Talk:List of hairdressers

Fashion Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Fashion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 October 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

(Comment)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag which proposed that this article be deleted, because I think that this article has merit and so should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here as notification. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article as that process is only to be used when there is no opposition. Warden (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

People at this article's current AfD discussion have suggested that this article be renamed to List of hairdressers. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the issue is already under discussion there, a second discussion here would be redundant and confusing. Warden (talk) 10:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a notification per the tag I placed on the article, to notify editors who may click through to this page but not view the AfD.

This wasn't intended to start a new discussion here. Perhaps the move tag isn't needed (I noticed your removal of it). Happy editing! Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been WP:BOLD and following the AFD's resolution, have gone ahead and renamed, and also revised the list to bring it in line with other list articles. Sad to lose the references, but those should be in the individual articles to show why those individuals are notable. Mabalu (talk) 09:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List style

1) The term "celebrity" was problematic. I do not see any need for long lists of random stars, politicians, or royals following an individual's entry in a list. It makes the page confusing to read. Such information exists on the individual's page. Justifications should be kept super-simple - ie, "introduced the bob cut" or if they're associated with a studio, just name the studio, no need to reel off every star they've ever shampooed.

Happy to limit to 3 clients each, or with basic info. But you removed some nationalities/locations, which are important. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2) There is no need to reference every single name in a list to prove why they should be on that list. If they have a Wikipedia article, notability will ideally be proved on the Wikipedia article, so the fact the name is not a redlink (or, as a general rule, a redirect) is good enough for most people.

As WP:LIST makes clear, lists are in no way exempted from normal WP referencing requirements. That most WP lists are unreferenced is a problem; they are not exemplars. It is useful and good practice to give a brief summary of the career. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3) I do query the value of list entries that are redirects unless the redirect is to an absolutely logical place. The Marcel Grateau instance bothers me as his role as inventor is open to question. The way he is cited here states it as fact, rather than showing it's open to question. In this instance I would encourage someone to revise the redirect page for Marcel Grateau into a standalone article on that individual, using the references, and then a simple link to that article would be valid on a list of hairdressers.

The redirect is to an article based on his first name; imo this is fine. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4) I also think the Charles Gregory Ross picture is not worthwhile. He may be a stylist, but it does not show him styling hair. It is basically some guy standing around with two models - could be anybody really, especially as this man has no article of his own. The other image is more appropriate because there IS an article associated with it. Also, IMDB is problematic. Mabalu (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine to lose it, though some other pic would be good. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]