Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Bieber's hair

Justin Bieber's hair

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

An article about Justin Bieber's hair (or almost anyone else's for that matter) does not belong in an encyclopedia. Unless his hair is particularly famous for some reason, which as far as I can tell, it is not, it is not going to meet the inclusion guidelines on its own. Prodego ^talk 18:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible keep O but o but o. This is Justin Bieber's hair we are talking about here.... Its legendary, it even had its own bodyguard. Contains reliable sources from the BBC to google book sources to show influence on popular culture. We have Rachel haircut. Well Bieber's cut is as emulated by teenage boys and Lesbians. Now surely one can't ignore the reliable sources discussing his hair to prove notability. LOL...♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care what happens to this article, but for the love of God, use a picture that isn't a creepy floating hairpiece. A regular headshot of the Biebs, for instance, would be perfectly sufficient in demonstrating his hairosity. (Not to be confused with Hareosity, which I demonstrate on a daily basis.) Floating hair piles with black backgrounds, however. That's just wrong. harej 18:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I gather you didn't see the humor in the flying Bieber hair. C'mon LOL this was clearly started as a joke as a separate article but the hair did seriously have a huge influence on popular culture, so I've merged it into the Bieber article. It contains reliable sources... Its worth mentioning in his article the influence and the fact that his hair sold for $40,000 and even had its own bodyguard!!! How many people on the planet can claim that their hair once had a bodyguard eh?? Mwwwoahaaa.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well it is good for a laugh. Perhaps redirected to the biography, in the same way that Beatles Haircut found its place as a cultural landmark. 99.168.85.28 (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know if this article was kept I reckon it would consistently attract at least 10,000 views a day...♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For sure. And so would an article on Joe Namath wearing pantyhose, had Wikipedia existed then.... 99.168.85.28 (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and God help us. His haircut is the subject of articles published in numerous reliable sources. The Hollywood Reporter, a trade magazine for the entertainment industry: [1]. The London Evening Standard: [2]. The Toronto Star, for heaven's sake [3]. I'm afraid the hair actually passes WP:GNG. --NellieBly (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then I propose an article on these, for which numerous sources exist: [4] 99.168.85.28 (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteHas no encyclopedic value. Perhaps it can be merged with the actual Justin Bieber page?01001010101010010101001 (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a section at Justin Bieber: Just because you can write an article about something doesn't mean you should. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the best option. Prodego ^talk 20:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the page creator has already performed the merge, and stated above that the page was 'started as a joke' Jebus989^✰ 20:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

heh, his hair is notable. I wonder what would happen if we had individual articles for celebrity body parts. Theo10011 (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why stop at bodyparts? Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen's flamboyant sense of style ? Jebus989^✰ 20:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now The Princess Anne beehive would be a good one.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if there is anything here not already covered at Justin Bieber#Hair. But this looks like a duplication of that section anyway, so my second choice would be a simple redirect to discourage people from re-creating this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and while you're at it, delete Justin Bieber as well. Theo10011 (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Justin Bieber, per MZMcBride. Now I'd like to remember how I stumbled upon this article in the first place. ----DanTD (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Which was the slant of my initial comment re: the Beatles. Would also absolve me of the responsibility to create a companion article on Dolly Parton's assets.... 99.168.85.28 (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - An absurd article premise, the very existence of which makes the project look ridiculous. Editors need to exhibit some common sense and resist the "its reliably sourced so I must make an article of it!" urges. Ugh, this reminds me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's arms. Tarc (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, quickly. Otherwise I might have to create articles on Kirk Douglas's dimple, Jimmy Durante's nose, and Dolly Parton's bosom. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 00:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I see no reason this needs to be a separate content fork. Kansan (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing wrong with the article in terms of policy. It would certainly be better to merge it, but there isn't a strong enough case to warrant an AfD mandate for a merge. Melchoir (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Expand, bring up to featured article status and parade it around on the front page for everyone to see. Don't merge keep on subject and keep the article title.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Article is about Justin Bieber's hair. Is a single article enough to cover this? We need to have Category:Justin Bieber's hair (a subcategory of Category:Justin Bieber's body parts) so we can have separate articles on individual hairs, don't you think? Herostratus (talk) 05:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Justin Bieber. The current title is intrinsically about this person's hair and he has already changed his hairstyle. The old style is best covered at Fringe (hair). See also Mop top which is the equivalent for the similar Beatles hairstyle. Plus ça change... Colonel Warden (talk) 06:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOLWUT? per Herostratus. In all seriousness, Merge to Justin Bieber, we don't need a separate article on somebody's hair. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 4:56pm • 06:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cut, trim, make into a mullet. Keep, as it seems to have general coverage and is comparable to Jennifer Aniston's hair and The Beatles'. Hmmm, never thought that would be in the same sentence. Lugnuts (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cut and merge - Notability is not inhaireted - Seaphoto^Talk 07:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or alternatively delete – per MZMcBride and Tarc. –MuZemike 07:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe I should have started this on April Fool's Day... LOL. Could you just imagine reading a book encyclopedia and seeing Justin Bieber's hair as an entry!! Indeed quite absurd, but let it be a spoof of all those "encyclopedic" entries people vote to keep because they "have multiple reliable sources" when really they are simply news story of the week, are better suited to fan wikis or just not suitable for a long term encyclopedia... Don't know about you but it gets wearing the sort of article some people are voting to keep on here, its getting worse to the point that wikipedia is becoming increasingly trivial...♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So your idea to address the proliferation of stupid news-of-the-day articles was to...create another one? Tarc (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-huh. I wanted to see whether people would consider it encyclopedic...♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]