Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toupee


 * 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 speedy keep, or there will be hell toupee. — CharlotteWebb 06:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Toupee
Lots of original research to start with, then article tells a few "toupee" jokes. Then there is a section called Suspected toupee wearers! (Very encyclopedic). Another section is titled Toupee or not toupee. Is this article a joke? Or maybe partly a joke disguised as a Wikipedia article? I would have attempted to improve it, but it's so bad just delete it and start again. Strathlomond 02:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Out of curiousity, I checked the revision history, thinking this may be the result of temporary vandalism from that other Wiki. No dice, article's last 50 revisions have all included the aforementioned sections, and it seems the only activity (since December 2006, at least) has been figuring out which over-saturated celebrities do and do not wear toupees, and perhaps a little bit of OR on the side. --Action Jackson IV 02:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep To be fair, the first half of the article is not too bad - but yes, the rest of it does need a serious cleanup. Incidentally, if you've got a mouthful of coffee don't click on the last external link. Much improved already. Eliminator JR   Talk  02:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, just the thing my future offspring need to distinguish themselves in the corporate world! Thanks for the pointer! --Action Jackson IV 02:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep (with substantial cleanup) Upon deeper examination, I really don't think this article is that bad, by Wikipedia standards. Parts of it should definitely be removed (known and suspected toupee wearers), and the article definitely needs some further editing - but AfD is not the proper channel. --Action Jackson IV 02:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and substantially cleanup. These things have been around for a while and sources do exist. The article is currently full of nonsense, jokes, and spam. --Wafulz 03:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. In my opinion, this shouldn't be here, try WP:Cleanup. --Nevhood 03:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Please don't waste time posting legitimate articles that have crappy writing and need a serious clean-up for deletion--that's what WP:Cleanup is for.  And why was this nominated by a user who has done nothing on Wikipedia but nominate an article for deletion?  KP Botany 03:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Careful not to bite the newbie. Some people edit irregularly as IPs, and then realize that to nominate a page for deletion, they need to create a page, which would require creating an account. The reasons given for deletion are at least believable, so I'd assume good faith. --Wafulz 04:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay, I didn't know that. There do seem to be a lot more redlinks participating in AfD than elsewhere on detail work on Wikipedia, though.  Still, the article is hardly within the scope of AfD.  KP Botany 04:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Cleanup. It started out as a redirect to Wig, and now no longer links to Wig at all?  Except for the Category:Wigs, which ought to be a see-also.  And Hairpiece, which I'd always thought was a politer term, is now something else completely.  I'd agree that a Toupee is somewhat different from a Wig, but this article just doesn't (cough) cover the area the way it should... Shenme 04:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, shame, Shenme! KP Botany 04:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and comb to perfection at cleanup. This is obviously encyclopedic, but in a poor state; we have templates for that. --Dhartung | Talk 04:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, more shame. Geeze.  Anyway, I did some clean-up.  I was a costume designer in a past incarnation and have studied the history of toupees and wigs extensively--most of Wikipedia's articles in this area need work and clean-up tags, if someone could tag a handful of them it would be nice (I still struggle with templates).  However, I don't have my research library handy, and there is little information on the web that I found to be usable.  Still it is less original and more accurate than it was.  The last paragraph needs written in Englih.  KP Botany 05:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * keep (now that the jokes/suspected toupee wearing sections are gone.Balloonman 05:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a big part of toupee wearing, the mid-twentieth century comedy sketches and jokes on American television about people wearing toupees, and speculation as to who rugged over their linoleum. Plus business men pretty much had to wear them and the studios has celebrities wear them even in public.  But I won't go there without some research and solid references.  Popular culture is under-researched, over-original, and often inaccurate on Wikipedia.   I once researched American patented toupee devices, that was something.  KP Botany 06:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment agreed... and in a website on Toupee's the jokes would be appropriate (as would the speculation) but here in an encycopedic... no.Balloonman 07:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment In the realm of people's costume and accouterments, there is quite a bit of research done and written up, including the humorous aspects of what people wore and how they wore it. The white wigs worn by aristocrats at one time were routinely mocked in satires of their era, the wide skirts of women, the butt bustles, the hoops, just like the huge pants boys wear today are the subject of comic strips and comedy routines.  I love to come across political satire, especially, when researching clothing of an era, to have a little insider fun with costumes.  A well-referenced discussion of the humor would be a useful insight into the popular culture of toupees.  However, it's probably not doable on the web, and would require substantial research at a university library.  KP Botany 07:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment agreed a well refrenced discussion of the humor would be useful and interesting... and dare I say would be necessary to make the article comprehensive. But simply adding jokes?  no.  An example of a joke or two, within a section discussing the sociological seeting no problem.Balloonman 09:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Q: What do you call an awful article about a clearly notable topic? A: An article about a clearly notable topic.--Djrobgordon 06:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep patently ridiculous nom. JuJube 09:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Toupees themselves are clearly notable as a form of wig. AfD isn't the best place to bring up poor articles about notable subjects; I would suggest a cleanup tag, however. -- Charlene 09:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Toupees are very notable historically. Why even nom? Just a clean up matter. - Denny 18:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The most contentious joke sections have been removed and the topic is certainly encyclopedic (note that this was not disputed by the nom).  "Delete and start over" for notable topics should be used only in extreme cases.  This doesn't seem to qualify.  Oh, and tag for cleanup.  -- Black Falcon 19:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep way to common to be considered for deletion, just needs clean-up. John Reaves (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, toupees are undoubtedly notable despite this horrible article, though merging to Wig may be the best option. Krimpet 04:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, a few lame toupee jokes is no reason to delete the whole toupee article. --Candy-Panda 07:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, relevant article. Missionario 08:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, as relevant as articles about hats, coats, neckties, suits, etc. Chris Buckey 05:25, 6 March 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.