Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witch hat

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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Andrew D. (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Witch hat

[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)

The article has only a single unreliable source which was written by the notorious occultist Rosemary Ellen Guiley who is not a reliable source for the history of garments, or anything else for that matter. 2601:3C7:200:7020:D8AF:7093:FBD4:C796 (talk) 07:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copied from article talk page. I have not yet formed an opinion on the matter. --Finngall ^talk 14:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While sometimes it makes sense to complete nominations on the behalf of our unregistered editors, this, I do not think, was one of them. --Izno (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:AGF and WP:HUMAN I'm normally pretty indulgent when it comes to all but the most egregiously bad-faith AfD nominations from IPs provided that they perform all of the necessary followup steps as was the case here. (I watchlist WP:BADAFD to keep track of AfDs with possible issues and do far more reversions of mangled nominations than completions of anonymous ones.) My first impression was that this was not very likely to be deleted, but I wasn't going to !vote as such without looking into it more deeply. --Finngall ^talk 17:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think. Seems there ought to be more to find on this. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject definitely passes WP:GNG. That said, the article could use some cleanup and references, but I don't see any reason whatsoever to delete something of such obvious general interest. Skirts⁸⁹ 14:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is either a straight keep or at worst a redirect to witch. I'll stake my witch hat that this topic is notable though, so I'm really more inclined to the keep. --Izno (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There may be more to find, so I have also added a 'find sources' on the talk page, but a quick look through doesn't seem to provide anything but the trivial, so I suspect not passing WP:GNG. Perhaps others will have better luck, and list here links that are reliable. Witch's Hat (what it should be called if it is a specific type), has a short mention in Pointed hat, of which this is a variant, and which could be fattened out with this article's topic merged into that, but probably without the text in this article, the editorializing of which looks suspiciously like copyvio and/or original research. Has anyone got access to this book to check p.396 ? Does anyone have info on whether Rosemary Ellen Guiley is considered by WP as a reliable source... not every subject of a WP article is considered reliable to cite. If this article is keep, it needs certainly a good copyedit flush. Acabashi (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are certainly better sources available (see [1][2][3] and items therein) for the disputed history of this iconic cultural signifier. XOR'easter (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- per above. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is verifiable and definitely pass WP:GNG.--PATH SLOPU ^(TALK) 16:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I rewrote the article so that it does not rely upon the source whose reliability was called into question. Problem solved. XOR'easter (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Guiley source might be fine, it just needs investigating. Good that you removed the bottom two long paras, uncited and probably largely OR. Acabashi (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the nomination. The article has been almost entirely rewritten which has fixed the sourcing and copyvio issues. I think that this discussion can be closed as a speedy keep. 2601:3C7:200:7020:D8AF:7093:FBD4:C796 (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2019 (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.