- List of bow tie wearers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AfD 2)
This article has been through two nominations and in the second one it seems to hav been kept due to the fact its citing of sources overwhelmed the fact the article itself is a hodge-podge of sections that have no place in the article and the combined sections result in an article that should not exist.
To explain the opening section of the article have nothing to do with a list of bow tie wearers, and instead are content that should be in the main bow tie article, this specifically was not refuted by the keep proponents but instead argues that the content was here because if it was added to the bow tie article it would be expanded upon and eventually become too big. In the words of Otto4711 in the course of the deletion debate "We should not encourage the lamentable practice of maintaining garbage dump articles out of fear of cluttering the main article."
Ultimately the keep arguments were not based on any supporting evidence that the idea of people who wear bow ties is anything but an indiscriminate list but rather that because it was sourced, te sources being these people wore bow ties, the article should be kept. Being sourced and looking nice should not immediately mean an article is to be kept when the subject itself does not meet the burden of being an article in the first place. If you ignore the opening paragraphs, which have no place in the beginning to begin with, and eliminate the list under WP:IINFO the article should not continue to be.
I realise this may come across as AfD 2 but I feel that the keep decision really had only a basis in head counting and personal opinion keep vote variations of WP:ILIKEIT. –– Lid(Talk) 12:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It comes across as AfD 3, with the same arguments that you made at AfD2. You see the list, through your eyes, as "indiscriminate"; others of it see it differently. It's a list of notable people who voluntarily engage in a public activity that many other notable people don't. htom 14:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:IINFO - merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Many notable people don't do many things, this does not mean there needs to be a list of them i.e. list of people with goatees, list of people who wear fedoras, list of people who wear cowboy hats. An argument can not be made that simply because certain people share a common trait that affects nothing about them apart from the fact they wear or have it is not grounds for keeping an article.
- Yes, it is the same arguments as I believe the decision was wrong based off the arguments given by the keep and delete sides, hence the DRV. You still have not addressed the fact that most of the article deals with the bow tie in popular culture and going by the way it is formatted should not be in the article at all. –– Lid(Talk) 15:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Endorse closure DRV is not round 2 of AFD. People didn't buy the deletion arguments in the AFD, so this just seems like venue shopping. --W.marsh 15:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Endorse own close. As I explained on my talk page to Otto, this was an example where no Wikipedia policy mandates deletion. WP:NOT may support a deletion argument: if the community feels that this is an indiscriminate collection of information or a directory, it would be legitimate to delete it. However, the consensus shown in the debate was against that conclusion. Put another way, I didn't see any strong arguments on either side, just opinions. Mangojuicetalk 15:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - per nominator. I understand that it's referenced, but is it needed? — Rudget contributions 15:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC) See new comment below.[reply]
- Ok, now I'm confused. The article was not deleted, it was kept. Please clarify. Mangojuicetalk 15:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure There is clearly no consensus to delete this list. (But there seems to be a problem with the link to the discussion in the article's talk page ) Colonel Warden 16:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to FashionPedia. >Radiant< 17:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse Two successive AfDs have failed to delete it. An ed. disagrees, so he thinks this is AfD3 -and in fact says as much. His argument is that the list is indiscriminate. But the consensus clearly did not agree with that, and the close properly represented the consensus. I suppose after a few months a proper third Afd can be started. and the matter argued again. DGG (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a deliberate misrepresentation of what the nominator said. He said "I realise this may come across as AfD 2" and went on to explain why it wasn't. Otto4711 (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- From context, I think DGG meant to say "endorse closure."