Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bow tie wearers (4th nomination)

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. Really. A "list of bow tie wearers." Just because information is sourced does not mean that it is discriminate. And this is what I'll say at the inevitable DRV, too.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturned to no consensus per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 November 19. lifebaka++ 16:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of bow tie wearers

List of bow tie wearers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article is entirely original research. Almost everyone has worn a bow tie at some point, and this article is an indiscriminate collection of information, contrary to WP:NOT. A case in point would be the 'list of big-busted models' article that was earlier deleted. How many times must one wear a bow tie in order to be included?. The "Attention to famous bow tie wearers in commerce and fashion commentary" should be merged back into bow tie and the list deleted. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: a discussion on a possible renaming and tightening of criteria, proposed by a neutral admin, has been posted at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of bow tie wearers (4th nomination)

Notice: I've said it in the discussion below, but it bears repeating in a visible spot: if any material is merged, the GFDL requires the history to be retained for attribution reasons. A combination of delete and merge is therefore not possible the proper course after a merge would be to redirect the original page. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (Disclosure: I've never worn a bow tie.) We don't need this. It's an embarrassment. If a given individual was known for his bow ties, then they can be mentioned in the article about that individual. Delete. DS (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • From WP:CLN: "Lists are good for exploratory browsing of Wikipedia, and provide a useful alternative to the category system - lists are often more comprehensive because each is maintained from a centralized location (at the page itself)." Of course the wearing of the bow tie should be noted in the individual's article, but why is it bad to compile them? I'm not clear on your reasoning here.--otherlleft (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral- I just wanted to point out- the last AFD for this list closed not even a MONTH ago. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I wore a bow tie once. I don't see any of my wedding photos in this article (probably just as well). More seriously, anything encyclopedic here could easily be shifted across - with no GFDL issues - to Bow tie. Delete. Black Kite 00:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all useful content to bow tie. There is good content here, however the list is entirely indiscriminate and what content we do have would be much better off in the bow tie article, which I note needs a wider perspective on things anyway. A short list could be included in the bow tie article. Listing people who wear article of clothing X isn't very encyclopedic. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - seems mostly non-encyclopedic The muffin is not subtle (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest of Deletes maybe now that Noroton "fired" Wikipedia we can get this off. Seriously, like the nom said, this is an embarassment. JuJube (talk) 00:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I've put the encyclopedia on probation for the present, but thanks for the sweet comment, JuJube. Apologies for the embarassment. Oh, by the way, since I first saved the article from deletion, it seems impervious to destruction without my efforts, although I credit Orlady with keeping up the quality. Wait for Orlady to fire Wikipedia -- but I wouldn't bet on deletion even then. -- Noroton (talk) 02:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• merge there is some good content in the article, but the list is not part of it. As the nom said, it does not make sense to list people by something most people have done in their lives. Icewedge (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I took a look at the "lists of people" section of WP:STAND and found this:

Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future). For example, list of atheists doesn't include every individual with a Wikipedia article who happens to be an atheist, because not all of them are notable for their atheism. However, it might well include Sigmund Freud.

