Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No poo


 * 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. Consensus is to keep the content, but it's unclear whether to merge it to shampoo or leave it as a standalone article. A merge discussion can take place on the article's talk page, if desired. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  02:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

No poo

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Biased, unsourced, and not notable, with little chance of improving on these through verifiable sources. Torca (talk) 03:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm seeing at least two solid, reliable sources there, msnbc and NPR. A quick google suggests that the LA Times, Chicago Tribune, NY Times, and NY Post have also discussed the issue (can't verify the NY Times article since I've used up my pageviews for the month, ugh.) It's clearly a notable topic, and bias is improved through editing, not deletion. Kate (talk) 11:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Is it me, or is this a dictionary definition that is heavily padded with original research? Withholding on !voting for a bit. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Ok, with a little hesitation, I have to say keep. Reliable sources aren't the easiest to find, but they do exist (I added two, including glamour mag and NPR), and this is a somewhat notable "movement".  The article needs work, surely, but the subject matter *does* appear to be notable.  WP:OR and other issues are reasons to edit, not delete.  Dennis Brown (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is full of original research, in the form of claims that are not found in the two reliable sources cited in the article (NPR, MSNBC, one a reference, one a link). It is also a content fork. The blogs, Instructibles, and Wikihow do not qualify as reliable sources and should be removed. Not every notion which has two references needs to be a stand-alone encyclopedia article. Anything which is reliably sourced here could be in the "no-poo" section already present in Shampoo. The table after table of original research or information coming from blogs or Wikihow should go. (Maybe this idea is why there seem to be more people going around with stinky hair these days). Edison (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Shampoo, and merge reliable content. There is enough coverage to say that is not WP:MADEUP, but there hasn't been enough impact, neither has enough material been produced to fork from the existing section - frankieMR (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Shampoo. I don't think this is notable enough to warrant its own article.Mabiller (talk) 04:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge any useful, referenced content to Shampoo per above and possibly redirect, although if kept, is this really the best name for this article? Much as I enjoy lavatorial humour... Bob talk 18:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The name of the article is the name of the movement. Wouldn't be in favor of a merge simply because one is a product, the other is a movement, not the cleanest of merges.  Dennis Brown (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The best sources don't seem to use this term as the name of the movement. Barring that issue, I think we have enough sources and a merge to shampoo would probably result in the loss of sourced information.  So keep. Hobit (talk) 01:58, 22 April 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.