--Orlady 20:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure - as per above, really. Consensus seemed to have been reached at both AFDs and after reviewing the history for the article, there's nothing to suggest why it should comply with deletion. — Rudget contributions 17:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure - the page needs work but that is a matter for tagging and improvement not deletion. There was a clear 'keep' consensus in the 2nd AFD and the closing admin was correct to go with the consensus in the absence of any overriding policy exigency. BlueValour (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure although I was in favour of deletion the consensus was clearly keep. RMHED (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure. I personally don't think that there's a real encyclopedia article here - at least not once you strip out the original research and the trivia. But the community clearly decided to give it the benefit of doubt for now. If it remains unimproved after a reasonable period (months), it can always be renominated. Review here is premature. Rossami (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure The argument for overturn is essentially that the article is not encyclopedic, which is a debatable judgment that we commonly leave to consensus. (Actually, the article is encyclopedic: It covers a distinct cultural phenomenon of notable people and characters who are also notable for wearing bow ties. The paragraphs at the beginning of the article were added to demonstrate that the very specific subject of the list is the very specific subject of a number of sources. The massive sourcing demonstrates that we have some kind of cultural phenomenon involving notable people + constant bow-tie wearing + notice that these notable people are constantly wearing bow ties. There's nothing indiscriminate about it, no matter how many times certain editors allege it.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noroton (talk • contribs) 05:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, consensus to keep and there is no convincing reason why deletion should be overturned. DRV is not a place to try and get a different result because you were unhappy with the AFD outcome. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete - not that my voice will be heard here any more than it was heard at AFD over the thundering chorus of opinions with no basis in policy, but here goes anyway. The closing admin admitted on his talk page that he gave weight to invalid WP:ILIKEIT !votes and that if the AFD had closed on time (before a late surge of keeps posted on the seventh day of a five day AFD) he would have closed it no consensus instead of keep. In the course of the AFD itself the loudest voices in favor of keeping flat-out acknowledged that the subject of the list is not notable. Others back up their "I like it" !votes with such ridiculous assertions that wearing a bow tie is as notable or more notable than a person's religion, occupation or military service and one wanted the list kept to make a WP:POINT about prejudice he supposedly faced for wearing a bow tie himself. Nor was anyone able to answer the simple question, posed numerous times throughout the AFD, of how these people and fictional characters are related to each other past a particular article of clothing. Given that the close was clearly based on vote-counting and opinions with no basis in policy, given the ridiculously ill-informed bases for the keep votes, given that not a single keeper refuted the policy-based argument of IINFO except to say "no it isn't" or addressed the policy-based NOT#DIR argument at all, and given that even the supporters of the article admit to its lack of notability, the AFD as a whole does not support keeping the article and the admin closed it as keep in error. Otto4711 (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you need to be reminded to assume good faith, Otto? --Orlady (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No I don't, and if you're interpreting anything said above as a failure to assume good faith then that's on you. Otto4711 (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My point was that we have lists of notable people by all sorts of behaviors (even birdwatching), not that those on the list were notable because of their bow ties. Further, I know that I have faced discrimination because of an invisible handicap -- epilepsy -- and can easily imagine that someone might discriminate on the basis of something more obvious and more superficial, wearing unusual neckware (bolos come to mind), brightly colored shoes, ... people discriminate for all sorts of reasons. I doubt, actually, that I have been discriminated against because of my bow ties. I have had people tell me that they wished that they could wear them, but that they feared that they would be discriminated against because of wearing them. "The nail that stands out ...." htom (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, you want the list not because of its supposed encyclopedic value but, as I said, because it helps to prove a point. Futher, the theory that wearing a bow tie can lead to discrimination, if sourcable, belongs in Bow tie, not in a list of bow tie wearers. And noting the existence of other lists in seeking to keep this one, also known as WP:WAX, is just another invalid argument. Otto4711 (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Undecided. The consensus of the discussion was at first glance indeed to keep this list. But I'm not sure the closing admin took the weight of the arguments into consideration. Many of the keep !votes cited the infamous arguments to avoid, such as WP:INTERESTING, WP:PRETTY, WP:BHTT and WP:ILIKEIT. The nom and several !voters also made a valid argument that this list constitutes an indiscriminate collection of information, in the sense that these people are listed together simply for wearing a piece of garment. I suggest overturning the closure, closing the AFD as No consensus (defaulting in keep), and relisting it in due time. AecisBrievenbus 00:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|
