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 No consensus, defaulting to Keep per references added. ELIMINATORJR 15:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bed Head (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable product brand. Speedied twice, then restored by User:Rebecca with reason "completely unjustified speedy". I fail to see how this is notable in any way, and with a short, one-sentence paragraph and a web link, this smells lik spam, which is a legit reason for speedy. However, rather than wheel war with Rebecca, I'm bringing it here AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete for now. I have heard of this product, and I've seen it at everywhere from Regis Hair Salon to Wal-Mart, so it does seem to be a fairly popular brand. Haven't found much in the way of Google hits for Tigi or "Bed head + Tigi", so... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 17:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google does not rule all, and considering you have heard of it, and know of its wide availability, doesn't the vote "weak delete" seem a little...weird? Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 09:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If something can't be found in Google, it's almost certainly not notable. Google is pretty thorough. Jehochman ^Talk 05:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a really notable brand sold worldwide. It really needs a good expansion (as does its parent company, which I'm very surprised does not have an article), not a bogus deletion bid. It's hardly an advertisement (why would I want to advertise their product?) - it's just a lousy stub on a perfectly notable product. The answer is cleanup, not deletion. Rebecca 01:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is established by references, not by opinion or popularity. Add the references about it and it will be OK. Otherwise not. Dicklyon 20:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it isn't. Notability is determined by its ability to be referenced, not by the current state of the article. Articles on brands usually take quite a bit of work to be referenced, but it's completely unbelievable that one of the world's more notable brands of hair products wouldn't have enough sources to make for more than a good article. As I said, this needs an expand tag - not a ludicrous deletion attempt. Rebecca 04:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um, Rebecca, yes it is. WP:N makes it clear that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (note that "received" is in past tense, and that it doesn't say "able to receive") and in regards to the concept of notability itself, "This concept is distinct from 'fame', 'importance', or 'popularity'". Your argument that the product is distributed world-wide and is well-known does not establish notability, and is not a criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't say "able to receive" - I said "received". This article is plainly notable. It is inconceivable that one of the world's most notable brands of hair products would not have more than enough reliable sources to make for a good, detailed article. It simply requires someone to be prepared to do some research and expand the thing. We do not delete articles on notable topics (especially where it is virtually certain that reliable sources exist) simply because article concerned is, at present, unreferenced. Rebecca 03:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • If a brand is notable, it should only take a minute or two to find some independent news about the brand using a Google search. Please find two or three solid references, and I will immediately change my Delete to Keep. Jehochman ^Talk 06:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Rebecca, never before in my life have I seen a more blatant example of a circular argument that wasn't constructed with the specific purpose of illustrating the fallacy. The subject is notable because sources exist to establish its notability, and we know those sources exist because the subject is notable? This article isn't particularly important, but for the sake of improving the level of discourse, I have to call you out on this. Philwelch 06:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Notability not even attempted to be established, company that makes it has no Wikipedia article, so nothing there to justify its existence. DreamGuy 19:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you read what I said? The company that makes it is very significant, and I'm very surprised that it doesn't have an article (systemic bias, anyone?). Using that as the basis for deleting this one makes no sense. Rebecca 04:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Significant" is not a criteria of notability...see the quote from WP:N that I put above. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you being deliberately obtuse? If it's a very significant company, then it's really rather inconceivable that it wouldn't have been written about, should people bother to actually do research before trying to claim that such sources don't exist. Rebecca 03:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since the proponents can't seem to be talked into adding the evidence of notability. Dicklyon 04:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why should I spend two hours of my time chasing up references for this particular article simply because someone decides to be a dick about it? I've explained why this article is extremely likely to have more than enough verifiable sources, and I've got better things to do than run around at the behest of Akradecki. It is manifestly absurd to run around voting to delete unreferenced articles in the face of a perfectly rational explanation for why notability is most unlikely to be an issue. In the meantime, there's nothing inherently wrong with a short stub until someone gets around to expanding it. Rebecca 05:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Requiring evidence of notability on articles is a standard part of the wikipedia new article process. It's hard for me to see why you can't just accept that, and why you resort to incivility instead of trying to understand what's required. If you don't want to do the work right now, that's fine; do it later and write the article when you have sources. Dicklyon 06:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've given you evidence of notability, as have numerous people below. There is absolutely no doubt that this is notable per WP:N if someone bothers to actually expand the article. What I won't do is expand the article upon your whim. Rebecca 06:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If someone presented the required "verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability" then I'm sorry I missed it. Dicklyon 06:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I suppose you win points for selective quoting of guidelines in order to be a WP:DICK. The guideline states that "a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - which, as illustrated here, it very obviously has. Moreover, it states that, before nominating something for deletion on these grounds, someone should actually search for sources themselves, something that really obviously wasn't done here. Rebecca 06:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The incivility doesn't help advance your point. But to your point, yes, "significant coverage in reliable sources" is all that we're asking for evidence of. And actually I did search for sources, and didn't find any that I thought qualified; but I didn't spend two hours at it, which may be what's required, as you estimated. Dicklyon 06:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Zscout370 found three sources on the first page of Google alone. If you did "search for sources", I think your research skills could do with a bit of work. Rebecca 06:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Thanks, I'll work on that. But I think the google hits that Zscout found weren't quite up to what I was looking for. See our discussion below. Dicklyon 07:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • How about you do your own search, as WP:N suggests? Oh, but of course, this would take actual work on your part, and you couldn't bear to do that. Rebecca 07:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have seen the products everywhere in the United States, I have used the products myself. I am expanding the article now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sold at most, if not all, hair salons in the US, and Kelli McCarty from Passions has endorsed the product (I don't know if the interview is online, but it was in Soap Opera Digest). Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 05:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Quite a renowned brand and the article seems to be on the right track. --Amalgamation 05:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just because a company doesn't have a WP article doesn't make their products automatically non-notable. Q ^{T C} 06:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • These keep votes are content-free. Nobody doubts that Bed Head is a brand with products in lots of stores. How does that relate to WP:N? Dicklyon 06:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There doesn't need to be content, the article stands on it's own merit just fine. Q ^{T C} 07:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you saying that a discussion of notability concerns does not need to be addressed in terms of wikipedia's notability criteria? Or am I missing your point? Dicklyon 07:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I'm saying the article itself has enough proof that it passes notability that I dont need to reiterate it here. Q ^{T C} 10:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • And I'm saying that if that's so, I've missed it, and am left wondering what evidence you are referring to. Dicklyon 17:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, they are not. Mike just gave you a glowing example of a reliable source covering the product, and several other people have reaffirmed what I've said - that the notability of this product is bleedingly obvious should anyone actually bother to expand the article. There is absolutely no policy that allows unreferenced articles to be deleted simply for being unreferenced, and such proposals have been vehemently shot down in flames in the past. Rebecca 06:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the endorsement that Mike H. mentioned has been written up by an independent author, that could be taken as support of notability. But so far he hasn't produced the evidence, so we can't verify it. Could happen... Dicklyon 06:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Aren't you taking the assumptions of bad faith a wee bit far? Rebecca 07:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm assuming good faith on Mike's part, and I hope to see the evidence if he can find it. What is it that YOU are thinking? Keep it civil, please. Dicklyon 07:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • You could always do a search yourself. This, however, would require actual effort on your part, which explains why it won't happen. Rebecca 07:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Rebecca, why can't you stick to the point? Trying to make the notability issue into something about me is just a distraction. Dicklyon 22:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am adding to the article now, just look at it now (and later). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • But are any of those external links independent secondary sources about the brand? I see pages and quotes by the maker, by an advertising partner, by a seller, and by a recaller. These kinds of mentions do not advance the notability argument. Dicklyon 06:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes. You've been presented with one such source by Mike, a secondary source which points to them having obtained a major sponsorship deal by Zscout370, and some primary sources to flesh out a reasonable stub. This is even without hitting the databases, such as LexisNexis or Factiva, or even solidly searching Google. I've never known someone to fight so hard to get an article deleted in the face of both sources and good rational explanations for notability. It's bizarre, unhelpful and obnoxious. Rebecca 06:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • One of the links is provided by CNN, a copy of the interview was placed in Forbes by the Associated Press. The recall is mentioned by the CBC at [1] and the link provided in the article was from the Canadian Government. The website of the cheerleader mentioned is owned by the Dallas Cowboys themselves. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The CNN/Forbes/AP article is a press release from the maker, and merely has Bed Head mentioned in a quote "During the month of May we started shipping the exciting new Bed Head by TIGI appliance product line. During the second fiscal quarter we will begin to see the consumer sell-through of this product line as we initiate our advertising campaign for Bed Head." I can't see how that supports notability. The recall merely mentions a counterfeit product; I don't see how that supports notabitily. And the cheerleaders site press release on an advertising partnership is in no way independent, so also doesn't help. Did I miss anything? Dicklyon 07:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Product recalls are mentioned in articles, so figured since I found it, add it in. I also added a CBC link if you didn't think Health Canada was independent enough. I also added the incident in as a cause for calls to toughen up IP laws for the country. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Independence is not the problem there, but the mere mention of a product in a list or a footnote does not make it's brand notable, in my opinion. It's OK to mention it and reference it, but what's needed to save the article is evidence of notability. Dicklyon 07:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • You have been presented with plenty of evidence of the subject's notability. Since you are not willing to even do the most basic Google search before coming to such a vehement conclusion about the article's notability, to be honest, I think you're just being a dick now. Rebecca 07:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • At least it is stub worthy. We have articles, on other brands, that are less than this. I gave you at least 7 citations, first explaining what the product is and who is selling it and what government agencies have dealt with the brand. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You really don't do your case any good by trying to claim that other articles are even worse. That will always be true. I'm not sure that any one of your 7 is a reliable independent source about the subject; can you point out which one is? Dicklyon 07:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Well, for one, Mike's article is. I'd again point out that Factiva and LexisNexis haven't been touched. I'll give you a startling thought - if you're so concerned about the notability of this article, how about you go down to the library and take a look for yourself? I guess being a jerk is more fun, though. Rebecca 07:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability established by reliable secondary sources. AfD over. Reinis^talk 08:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which ref are you referring to? Rebecca just wants to call me a jerk for asking, or wants to make it my problem. If you've found a reliable secondary source, then we're done. But please share. Dicklyon 06:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge Lack of independent information about subject from reliable sources. A few passing mentions don't provide enough substance. Looks like it will never be more than a stub. Let me know if you find some sources. "They sell a lot" or "They are big" or "They are everywhere" are not proper reasons to keep. A good solution would be to merge this. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Or merge with the company that actually make the product: Toni and Guy have a Wikipedia article and they are the original makers of the product line. That would be a better redirect, in my opinion. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Helen of Troy Limited would make more sense, since the Bed Head brand are their products now. There's a long list of brands on their page, but Bed Head is missing. Dicklyon 06:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take it back. That link ref about Helen of Troy appliance brand may be a red herring. I don't find anything that says who makes or sells Bed Head; seems to be TIGI Linea division of Toni & Guy. Dicklyon 06:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Helen of Troy is just selling them in the United States. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:09, 6 August 2007 (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.