Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/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 keep.  Singu larity  03:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Long hair

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. I found this article via its unencyclopedic tag; I pretty much fail to see why we should have articles on long hair, short hair, average-lengthy hair and hair that falls down to your ankles, when the concept is covered quite well at the article on hair in general. This would seem to be a somewhat arbitrary fork.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Although I love long hair! I would also consider to Merge it inside hair.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   09:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep After having taken a look at the article Hairstyle, noticing the large number of "haircut" articles, and reading some interesting points, I decide to change my vote.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   17:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete (or Merge parts of it into hair) per nom and as above. The mind boggles. This is very detailed and fairly well written, but... I don't really think this is anything more than an essay on a supremely arb subject. But I'm probably not in the best position to discuss this sort of topic. :-D OBM | blah blah blah 10:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails to be WP:ENC - although there is nothing wrong with the prose - as per nom. There maybe something salvegable to go into hair. Per OBM I confess a WP:COI due to male pattern baldness :-) Pedro | Chat  11:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The fact that there are or may someday be several other silly articles about hair is unimportant (none of those examples exist, anyway). As I pointed out on this article's talk page, this topic is very notable and has been studied by not just hippies and druggies, but is a legitimate, scholarly subject discussed by scientists, psychoanalysts, theists, and anthropologists all over the world. Please look over the article's several peer-reviewed scholarly sources for examples, as well as several more about to be added on the article's sandbox. Merging may be legitimate, but only for a new article like Hair length. Hair is too long to support this subarticle in the length that it will achieve soon. This article clearly has enough sources to justify it already, and will only get more. Wrad 11:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; OR magnet! -- Orange Mike 13:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. That something might be a magnet for OR or other such undesirable editing practices is not and has never been a valid reason to delete it. As comments above acknowledge implicitly, this is a subject about which an acceptable encyclopedic article can be and is in the process of being written. Long hair has all sorts of myriad anthropological and sociological dimensions which the article seems to be going into. I doubt its existence would give rise to other such articles as suggested in the nomination. Daniel Case 14:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Social views of the appropriate length of hair have been a strong part of our cultural heritage, and there would be plenty of sources for this to draw upon. As hard to believe as it may seem now, it wasn't that long ago that many American schools had a dress code ban against boys wearing long hair, until finally changing with the times in the early 1970s.  Indeed, with reference to searchable of news banks, one would now be able not only to verify, but to actually pinpoint when the media first noticed changes in the social acceptability of long hair for men.  Hell, you could figure it out from the old "Readers Guide" books that gather dust on library shelves.  From the original research bag (please, no O.R. in the article itself), here are some clues as to where to look for cites: post 1964 Beatlemania to early 1980s return of short hair; followed by early 2000s return of long hair, will point one in the right direction for searching for cites.  Mandsford 14:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * comment - But that's very Euro/Americo-centric! This fuss did not affect matters in, say, China, in the same way. A genuinely worldwide long hair article would discuss, for example, the politics of the queue in Chinese culture. -- Orange Mike 14:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But you could add this if you wished. They call this the encylopedia that anyone can edit.. different cultures view long hair in different wasy.  I am compelled to say "Thank queue" Mandsford 18:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for the citation ideas and the support. It has been frustrating to see the research I did brushed off in this way. I'll see what I can do (and no OR, of course :)) Wrad 21:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The article is very nicely written, contains a lot of time consuming research, and has a lot of scope to unfold view points of different societies on the subject.Jeroje 17:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)jeorje
 * Very Strong Keep I am 53, and I well remember the times when long hair was a powerful symbol of rebellion; when small-town cops around the world would actually arrest a man for having long hair. I suspect this nom was, at least in part, frivolous. 90.2.178.150 17:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)ie Rhinoracer 17:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was frivolous. We are asked to assume that an nomination is made in good faith, and I can see the nom's point about Wikipedia becoming kind of "hairy" if we had lots of articles about how hair is worn.  Long hair, as us old timers remember, used to be controversial.  It's comparable to how different generations feel about, say, earrings on young men.  Mandsford 18:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge, there's a lot of silly bland OR in the lead of the sort that comes when editors are just talking about everyday things instead of using sources, but there's good research in the body on the history of social implications and such. That belongs in an article with wider scope, such as hairstyle.  Hairstyle is severely lacking in decent content, which this would make a great addition to.  Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you point out the OR for me. I'd be happy to remedy whatever it is you see... Wrad 21:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but clean up. Gives a pretty broad explanation of long hair - but I think that the etymology is glaringly unnecessary. =^^= -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 20:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Haha, yeah, the etymology section has been a struggle of mine. There actually are legitimate and interesting definitions, but the way it is now is pretty pathetic, I'll admit. I have immediate plans to bring this to GA status. Thanks for the input. 70.179.156.29 21:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Subject is notable. LOZ :  OOT  22:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Subject is notable. Article might need clean up. Title might not be perfect. -Yyy 10:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the actual contents are encyclopedic. Just as human clothing is encyclopedic, so are hair styles. The Merovingian reference is in fact not a joke, and the literature is immense (cf. The long-haired kings, and other studies in Frankish history. by J M Wallace-Hadrill ISBN 1102824 -- a standard work.) DGG (talk) 06:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, lots of encyclopedic content possible here. An editorial decision to (partly) merge this with Hair style is better done without the looming deadline of AFD, and a redirect is the least that should be here (I just arrived at the page trying to find information about typical human hair length, so I can testify that people do search for "long hair"). Kusma (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above comments. This is definitely a notable topic.  The article is well-referenced and contains much information on the history and cultural significance of long hair.  --musicpvm 02:57, 20 August 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.