Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue hair (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. One two three... 04:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blue hair[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Blue hair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm boldly nominating this for deletion per WP:N. It's mostly filled with trivia, and I fail to see a reason why blue should be notable. This is "blue-fan-cruft". Think of green, purple, red, yellow, pink... and then of course lightgreen, may-green, neon-green, olive-green, middle-of-yellow-mix-green, fishbowl-green, turquoise-shade-green... The history-trivia are of words that someone translated as "blue," or some legends that say there were blue-haired people... And then we have the rant section about some kid being expelled for blue hair, of course... is this some typical thing that only happens to blue-haired people? Is this a "social stigma"? c'mon... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err... excuse me... people are born blond, brown, red... Is anyone born blue? Will you support an endless list of stubs covering all possible artificial colors? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it gets coverage, by all means. Dream Focus 20:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment However, have other non-natural colors of hair been so prominently used throughout history as blue hair has? SilverserenC 04:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's a basket of sentences. Not even a stub. Keep only if it's successfully {{rescue}}d. <( User:Couch on his Head and Smiling (talk) )> 04:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand basket of sentences to mean that it has a jerky style. But we don't have a policy which says that we should delete articles which are not written fluidly do we? Otherwise, we'd be deleting 99% of our content. Polishing the English style is the stuff of an FA review, not AFD. But let me explain how this arises. For a topic of this sort, I find that one has to write defensively, using multiple sources and summarising them in a staccato way so as to avoid complaints of plagiarism and OR. One might call this the Joe Friday style in which one reports "just the facts". If one instead writes in a more expansive and discursive style then the article is often brought here for being an essay. That is an equally silly argument for deletion as our articles are supposed to be essays. But at this stage of development it's best to focus on the facts and the sources. The copyediting can come later. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "basket of sentences" quality goes beyond style to content -- to the fact that most of the sentences are unrelated to each other, except via the title. The article is simply a grab-bag of unconnected mentions (medical, figurative, artistic, fashionable, sociological) of "blue hair". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a basket of sentences, and I may be stealing that phrase in the future. It's really a meandering list of people and characters who have blue hair doing a poor job of trying to be an article. Until some cohesion and notability can be established, this needs to be deleted... yet again. AniMate 05:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well sourced. Our own personal impressions that something sounds unlikely should not take precedence of the actual evidence. Since I've come here, I've discovered a great many things in the world are notable that I would never have thought so. That's what an encyclopedia is for. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: If we have a red hair article then certainly we can have a blue hair article. --Monterey Bay (talk) 06:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read the red hair article. It has info on genetic-origin theories, chemistry of pigments, as well as geographical mutations and distribution, prevalence in populations and phenotypes, and scientific discoveries on possible relations to pain-insensitivity and reception. None of that can be given for blue — unless you think that dying your hair blue or putting on a blue wig will alter your DNA, and will cause you to pass it on to your children by producing blue-haired babies. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:IINFO indiscriminate collection of unrelated mentions of blue hair. No depth of coverage, and no sources drawing these isolated occurrences together into a common theme -- so no WP:Notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: AFAIK, no mammal has naturally occurring blue-pigmented hair. So comparisons between this article and ones on naturally occurring hair pigments are misleading. A more correct comparison would be to Hair coloring -- which gives blue hair only passing mention. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. There are breeds of rabbit called "blue", but which are actually more of a grey[1] (similar to the 'blue fox'). The "nice picture" in question appears to be an unrelated white breed with lighting giving it a slight bluish tint. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing specifically special about blue hair. If this article is kept there should be ones about every other possible unnatural color, the list of which is endless. TomCat4680 (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... the list of which is endless." Must you give people ideas? AniMate 15:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Hair coloring#Alternative hair colorants. Non-natural hair colors are all properly discussed there. There are no other articles for non-natural hair colors. SnottyWong converse 18:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well referenced from reliable sources and big enough for its own article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since people are going to clearly ignore my comment above, i'm just going to vote. I agree that we do not need articles on every possible artificial hair color out there. However, as far as I know, no other artificial hair color is so documented throughout history and religion as blue hair is. It's use in various mythologies makes it a fairly notable hair color and one that I believe we should have an article on. SilverserenC 22:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you possibly provide a source that discusses blue hair in depth. Trivial mentions do not an article make. AniMate 00:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has two fairly long paragraphs about it, in terms of historicity. SilverserenC 02:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What we in fact have is a source that spends at least as much time discussing the lack of corroboration of this practice, as the purported practice itself -- meaning that we cannot be sure that it existed in fact as well as in art. And it would appear to be you that has 'clearly ignored' my point above that we have "no sources drawing these isolated occurrences together into a common theme" and thus a "WP:IINFO indiscriminate collection of unrelated mentions of blue hair". