Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bow tie wearers (3rd nomination)

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 For some reason that I cannot comprehend, this is a keep Ah well.. (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of bow tie wearers

The introductory material of this article is actually very interesting, and should be moved to the bow tie main article. The list, however, is arbitrary, contains some original research, a ludicrous idea and I can't see any situation where it would be of use to anyone.

Such facts as the point that an Illinois Senator who died in 2003 wore a bow-tie in his official portrait, is of no practical value to anyone. I suggest that this article is an indiscriminate collection of un-necessary information; that which is germane to an encyclopedia should be incorporated into the main article - it has no place here anyway - and the pile of particularly uninteresting trivia should be deleted. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 20:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yes, the topic is light-hearted, and there may be a few entries that are essentially original research, but the list is well-sourced and the phenomenon documented by the list is notable. For the vast majority of the entries on this list are notable men (and fictional characters) whose habit of wearing bow ties has been widely remarked upon (for example, for many of the real people who have died, bow-tie-wearing is mentioned in the first sentence of the obituary).
For that Illinois Senator you mention, you are referring to an image caption in the article, not his list entry. The caption merely describes the image and the photo is not the sole basis for listing him in the article. The article cites two sources discussing his bow-tie wearing (I have no doubt that more could be found), and the introduction to the article contains a quotation that mentions him, saying "Former Sen. Paul Simon is a habitual bow tie wearer, though, oddly, he seems never to have learned to tie them properly, for the right side of his ties never quite make it to full bow form."
This list gets many additions and I cannot guarantee that all have been checked for sourcing. If you have concerns about some of the entries, please remove or flag them for sources (as appropriate), but please don't delete the list article because it has few less-than-perfect entries. --Orlady (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This is an excellent article. Very well researched with useful, encyclopedic information. It's a lot more than just a "list". If you think it should be part of the main article, then put up some merge tags. But I don't think that will pass anyway, for the reasons asserted in the previous 2 AfD nominations of this article ... it's simply too big and developed of an article to be part of a larger one! And since when is "interesting" a prerequisite for inclusion in wikipedia??? There's a separate article for each one of the elements on the periodic table. With all due respect, I don't find any one of those to be interesting at all, but I'd never argue that they don't belong on wikipedia. Shirulashem (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might not find the elements interesting, but most scientists do, and that's millions upon millions of people :-O I cannot think of the sort of person who would find this article interesting. And while "interesting" may not be a written preqrequsite for being on here, why would we hold articles nobody would ever read, what is the point? ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 05:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article gets about 100 hits per day which is comparable with the traffic for element-related lists such as List of elements by boiling point. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 01:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination is a blatant WP:IDONTLIKEIT which makes no coherent case against this fine article. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep You may not be able to think of the sort of person who would find this article interesting, but so far several have disagreed. I don't have to think of the sort of person who finds this article uninteresting; they keep showing up, trying to delete it, rather than just ignoring it. htom (talk) 07:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - An excellent example of how list and 'popular culture' articles should be written! The criteria are kept narrow, by excluding the item's peak of fashionability in the 19th century; the relevance of the defining trait is explained; almost every item in the list is backed by a source; and the contents of the list are not indiscriminate. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge cultural text to Bow tie and 86 the list. Wikipedia articles are not lists or repositories of loosely associated people. There is no indiction that anyone on this list wears a bow tie because anyone else on the list did, thus there is absolutely no encyclopedic relationship between these people on the trivial basis of neckwear preference. While some may find the article interesting, it's interesting is not a particularly strong argument. All sorts of interesting things get deleted every day because they fail policy or guideline and this fails WP:NOT. What is the encyclopedic relationship between, for example, Walter Gropius, Pee Wee Herman and Lurch? If all they have in common is that they wear bow ties then that demonstrates the non-existence of an encyclopedic relationship. Otto4711 (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it written that there must be a "causal" relationship between list elements for the list to be notable? If causal connections were needed, then Wikipedia would have to get rid of almost all lists. --Orlady (talk) 04:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has lists ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Lists_of_people ) of people ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_people ); this list of people they've categorized there as "circumstances", to wit, wearing bow ties. htom (talk) 03:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking at the criteria for stand-alone lists, the relevant section of what Wikipedia is not, examining the discussion in AFDs passim, and, most importantly, reading through the article itself, I'm inclined to take the position that wearing a bow tie post-19th century is a significant aspect of some individuals' dress sense, and that this article is, therefore, not an indiscriminate list of information. Any concerns over original research can be addressed in the usual way – via discussion and editing – and should not take forever, as this is, after all, a relatively well sourced and well written article. The deletion process is not required to remove original research. Lu Ta 07:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom this is an indiscriminate list and in my opinion runs afoul of WP:FIVE pillars. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:44, 21 October 2008 (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.