Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good hair

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 merge to African-American hair. Or Afro-textured hair; consensus is that this topic should be covered, but as part of an existing article. Sandstein 18:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good hair[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Any positive aspects to this article could/should just be put in hair. Matt Deres (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Hair or Hairstyle. We do not have an encyclopedic article here. And an opinions article like this will easily become WP:OR. Lightburst (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support deletion and folding into the hair wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.15.163 (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page is unnecessary and inadequate. Mkultra1234

"Good hair" is by no means specific to the African American community. It is used across cultures and races. To differentiate "good hair" from "nice hair" is an arbitrary constriction you are personally placing upon the term. If you want to discuss the idiom "good hair" within the African American community, it ought to be a subcategory in an article about human perceptions of good hair. This article is ill-sourced, biased, scattered, arbitrary, and needs to be rewritten in order to meet the standards of Wikipedia. I support deletion of the page if this article in its current haphazard construction is the only alternative, and any attempts at editing and/or streamlining are unilaterally hamstrung by MrOllie. -MKultra1234

MKultra1234, were you the IP editor who changed the topic of this article earlier today? - MrOllie (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An IP recently gutted this article, which confused the topic with 'nice hair' in general. I have restored it to the previous version. This is an article about a cultural phenomenon in the African American community that has been the subject of both a prize winning documentary and the subject of academic work: [1] [2] [3] among others. - MrOllie (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is opinion and therefor sure to change. Nice hair in the 70s in the African-American community for instance. Lightburst (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is specifically about a bias toward straight hair over Afro-textured hair, and it hasn't really varied over time like hairstyles (so far, anyway). It's the hair version of discrimination over skin tone. Please take a look at some of the sources I linked. - MrOllie (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or possibly even Speedy Keep. Discrimination and stigma based on afro-textured hair is a significant and widely covered topic. The nomination seems to be based solely on the title and the assumption that it’s simply an article about popular hairstyles. Dronebogus (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A hodge-podge of vaguely connected topics and sources, original research, synthesis, and begging the question (I'm looking at the second paragraph of the lede in particular here). This should be, and largely is, covered in its various aspects at Afro-textured hair. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MrOllie. I could also be convinced that a merge/redirect might be appropriate (covering the topic within Afro-textured hair doesn't seem out of the question). The problems look fixable. XOR'easter (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge (in)to Hair: this article has some points like Dronebogus specified, but it would fit better inside an article with higher notability. Especially when it mostly sounds like it would be a section of that article. Aequilaterum (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hairstyle. Goustien (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , or maybe Merge into African-American hair or Afro-textured hair. Deletion isn't necessary per Dronebogus and something like Hair or Hairstyle would be way too broad to merge this article into. The topic is significant and is a fairly widely covered topic and I do think it can function as it's own article, but if it really needs to be merged, I think African-American hair or Afro-textured hair would be the best article to merge it into. Rexh17 (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to African-American hair. As described in this article, this concept primarily reflects the views of some African-American people about some African-American people's hair (their own or others'). The concept is meaningful primarily with regard to African-American hairstyles and should be covered in the appropriate article for that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - thank you to MrOllie for restoring the article, so that it at least makes some sense. I had visions of having "good" and "bad" versions of all our articles (though, of course, we do have an article at Bad Hair Day). But this still seems a very thin topic to have an entire article on, particularly since there are multiple articles where this would make a decent addition. If I'm understanding the context correctly, African-American hair would be the place, though both that article and Afro-textured hair have (extremely brief) mentions of "good hair" by way of the Chris Rock piece. Besides the size, placing this in one of those articles would provide additional context and help prevent similar misunderstandings. Matt Deres (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2021 (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.