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an indiscriminate collection of mentions. This has to be the worst. Some guy named Freddy writes a letter home during WWII and we're parading this out as some sort of reliable source. Pathetic. AniMate 04:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, they have news hits, but that's to be expected. Considering that the vast majority of the sources used in this article are books, which are being used to show the historicity of blue hair, do green and pink have the same sort of historicity? Green hair would have some, i'm sure, since it's the other kind of hair color that is affected from mining, copper for green. But I don't think pink hair would come up with anything of historical importance. SilverserenC 05:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The historicity of blue hair"? Some Anglo-Saxon artwork (with explicitly no confirmation that this occurred in reality as well as in art), "some guy named Freddy writes a letter home during WWII", an ancient Greek figure of speech (presumably similar to the more modern "hair standing on its end" or "hair going white" in fear) & a scattering of artwork depicting mythical characters? None of this even establishes that anybody in history EVEN WORE BLUE HAIR. Ancient WP:IINFO is no more encyclopaedic than modern WP:IINFO. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have clearly not been keeping up with the evolution of the article. This source that has already been added to the article proves that it was a practice by Anglo-Saxon women and even identifies what they used to get the blue color. SilverserenC 06:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just want to point out that Novickas is doing an amazing job at sourcing the article. SilverserenC 05:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And it is good that you have an opinion. But it is clearly one that others disagree with. SilverserenC 07:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For people in history called Robert, see Robert#People. We have lots of articles like that and they seem well-established. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Silver and per sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has multiple good sources in which blue hair is part of the title such as Gods' blue hair in Homer and in eighteenth-dynasty Egypt. This demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that the topic is notable. The nomination complains that the matter is trivial but provides no evidence to support this claim. Blue hair, in fact, seems to be quite non-trivial because it is such an unnatural colour that it excites comment and is attributed to gods and other extraordinary people. The appearance of blue hair in history and legend is good scholarly stuff while contemporary coverage is a matter of fashion which will be of interest to our neglected female readership. There doesn't seem to be any policy-based case against the article - just variations on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Our editing policy is to keep such well-sourced and notable material and so it should not be deleted. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Colonel Warden for that WP:BATTLEGROUND warcry. Thank you for violating WP:TALK & WP:AGF by misrepresenting the opinions stated here (WP:IINFO="doesn't seem to be any policy-based case" my arse!). Thank you for misrepresenting a scattering of unrelated mentions as "demonstrat[ing] beyond any reasonable doubt that the topic is notable." Thank you for your WP:OR interpretation of the meaning of blue hair. Thank you for demonstrating how spuriously-based your participation on AfDs all too frequently is. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SPADE "dude". And there is nothing in the least bit "civil" about CW's unsubstantiated accusations and misrepresentations. It is high time somebody called him on his gross & pervasive misbehaviour. If the the CW-cheerleader-squad doesn't like this being pointed out, then the door is thataway. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "It has been suggested that English men dyed their hair and beards blue with woad, on the evidence of the dark hair colour often used for hair in the Hexateuch; however the use of colour in Anglo-Saxon art is not realistic (see my remarks in the previous chapter, pp134-135) -- green is used effectively for hair in the Tapestry -- and there is no need to assume dye was used on the hair." -- Dress in Anglo-Saxon England By Gale R. Owen-Crocker. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable and reliably sourced. I wasn't previously aware of the cobalt phenomenon - thanks to whoever put that in. I don't think it would be appropriate to merge this into Hair coloring#Alternative hair colorants as that is more about hair colours chosen for cosmetic reasons. Nor do I think we should greatly concern ourselves with the number of artificial hair colours that might or might not require articles - each such article would need its own sources and can be argued on its own merits, after all there aren't that many major colours in total. ϢereSpielChequers 17:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've looked at both previous articles and their AFDs,(there have only been two). The first article was a redirect to Blue rinse as that was what the article was about. the second was about Blue Hair, but was basically a list of Blue haired characters. As you can see from the AFD discussions, both those articles were substantially different to this one. ϢereSpielChequers 21:35, 13 December 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blue_hair_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1196280400"