I concur with Icewedge that listing anyone who has ever worn a bow tie is in violation with this guideline. Efforts must be made with this, and for that matter all lists of people, to ensure that only people notable in that category (in this case, for wearing bow ties) be included. However, that is not in itself a criterion for deletion so far as I can tell.--otherlleft (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Well referenced, but a dictionary article can be well-referenced too; the point is that this is too trivial of a list topic. Nyttend (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Previous deletr arguments revolved largely upon IDONTTHINKITSIMPORTANT. In many cases this was a distinguishing characteristic, and if it can be documented that it was so considered, the article is justified. That's what keeps it from being indiscriminate. DGG (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand. Are you saying that because people think it isn't important, it is? I'm not saying that though - I'm saying that the criteria for inclusion are arbitrary, and point one of Wikipedia:NOTDIRECTORY. As WP:SALAT states, if you create a list like the "list of shades of colours of apple sauce", be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge. The number of possible lists is limited only by our collective imagination: where next? List of hat wearers? List of people who refrain from wearing socks? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Watch out with that last one. There's some user who has a bare-feet fetish and keeps altering articles, uploading images, and creating categories accordingly. Don't give him ideas. Deor (talk) 13:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Two areas of concern. The first is as stated above, there is a genuine question if this is encyclopedic enough (WP:NOT) - do we want articles of the form "List of people who wear/don't wear clothing item X"? Although harmless, it strays too far into "indiscriminate collection of information" and "non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations" for me. I'd also feel it is too marginal a topic to be really appropriate as a list.
  The other concern which applies if the content is kept or merged is, this is supposedly a list. But in fact the introduction and entire long first section is essentially full of bowtie promotion (!) - "A man's wearing of bow ties is often noticed and commented upon" ... "Men's clothier Jack Freedman told the New York Times that wearing a bow tie 'is a statement maker' " ... "can be a badge of courage" ... "have certainly helped businesses" -- sentence after sentence of "bowtie positive" allusions, quotations, and commercialization. None of this belongs in a "list of wearers". Whatever else may happen, if it's kept then as a list, this isn't needed, and if merged into bowtie this aspect probably needs a bit of review, balancing, or sanitizing. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not "encyclopedic" enough? From WP:FIVE, first pillar, first sentence: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs (boldface added). With -- what? -- 2.5 million articles, Wikipedia should have as many comic book-related articles as a comic book encyclopedia, as many articles on Vermont topics as a Vermont encyclopedia, and as many articles as a good fashion encyclopedia. Is fashion important? I think so -- as an industry, as an art, as a social artifact. It seems to me that the topic of which notable people wear bow ties is something that a very good fashion encyclopedia would want to cover for the reasons mentioned at the top of the article: notable people wearing bow ties affects the bow tie business and is a notable element in bow tie advertising -- that's why the information was put there, not to promote bow ties. We cover business topics, of course, and to an extent, this is one of them, in addition to the fashion history and societal aspects. You say the entire long first section is essentially full of bowtie promotion (!) Actually, the first sentence of the second paragraph states: Fashion commentator John Molloy was once quoted as saying "Wear a bow tie and nobody will take you seriously."[4] Writing in the "dress-for-success" column in Success Magazine he stated that people didn't trust bow tie wearers. Most coverage of bow tie wearing tends to be less negative, and we're largely at the mercy of our sources, under WP:NPOV. In any event, your objection is a content matter, not a deletion matter. There is nothing indiscriminate in listing notable people whose public image is tied in with their bow ties to the extent that their neckwear is referred to as "trademark" or "signature bow tie". -- Noroton (talk) 03:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently the top section had been heavily trimmed. Orlady restored it. The current version, here, has a better balance between negative and positive. -- Noroton (talk) 06:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is going to be boring because some of my comments are going to be repeats of comments I made in previous AfDs, but it's not my fault that we are being subjected to repeated AfDs for this article.
  The phenomenon documented by this list is notable. The vast majority of the entries on this list are notable men (and fictional characters) whose habit of wearing bow ties has been widely remarked upon in reliable sources (for example, for many of the real people who have died, bow-tie-wearing is mentioned in the first sentence of the obituary).
