Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jet black hair

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 redirected to black hair. Have tagged the new article to have the copy-n-paste move fixed. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jet black hair

edit

We already have brunette. If this content is to be kept it should be moved to Black hair Ideogram 07:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brunette is westerners. We are talking about other ethnicities. 168.253.15.112 17:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the argument is that Jet black hair is too specific, and should become part of a new article called Black hair, which would have more scope Mammal4 17:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Black is brunette in terms of color, but Brunettes have brown hair. Brunettes are considered westerners where there are different hair color. Black hair is Jet black hair, otherwise it's considered brunette and is western. What else would be included in black hair, brunette's, no, only jet black hair. That's it. 168.253.15.112 17:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is moved to Black hair

This seems to be a consensus —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.253.15.112 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep per comments above; nom provided no reasons relevant to deletion policy. As a side note, it's generally a bad idea to make major changes (such as a move) during an AfD debate, as it makes it difficult for users to determine exactly what's going on. As far as I can tell from looking at the page histories, black hair did not exist prior to this debate, thus it was a move and not a merge, and we need an admin to repair the copy-and-paste move and merge the page histories. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We have black hair under hair color and this unsourced WP:OR article doesn't make it clear there is more to write about the topic. If someone wants to expand and source it, it might be a keep, but not in the curent state. ~ trialsanderrors 23:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that other articles that exist should be deleted doesn't mean this one should exist. Feel free to file AFD's against the other articles. --Ideogram 00:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just bringing up relativity. 168.253.15.112 00:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Wikipedia policy that establishes relativity as a criterion. All articles must stand up on their own merit. ~ trialsanderrors 00:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say and imply that what I said is a policy. Without mechanical and cyborg answer, I hope I made my point, but you are welcome to disagree though. My main concern and implication is that this article and argument has become so ethnocentric, so blonde loving and worshipping individuals that they forgot to file AfD against the blonde articles, especially the platinum and strawbery blondes, that they are attacking and feeling threatened by black hair color, which is common among non-whites. Just to give you something to think about. You are welcome to give your cyborg answer though. I agree that it should stand on its own, but ethnocentrism is playing huge role in this discussion. I think black hair shouldn't be filed for AfD (some white person filed it), but strawberry and platinum blonde should be filed many years ago (minutes after it was created) and deleted with 100% delete agreement. 168.253.15.112 06:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm saying it's irrelevant. --Ideogram 00:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever it was, the statement should be made so that we can better wikipedia in general, so that not just one article is attacked, but others should get notice. It's just for the betterment of wikipedia and objective judge of the articles. 168.253.15.112 00:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You noticed them, feel free to nominate them for deletion. --Ideogram 00:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to say black hair is rare? It's by far the most common hair colour, if I'm not greatly mistaken... --Tango 00:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, no I didn't say that. I was just arguing about the strawberry blonde, platinum blonde articles as having a basis for deletion. That's all. Black hair especially jet black is very common. 168.253.15.112 00:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that it was a content fork, except with no sourced content. If it were a topic that didn't get covered elsewhere I'd go with the "worthy of expansion" argument but the editors at hair color (not long on sources in the first place) should get back to the drawing board and create enough sourced content before they should think about forking. As about the other ones, some should definitely go. ~ trialsanderrors 00:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is true that black hair is already mentioned in the hair color article, but each of the other sections there also link to a main article on blonde, red hair, and brunette. It is not a content fork--this sort of structure of having a short summary at a main article and then a full article elsewhere is common throughout Wikipedia. Just because it's a stub and needs expansion doesn't mean it should be deleted; it means it should be expanded. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 02:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, wrong terminology. I didn't mean to imply that black hair can't stand on its own as a more detailed discussion of hair color. I meant to say that the article as it is now cannot stand, and unless someone adopts and sources it needs to be folded back into hair color. The content as it is is just random stuff. (Hitler's hair is depicted as jet black??) ~ trialsanderrors 02:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case it should be sourced, with the Hitler example. But is generally true though most Westerners will believe it's true. It's pop culture and everyone will agree. 168.253.15.112 06:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are not making any sense. It's "just random stuff," what is the evidence that you claim that it random? Are you being subjective? Ethnocentric? You just can't claim stuff and make it delete it. But the Hitler assumption should be source, but is common sense for people168.253.15.112 06:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is his hair depicted as "blonde" then? He has dark brown hair. 168.253.15.112 06:36, 10 July 2006 (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/Jet_black_hair&oldid=1137949400"