Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Straight 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   no consensus.  SilkTork  *YES! 23:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Straight hair

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

Essay and Original Research Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC) *Keep and improve. Hairstyles are notable topics, and as the nom. for Shag shows, there are immense numbers of books and articles about it. No possible reason for speedy even if one thought this unimprovable; the ed. above should recheck WP:CSD. DGG (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Actually, this user has a history of nonsense articles about hairstyles. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * sorry, I was moving too fast from another article. My apology.DGG (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete With all due respect, DGG, this is not about hairstyle. It's some sort of OR essay about how lighter skinned, straight haired types arose after their ancestors left Africa due to natural selection related to Vitamin D production in the setting of decreased sunlight. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  23:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. I of course declined the CSD.  Dloh  cierekim  23:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete (G12) as a copyvio of http://birmingham.craigslist.co.uk/bts/939397503.html. Also a possible spam attempt to get users to the user's hair-selling website. MuZemike 23:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note — the similar article Shag (hairstyle) (whose AFD at Articles for deletion/Shag (hairstyle) as speedy kept) has also been tagged as G12 for the same a similar copyvio. MuZemike 23:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh? I don't see that at the target.  Dloh  cierekim  23:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * They were both copy-and-pasted from advertisements that linked to the same hair-selling website. But now that has been G12'd. MuZemike 23:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actullay, I was writing out the copyvio, deflffing, and despamming when it was deleted. I think that one should write out a copyvio rather than deleting when possible.  Dloh  cierekim  23:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment When I Google for the first line of this, I get the link on the copyvio tag. I don't find the text when I follow the link.  Dloh  cierekim  23:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The source for this is Hair.  Dloh  cierekim  23:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Have struck my delete as this is taken verbatim from Hair.  Dloh  cierekim  00:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and Improve. Needs work, but is a perfectly appropriate subject for an article. Proxy User (talk) 06:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete WP:CSD - (see below). It's a cut-and-paste of section 3.2.2 of the existing article Hair. JohnCD (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy deletion is not going to happen with Keep Votes. So if someone splits off a section to start a whole new article, that should be treated as vandalism? This looks like the work of a new, well-intentioned editor, not a vandal. Though I suppose we won't see more edits from this person considering the reception they received. An alternative would be to trim down the original section and provide a link to the new article. Cheers,   Dloh  cierekim  20:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve per Dlohcierekim —xanderer (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OH. Color me "no vote." I just don't think a speedy is appropriate. I'm the one that originally said to delete as OR, not realizing it was a copy from an existing article. I merely pinted that out as an alternative to deletion. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  20:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Hair - OK, not vandalism, but I don't think anything is gained by fragmenting the existing Hair article, it's not unwieldily long. JohnCD (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and decide in a discussion on the talk page of the main article whether it should be divided. DGG (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I can't get over my wanting to delete this as OR, when it's part of a standing article. For those concerned with sourcing, it undoubtedly exists at the parent article. No one there used inline citations. I mention this only because it's drawn another "hoax" tag. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  14:04, 13 January 2009 (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.