  This is not original research -- contributors have worked hard to ensure that every entry on the list is sourced, and many of the list entries are based on lists in published articles about the phenomenon of bow-tie-wearing. It would be logical to merge this into Bow tie, but that would not be desirable because the resulting article would be excessively long (this list article is over 40k by itself). Combining the two articles would merely create a new problem needing a new solution.
  For the people on this list, "wearing of bow ties" is not a trivial association. The overwhelming emphasis of the sources cited and quoted in this article is on the bow tie as a major, deliberately chosen element of a man's identity or public image. How else to explain (for example) the university president who capitalizes on his reputation for a "trademark bow tie" by calling his travels around the state "Bow Tie Bus Tours"? Or how about the TV journalist who stopped wearing bow ties when he joined CBS because a network official told him that Charles Osgood was CBS' bow-tie-wearing personality and "We can't have two guys wearing bow ties"? Or how about the politicians who are nicknamed "Bow Tie" by their opponents and/or supporters? This is an association that goes beyond mere personal taste.
  An earlier commenter urged people to avoid making WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. I also suggest avoiding WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments, which is what most of the arguments for deletion have been. --Orlady (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominating an article for deletion (or renominating thereof) does not automatically equate to not liking it. MuZemike (talk) 03:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I couldn't agree more. I'm not debating that it's well referenced - I can create a well-referenced article on colour shades of apple sauce. But when you take a man who has worn a bow tie as a 'trademark', is it worth any more than a passing sentence in his article? Perhaps on bow tie there might be a list of three or four persons who have been involved in bow tie related problems, like the people you mention - but including one person because "[He] wore a bow tie in a photo that appeared on the cover of the 16 July 1954 issue of Life magazine", or because Lee is pictured wearing bow ties on his Cornell University webpage and his Nobel Prize biography page" is northing more than WP:OR. Where are the reliable secondary sources on his wearing of bow-ties? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • My apologies if I misinterpreted your rationale for deletion, but I am laboring under the impression that you said the article was "entirely original research", and that is the assertion I was responding to. If you now agree the article is well-referenced, then what is your basis for saying it's entirely original research? --Orlady (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think ST47 (talk · contribs) has summed up my reasoning quite succinctly. See below, at 00:16, 16 November 2008. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, to be perfectly clear, you no longer stand behind the first sentence of your deletion nomination, where you said the article is "entirely original research"? (ST47's comments do not address that. Rather, they seem to be focused on a personal theory of "what is a list.") Can you please strike out that statement? --Orlady (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For the record, I really like this article! It's fun in a very British way, love to Stumble on it. I just don't think it's encyclopedic The muffin is not subtle (talk) 04:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it would not be in a paper one, but we have gone so far past the point of that being the criterion for notability, that, direct comparisons aside, there is a large bulk of stable articles with, I am sure, fewer hits, edits, and sources, on much less civilised topics. —Kan8eDie (talk) 14:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 03:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. If there's not a limit of one deletion requests per quarter, there ought to be. htom (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTAGAIN. This isn't a nomination in bad faith, and I'd hope that you don't think it's one :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no idea what your motives are; it was two weeks ago we were doing this. It looks like you didn't look at the talk page at all, or if you did, disruption. htom (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A thoroughly-sourced article that provides more than 100 reliable and verifiable sources demonstrating why bow tie wearing is notable and why individual bow tie wearers are notable within different contexts and milieus. The previous two AfDs all ended in keep, and other than persistent abuse of process, there is no reason for us to be here. Deletion attempt III failed little more than two weeks before as a keep, with no evidence to explain why consensus has changed in the interim. Consensus is a completely worthless pile of junk if persistent stabs will be made until a satisfactory result is reached. Why shouldn't the article be immediately recreated if this abuse ends with a delete? Alansohn (talk) 05:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, WP:NOTAGAIN. If this ends with a delete, then recreating the article should be done through a deletion review, any other recreations are deleted. It's not abuse of process if I'd never heard of, or participated in, the original four discussions. Furthermore, the previous three AfDs I'm not concerned about the notability - I'm concerned that the list itself is 'listcruft', that is, it is of interest to a very limited number of people, is unencyclopaedic, i.e. it would not be expected to be included in an encyclopaedia, determining membership of the list involves original research or synthesis of ideas and determining membership of the list requires adoption of a non-neutral point of view. