Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiky (hairstyle)

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 delete. the core issue here isn't "notability" but verification, aftr two weeks on afd, and four years as an article, there's simply not one solid source here. Sandstein arguement is persuasive, and nothing else in this debate serves to refute it. Scott Mac 14:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spiky (hairstyle)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This "article" has apparently been on Wikipedia since 2006. It has been longer. It has been shorter. It has contained pictures of celebrities. It has been edit-warred over. What it has never had are any REFERENCES. I don't know if this topic is NOTABLE because I don't know if this topic even exists. Are such hairstyles really referred to generically as 'spiky'??? Do we have any evidence of this? Is there even the slightest suggestion that the term 'spiky hairstyle' is a notable one? Should this be in the encyclopaedia? As far as I can see, this is an utterly non-notable neologism, and should be banished forthwith. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Editors should note that a substantial chunk of text was added back into the article after I nominated it. This chunk is not only utterly unsourced but largely unrelated and had been removed previously (not by me) to reduce the article to a stub. I am of the opinion that whichever version you pick, it is still non-notable.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fantasy hair styling on the technicality that it is completely unsourced and apparently fours years have been unable to come up with any WP:RS; I certainly have not been ableto come up with any and most of what the Internet offers is mirrors of various previous Wikipedia versions. Merging it would be a possible solution, and any legally usable photos will prove that such styles exist.--Kudpung (talk) 06:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That might work. Fantasy hair styling is a bit tenuous, but it does have a couple of references. It seems to be more talking about hairstyling for films or the catwalk though, whereas the cactus styles originated on the street. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have added one reference to this article. So, can we remove AFD??Arjunr240576 (talk) 05:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arjunr240576, please take a few moments to read WP:AFD which will explain this process more fully. The AfD will remain open for a minimum of seven days, for the community to comment. At the end of that time, an administrator will close the AfD and carry out any action there was community consensus for. Badgering me to 'remove' the AfD isn't going to get it closed faster, all it will do is get you into more trouble. Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What trouble? And you said more.......too. What was the trouble in which I have been messed up??? Asking this question, will cause me to get into more trouble too? Then this is not what I have heard about wikipedia. Administrators rule here! Arjunr240576 (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep and cleanup. The term "spiky" when applied to a hairstyle is obviously notable. In fact, Google, Google books, and Google news all turn up a truly overwhelming number of relevant hits. For instance, here is a hair stylist's book discussing various spiky hairdos. I'm not claiming to have found an authoritative source for the article, but the term is obviously notable. Tag with the relevant cleanup templates (or, better yet, clean it up yourself), and move on. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you own a copy of this book? (don't mean not to AGF, but it doesn't mention spiky styles anywhere, and rhe reviews say it features bridal styles, not street styles, so I wondered where you got your info from)Elen of the Roads (talk) 07:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Let me say that I definitely don't find this very GF-assuming. Look at the index entry on page 303, please. Unfortunately, it doesn't cover spiky styles in great detail, but saying that "it doesn't mention spiky styles anywhere" is completely false. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the editor above did a google book search for spiky hairstyle stylist The source he gives does not come up if you search only for spiky hairstyle, but it does if you search on hairstyle stylist . It's an easy mistake not to check which of your multiple search terms have been picked up - I've done it myself. If you search for 'spiky hairstyle', you do get a lot of hits, going back to the Minoans of Crete. The problem I have is that you get a lot of hits if you search for Blue dress, but that doesn't have an article because it's not a notable topic. No-one has written books or papers on blue dresses - or spiky hairstyles. In fact, the word seems to be used to describe a number of different styles: the punk styles like the Mohawk, the 80s Mullet (particularly as worn by Rod Stewart where it was spiked on top), very short hair that sticks up all over [1], untidy styles [2] more recently referred to as bedhead hair, short curly hair where the tips of the curls are visible (this from a description of some ancient artefact), hair like Shockheaded Peter, afro hair that has been straightened and brushed upwards the boxing promoter, Don King], styles resembling dreadlocks or cornrows (another historical one), Arnie in the movie Predator [3] - I could go on. In short, I don't think it's one defined thing, like Red hair or Mullet, and as such, I still don't think it is notable. I think it's just two words that collided to describe any kind of hair that sticks up a bit, whether it's styled that way or not.Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except the hit that I linked above does include relevant content, which I honestly don't understand how you missed. The reason I searched for this choice of words is that if I searched under "spiky hair", I was getting all sorts of irrelevant stuff (novels, etc). I wanted a source that addressed the topic specifically from the stylists point of view, and that is exactly what I found. What we really need is someone with access to trade magazines to dig up some full length sources that address the subject in detail, but the notability seems to me to be beyond question. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since I myself lack access to trade magazines, I must settle for sources of lesser quality. A few seconds of Googling turns up this article on the spiky style, which does address the subject in detail. Unfortunately, the source may not quite pass muster. But I think that WP:BEFORE here demands that someone should actually check the trade literature in order to conclude the lack of notability. The fact that "spiky hair" gets too many hits (as your above post suggests) is rather dubious grounds for deletion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I asked if you have the book because I'm reliant on google books, and the only reference seems to be this "you may love your spiky crop..." If it says more, could you perhaps quote what it says. As to the google hits, what I'm saying is that there isn't a notable definition of Spiky hair - it's not 'a topic', it's just a collision of words. If any kind of hairdo that sticks up can be called spiky, its not a topic, and the dictionary definition of the word 'spiky' would be adequate to describe it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested by Kudpung, no significant coverage in reliable sources given and I can't locate any. Hekerui (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:V, a core policy, we do not have an article about a topic if there are no reliable sources for that topic. The websites currently cited in the article ([4], [5], [6]) seem to be random commercial/personal/blog sites and hence not reliable. The hairstyle obviously exists, but it only gets to have an article after somebody has described it in some depth in a reliable source. Since the content is essentially unsourced, it should not be merged. Sandstein 09:06, 15 August 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.