Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andre Walker Hair Typing System

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. asilvering (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Walker Hair Typing System

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most of the sources are bad:

"Curlcentric" - looks to just be mostly trying to sell you something

"Women Health Info Blog" - is, well, a blog, one that looks to be by a "Prof. Dr. Gayane Dolyan Descornet" and seems to check out( maybe they deserve their own article? I see this so they've been around for a while) but is still basically just a self-published blog.(from my understanding we wouldn't cite a totally self published blog by Neil Degrasse Tyson on astromy related stuff afterall)

Oprah.com - Yea totally not a problematic source to have your boss promote your system

studio2121 - 404'd, but is regardless just literally an actual hair salon

this leaves the two podcasts and probably the strongest sources for the existence of this article being 99% Invisible and "The Stoop", haven't heard of the latter before, but it looks like something that could probably get its own article but just hasn't if it's press and awards page is to be believed

Anyway I'm basically arguing that everything but these two podcasts are bad sources, that leads into a bit of a more nebulous issue, that being that the system is basically considered bunk (yes, I know that a Reddit thread isn't the greatest of evidence, but I honestly don't know that much about this subject) or at least highly divisive on technical grounds (also supposedly racial grounds, but I don't really see it), and I only dived into this rabbithole because I saw this classification chart on the Hair article, and it just seemed so.....unscientific? I'm not sure, but I feel like this only exists as a page because someone attached to someone famous came up with it.

If this is successfully deleted, I'd also call for the nuking of Hair#Classification_systems for similar grounds, because unlike the main article that section isn't cited at all and neither is whatever the "FIA" system is. Akaibu (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Akaibu (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1: Note for other editors, the nominator seems to be mass nominating articles for deletion after being temporarily blocked and then warned of a permanent block for disruptive editing (see their talk page). I will assume good faith that they are learning the rules.

Comment 2:I wrote the article after listening to the 99% Invisible episode, I'll work on adding more references to resolve the issue, please give me a few days to do this before adding your feedback as once I add the additional refs your comments will be out of date. Thanks very much, John Cummings (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @John Cummings, I see that you have added more references, but they don't seem to me to be very reliable ones, as well as addressing the issues I brought up with the prior references used. Though yes I'm a newer editor so a second opinion on the reliability of the current references might be warranted, but I don't believe I'm wrong in this regard. Hopefully you can address those in your next edit to the page. Akaibu (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are reliable sources: Conde Nast's Allure (magazine), Byrdie (part of Dotdash Meredith), and Hairdressers Journal[1] (from Professional Beauty Group) seems a fairly major trade publication. Plus there are research papers. And WP:BIAS: articles primarily relevant to black women suffer due to lack of interest from WP editors, uncertainty about what's a reliable source, etc, as well as prejudice that such topics are unencyclopedic/trivial. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It doesn't look like WP:BEFORE was done before this nomination. In addition to sources already in the article (including the ones added today or yesterday), here are some others that come up even in a brief Google search:
- Glamour: [2]
- Essence: [3]
- GQ: [4]
- Proceedings of the International Conference on Image Processing, Computer Vision, and Pattern Recognition: [5]
- ChemRxiv: [6]

So it clearly meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Softlavender (talk) 05:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, added them :) John Cummings (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, there is no consensus here. An additional review of newly added or located sources would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added a large number of reliable sources since this initial listing which resolves the issue with sourcing. The original nominator also linked to a reddit discussion, which I will ignore since its not within the scope of a Wikipedia deletion discussion. John Cummings (talk) 09:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.