I may say so
 * John W. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.247.22.214 (talk • contribs) 20:00, December 17, 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:ILIKEIT is unpersuasive. -Amarkov blahedits 01:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mange01. Edison 01:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Determining what length is long would be too subjective (and the list would still be utterly pointless). - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 02:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Crystallina 03:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It may even be original research. Hair length is unlike physical anatomical height, and may vary if the subject decides to have it cut. Who's going to police the claim and remove those who have had it cut? Ohconfucius 07:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, in addition to the arguments raised above, this is not a defining characteristic, which makes this merely a random list of random people who happen (for whatever unknown reasons) to have one trivial point of commonality. Furthermore, it's not an inherent characteristic, but is subject to change without notice.  There is no possible useful information to be gathered from this list; it is pure trivia.  Fetishistic listcruft.  Xtifr tälk 08:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, for reasons that have nothing at all to do with the above assertion that this indicates bias against nude models. I question any list or category based on physical characteristics when that is not the purpose for the subjects' notability.  I question in the strongest possible terms such a list or category when the subject can change that characteristic arbitrarily during their career.  How many actresses have had long hair in some roles and short hair in others?  Any criterion of distinction that is so mutable does not distinguish at all.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 08:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I can assure you that all of these women, especially those with knee length hair, thigh length hair, etc, are famous for their very long hair, not only in long hair fetishism pages. They often get attention for their hair in main steam media. Longhairadmirer 08:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - No absolute or verifiable requirements for inclusion means deletion as failing WP:V. Similar problems as with Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers (3rd nomination). TerriersFan 18:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete since WP:NOT and indiscriminate collection of information, and there seems little chance of WP:V. Valrith 21:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. 62.135.48.117 07:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Arguments for keeping the article:
 * No strong argument for deleting it has been presented above.
 * This information is not compiled anywhere on the internet, but is spread over various long hair fetshism publications, discussion groups, etc. In some cases modelling agencies and similar state hair length in terms like "very long" or "long", but without a clearly defined criterion. Thus, it is not simply list cruft described in WP:NOT.
 * The criterion is well-defined, and can be verified from photos, and in many cases form long hair fetishist publiciations. We have removed couple of articles that do not fulfill the requirements. No discussion has been raised about this, proofing that this is not an issue. Thus it fulfills WP:V.
 * Two similar list articles were created a year ago, but with less well-defined criteria. One of them was deleted. If this article is deleted, it will probably be created over and over again by other people than me.
 * The talk page of the article has the character of a WikiProject page, with a to-do list of articles about famous people that should be created. So the page will contribute to Wikipedia biographic articles!
 * Question: Should the article be renamed "Women famous for their very long hair", or be transformed into a wikiproject? Longhairadmirer 08:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; how do you measure hair length anyway (pulled straight, when in natural shape, or what?) Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 19:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete absent an objective definition in secondary sources of how long is considered "very". And some sources for the list itself.  And a credible reason for actually giving a shit. Guy (Help!) 10:54, 23 December 2006 (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.