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, I offered a clear explanation of why this article fulfills all Notability guidelines. The abuse of process is merely a topper, and you are the one who is abusing process here. This AfD closed as keep two weeks ago. If you disagreed with the close you should be the one taking it to DRV. The one-sided nonsense that a keep can be challenged repeatedly until you get the result that you are certain is the truth, while demanding that a bureaucratic process is needed at DRV to overturn a delete makes the whole consensus process worthless. It is disruption like this that can make Wikipedia so utterly unproductive. If you won't respect the previous two closures as keep why should anyone respect a delete? Alansohn (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • it is of interest to a very limited number of people, Actually, I think it is of interest to more people than the vast majority of Wikipedia articles. It gets 2,500-3,000 hits per month. [1] Twice that of Codfish [2] Just saying. -- Noroton (talk) 04:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - an interesting, useful, well-written article. The fact that the topic is trivial, or about fashion, does not in any way stop us from writing about it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I beg to differ. WP:INTERESTING. WP:USEFUL. WP:LISTCRUFT. I'm not concerned that it's about fashion - I'm concerned that the article has no definite criteria for inclusion, and that it's an indiscriminate list. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and I'm inclined to vote keep on any AFD that goes past the third nomination. Also, there is no "original research" unless the article contains facts that only exist on Wikipedia. Squidfryerchef (talk) 06:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll ignore the argument on nomination numbers. But, you see, there is original research here - arbitrary inclusion of people who may have only worn a bow tie once or twice. How often does one have to wear a bow tie for inclusion? Can someone answer me that? OR is it how often they've been pictured wearing a bow tie? That's where the original research is! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 06:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, there is no such thing as OR by inclusion. If a reliable source says that X wore a bow tie, then it's not OR to add X to the list. There are arguments about relevance and undue weight that can be brought in, but it's not OR. Squidfryerchef (talk) 07:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP With respects to the nom, consensus was a resounding keep just 2 weeks ago. If this consensus is also a keep, will you bring it back again and again? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTAGAIN. I won't bring it back again and again, no - but I wasn't aware of the previous deletion discussion when I made this. Please don't assume I'm here to destroy your work! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 06:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not "my" work to destroy, as I have had nothing to do with the article. And I accept good faith that you brought here unaware that it survived an AFD as recently as 2 weeks ago. However, now that you are aware that it was a resounding keep on October 28, do you still wish to argue for its deletion again so soon? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I have not checked yet... but were those who particpated in the AfD 2 weeks ago given a courtesy notification that it had come back so quickly? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't, and I also notice that the chain of deletes at the start occurred quickly. htom (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies, I didn't realise. But no, I'm going to stick this one out. The reasons were mostly 'I like it' reasons, and none of them have addressed my one major concern - What are the criteria for inclusion? How often must one ear a bow tie? The problem is the same as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of virgins - there is not, and cannot be, a definite criteria for inclusion. Nearly all men in the western world wear a bow tie at some point, for example with a tuxedo, or as part of fancy dress. Tom Cruise should be included perhaps? Or David Miscavige? Or David Beckham? Perhaps anyone mentioned at this page? Or Eric Idle, for his ridiculously large bow tie? Even Oscar Wilde wore one! Take a look at this page - which ones do we include? Any answer to that will inevitably involve original research/personal points of view - some people will see Eric Idle's as a joke, and not worthy of inclusion, some people will see it as worthy purely because of that. The criteria are vague, and inherently undefinable. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 06:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again... not my article and I am not (with respects) concerned with WP:WAX arguments for or against, as consensus has thrice now agreed to keep. Perhaps a more definitive guideline for inclusion or exclusion parameters might be reached on the article's talk page...? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • A definite guide for inclusion would be helpful, certainly, as well as a reason why this isn't a list of indiscriminate information. I'm rather shocked at the number of people who are accusing me of abuse of process - I regularly close AfDs, I think I know what the process is. Consensus has not agreed to keep thrice, however - only twice - and twice as 'no consensus'. