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. seriously, if you vote keep it really helps to say something about policy or sourcing. The only arguments based on the relevant policy - N - were for deletion and no effort has been made to counter them so the delete arguments win by default as the only valid policy based arguments put forward. Source it or lose it seems pretty clear. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Apparently headcount is more important then stength of argument these days. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surfer hair[edit]

Surfer hair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Original research, no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand with reliable sources LOL this was eh, one of my less serious articles... I think I reading an article on a skullet so I thought why not have this article. You know I'd say "surfer hair" is actually well covered in fashion and popular culture. And there are numerous reliable sources like this and this covering it...In fact google books has picked up over 14,000 hits here. This easily passes requirements, especially now I've added 25 odd solid sources from books... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Outstanding work by User:Dr. Blofeld. Bravo! Colonel Warden (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Good job Dr Blofeld —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.122.170.27 (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems like a common term in need of encyclopedic content, which it now has.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 21:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Reliable sources which cover the subject in a significant way have not been produced. The sources provided above by Dr. Blofeld have almost nothing at all to do with surfer hair. The first one is about skin diseases and mentions the effect of exposure to sun, but never relates it to surfers specifically. The second source is just a google snippet, and the only mention is "However, the Surfer boy's hair style was due far more to status than sexual factors." This is not significant coverage. I went through all of the sources in the article, and the vast majority do not cover the topic. Most of them mention surfers, some of them even mention hair, but none of them discuss the topic of "surfer hair". Many of them are about a particular surfer, and make mention of that surfer's hair. There was one exception, here, however it is a how-to article and arguably not a reliable source. Up to this point, I have not seen any sources which pass WP:GNG. It almost seems as if the article was deliberately created with as many references as possible in an attempt to mask the non-notability of the subject. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 21:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD. Read through those summaries. Sounds like this is something notable. The first result, Meriden Journal - Apr 9, 1963, talks about this fad saying "The symbol of the surfer - bleached hair swept over the forehead- has been adopted by both boys and girls." With another paragraph about it that follows. Popular hairstyle for awhile there, and still remains today. The style isn't just for blond people [1], but the hairstyle itself. Isn't there a book about hairstyles, or something for hairdresser to know? Dream Focus 05:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say add an entry at Illustrated list of hairstyles with a short description and leave it at that. There isn't enough coverage of the style to create an entire article. SnottyWong ^babble 18:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what is the criterion you are using? It can't be the GNG, & I can't think of any applicable specialized criterion or section of NOT. DGG ( talk ) 23:18, 26 January 2011 (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.