Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plain 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   Deleted by Trusilver. (non-admin closure) ◄   Zahakiel   ►  21:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Plain hair

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Possibly original research, possibily a hoax, either way it is completely unreferenced; recommend deletion on grounds of WP:V. Marasmusine (talk) 11:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I had it down as a speedy, the giveaway, for me, was "was coined in 1976, by an anonymous student." --Richhoncho (talk) 11:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am unable to comprehend your reasons for wanting this informative and helpful page removed from Wikipedia. As one of a dying breed of plain hair fanboys and club members in the early 1980s, I can testify to plain hair being both a style and a hobby. And, Richhoncho, please explain why that is a giveaway.Ilikephish (talk) — Masterofthedarkshadow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  11:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I stated my reason: It is unreferenced.Marasmusine (talk) 11:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Plain Hair is a topic not commonly covered on the Internet. References are extremely scarce because Plain Hair almost completely died out as a culture before the use of Internet became common, and many people forgot about it. CaptainHigdon has done us all a favour by remembering this lifestyle and bringing it into the present with an Internet reference on Wikipedia.Ilikephish (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This onus is on the contributor to say where he got his material from. It doesn't matter if it was from the internet, or from a 50 year old magazine. If the information was just "remembered" (or "made up") then it needs to be removed. Marasmusine (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of citations from reliable sources which causes the article to fail to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete patent nonsense. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  11:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have looked for sources, but am unable to find some on the internet. However, the term plain hair was featured in a hair-guide I once read. I tried to find this on Wikipedia, but was unable to. Personally, I think this article should not be deleted until we can be sure it is a hoax. (RampagingWang (talk) — username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 11:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC))


 * I am unsure as to why deleting this article is even an issue. Plain hair is a term that is used often in my community, usually in jest, and occasionally in serious converstaion to describe someone with that paticular style of hair. Though I have not read all of the information on the page before, niether have I read anything on the topic to contradict it.Hazzzzz (talk) 11:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC) — Hazzzzz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * If the content of the article can be proven (i.e. made WP:Verifiable) through the use of WP:multiple, reliable sources by the end of the deletion discussion (normally 5 days from the date the discussion was opened), it should pass the inclusion bar per Wikipedia's WP:Policies and guidelines. If this is not done, this is to be interpreted as a delete. -- saberwyn 11:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Sorry, this sounds suspiciously like something dreamed up in school one day. There are zero hits on the UK Google for the allegedly influential "Society for Plain Hair Protection," no signs that this style actually exists, and no sources tendered.  "[I]t is only properly recognised as plain by qualified plain hair enthusiasts" ... ?  I'm bemused enough to wonder what qualifies as "qualified."  Beyond that, I note that User:Hazzzzz's contribution list shows him creating the user page for User:RampagingWang, both of whom (as well as User:Ilikephish and the article's creator) are SPAs created yesterday.  All four posted to this discussion within a span of sixteen minutes, with at least one case of buffing up another's post.  I strongly recommend the chap responsible take a look at WP:SOCK.    RGTraynor  12:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason for there being no Google hits is because the "Society for Plain Hair Protection" does not have a website. The current owners of the society are looking into the creation of one at this point in time, to spread the knowledge of plain hair. The reason that i know this valuable piece of information is that my father Robert Taylor is one of the owners of the society, When he gets in later i will talk to him about the creation of a website, so that sources can be provided for the information stated on the Wiki article. Masterofthedarkshadow (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC) — Masterofthedarkshadow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Dreamed up in school one day? I think not. I cannot believe that you would even consider this. Somebody has tried to make an article on a true thing which is around in the area I live in, and you dare to say we dreamed it up in school? Ridiculous. (RampagingWang (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC))
 * But which reliable sources assert this, and its notability? The society's own website wouldn't be one because it wouldn't be independent. WilliamH (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I do have an article from 'The Sentinel' newspaper with me now, dated May 11th 2001. It is about the SPHP. Unfortunately, the article is not on the sentinel website and I understand scanning it would be illegal. (RampagingWang (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC))
 * Not to worry. I'm in touch with the Sentinel's archival department, and I'll get a copy of said article.    RGTraynor  14:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ... or I would have if it existed, which according to the Sentinel it does not.   RGTraynor  17:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah. Doubtless this is why I was unable to obtain a copy through Nexis despite unbroken coverage back to 1998. Xymmax (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please tell me you didn't actually look this up. Just read the article, it's plainly nonsense (or possibly someone's silly inside joke) even at a glance. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Whatever its other flaws, for me one stands out: the article nowhere describes what "plain hair" is, what it looks like, how it could be recognized, what makes it differ from other hair styles.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Patent nonsense. If the SPAs that have commented want to find reliable sources for the proposition, no prejudice to recreating the article later. I cannot find any such source. Xymmax (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as above. Good riddance.  Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Plain delete - If it's not a hoax, it ought to be... if it's not nonsense, it sure reads like it. No sources found, even after attempts were mentioned as being made.  ◄   Zahakiel   ►  18:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable sources. Almost certainly WP:MADEUP, especially seeing the number of SPAs commenting here. Highly suspect they found out about it here. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt it. Per the above link, it seems highly suspect it originated from there. Clearly a made up term and/or inside joke. WilliamH (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete hoax. WillOakland (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete hoax being pushed by timewasters who are probably enjoying seeing us waste our time--Doug Weller (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2008 (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.