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're correct... what I should have stated is that the article has three times been sent to AfD and three times kept. And regardless of the quibble, its last and resounding keep was just 2 weeks ago... far too soon to even imagine that the conensus had changed. And before you repeat "I did't realize", and with an acceptance of good faith in your actions, you're an Admin and you just wrote that you regularly close AfDs and know what the process is. The perception of abuse is in your return of an article to AfD 2 weeks after a strong close as keep, your lack of courtesy notification to editors who had been involved in the article and/or the last AfD, your repeated use of WAX arguments that run affoul of WP:ATA while chastising their use by article defenders, and your seeming to have have ignored WP:BEFORE... whether intentional or not. The perception when this is done by an Admin who knows the process, is that you were trying to rush this article off of Wiki before its supporters realized it was gone. Again, and with apologies as no accusation is being made... only an explanation to address your being shocked by the number of people speaking toward a perception of "abuse of process" (your words). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Merge the useful stuff back into bow tie and delete the list. Some of the notable bow tie wearers (ie, those who wear bow ties as a statement) and their reasons can also be moved back to bow tie, but a list of people who have worn bow ties at one point in their lives is bound to be inexhaustible. howcheng {chat} 07:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is bad form to bring this here again as checking for previous discussions is one of the pre-requisites listed at WP:BEFORE. The nomination's focus upon inclusion criteria is a weak argument since the list is obviously of habitual bow tie-wearers. The claim of OR is false as the article has excellent sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Surprisingly, the introduction to the list provides a reasonable justification for inclusion, with well-known people using the bow tie as a fashion or character statement. Since the choice of wear is often made a point of, coverage of this passes the basic criteria of WP:N. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Procedurally, this AfD is a bad idea because it's only two or three weeks since the last debate closed. As for the article, it defines its terms clearly, includes a discussion of the relevance of its subject matter, is not indiscriminate, classifies its entries in useful ways, and is properly referenced. The frequent wearing of bow ties in the 20th and 21st centuries is a notable cultural phenomenon, rare enough to be distinctive yet common enough not to produce a vanishingly small list. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I was sure this was a delete until I read the article. Provides a clear, sourced criteria for inclusion and sources for those included. Provides sourced information for the article as a social phenomena. --Clay Collier (talk) 11:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the writing isn't perfect (it reads less like a list than it should) and one might find some shreds of original research remaining, but these are issues that can be improved upon. Generally lists may include elements that are not notable in their own right, but perhaps renaming this to ". . . notable bow tie wearers" or something to prevent my uncle Darryl from being included would be in order. I'm also of the mind to drop the small fictional character section.--otherlleft (talk) 13:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - in addition to my originally-stated reasons, this AfD is clearly a violation of WP:NOTAGAIN. There was clear consensus to keep this article as of 23 October 2008, and there is no basis for arguing that the article should have been improved in that amount of time. The only thing that's embarrassing here is the manner and speed in which the nominator, who as an administrator should be familiar with policies and procedures, brought this article back. I'm reasonably new to the AfD process so it's taken me some time to get up to speed on all the nuances, which is why my thoughts are hereby expanded and clarified.--otherlleft (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - quite frankly, it is simply too soon to bring it back to AfD. Article is disturbingly impressive. WilyD 13:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment for nominator - In the future, if you wish to make a good-faith nomination of an article for deletion, you might consider glancing at its talk page first. In this case, there are four prominent boxes that refer to the three prior deletion discussions and one deletion review. The significant amount of discussion here that relates to process could have been avoided by simply clicking the "talk" tab.--otherlleft (talk) 14:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The first section is a bit waffly, and the organisation of the quotations is not always perfect, but this is a far better article than the vast majority on Wikipedia, with a lot of work gone into it to source every single statement. It is not perhaps of universal interest, but with the 'not paper' policy it would be a huge shame to throw out this good work. If you don't like that this is here, try getting your articles of interest in the rest of the encyclopaedia up to this standard before deleting it because some bow tie enthusiasts have put proportionately more effort into their area of interest than you have to yours.

  I would say that there seems to be no original research here at all, except maybe a little bit (far less than in the average article though) in some slight synthesis of sources at the start, but the 'original research' argument is clearly not applicable to the choice of people on the list. I would hate to see this article go because the 'not again' policy were used to openly ignore consensus, or other policies misapplied. —Kan8eDie (talk) 14:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete as per WP:LC items 2, 4, 9, and 10. Stifle (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2. The list is of interest to a very limited number of people

  I would not be so sure... Define very. Certainly, bow ties are not unheard-of, and I think, given that wearing one during the day time is a bit of a statement these days, I find it hard to believe that someone interested in bow ties would not like to see what sort of people wear them.

  4. The content is unverifiable or the underlying concept is non-notable

  Given the number of references, the content (i.e. 'Did so-and-so wear a bow tie as part of their identity?') is certainly verifiable, and the concept itself is so tightly linked to bow ties themselves that the enumeration of bow tie wearers should not be a problem.

  10. Determining membership of the list involves original research or synthesis of ideas.

  9. Determining membership of the list requires adoption of a non-neutral point of view, and reliable sources for avoiding it are not available.

  Determining membership of the list is no harder than determining whether anyone is notable. All notable people, who notably wore bow ties, can be listed here. Either the tie was on or off; there is no value judgement being made here beyond whether anyone was notable for a certain thing (i.e. if we can judge whether Churchill was strongly linked to journalism in his article, or rather quote people who make the link, then there is no difficulty commenting here on the strong associations between him and bow ties).

  —Kan8eDie (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. granted it's not of earth-shattering importance, but then again neither are the thousands of articles on obscure hamlets all over the world, or of individual stations on train lines,bus stops, obscure athletes who finished 16th in the modern heptathlon at the 1932 olympics etc., etc., ad nauseam. but then, i have a bias. it may be the only list on wikipedia for which i qualify.Toyokuni3 (talk) 15:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 17:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • don't care, vote remains keep.Toyokuni3 (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not a very helpful argument - remember that closing admins will probably ignore arguments like that, so it doesn't really help your viewpoint. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Who's argument were you referring to as not helpful? Amelirate's for simply pointing to guideline, or Toyokuni's for being a succinct response to Amelirate's? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important" (from the policy page). Please, we do not enhance the discussion by blindly linking to policy pages without justifying. Toyokuni makes a broad point, without falling into the trap of giving specific or otherwise fallaciously subjective judgements, so any attempt to address his point must explain which of and why the comparisons he is making are invalid. He is right to not be 'wikilinked into submission' without someone explaining what is actually with what he said. Similarly, when basically nothing has been said in Ameliorate's and Toyokuni's replies, there is no reason so far for a change in opinion, so I think an admin ought to regard the opinion as still valid, much though some might want it dismissed over nothing more than being stated twice. —Kan8eDie (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Random break

• Very Strong Keep Just based on the fact that there has been such exhausting discussions on this in the prior AfD's, it obviously is a significant enough topic to warrant inclusion. The only thing I can think of is that people want to see it deleted because the title may be a bit too generic. I think this discussion belongs on the page's discussion page as a potential name change, as suggested by MichaelQSchmidt.Shirulashem (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - previous AfDs on this article wrestled with the same subject, and discussion did ensue on the article's talk page with no action being taken. I hope that if yet another consensus is reached to keep this article, it will include consensus to rename as well, perhaps preventing this discussion from occurring again when another nominator fails to read the previous AfDs.--otherlleft (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: With respects, User:Howcheng's "Proposal" discussion has been moved to this AfD's talk page Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Note: On the article's talk page there is a delightfully cogent discussion about renaming the article, as even the use of the word "list" in an article title evokes all kinds of dissention. Since the article itself is far more than a haphazzard list... being a well written and well sourced article that then includes several different and related lists in its body, a renaming should be seriously considered. Let the word "list" be used in the article's sections, but not in the title... as can be understood from the text of WP:LISTS. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the same reasons that I argued for deletion back in Jan 2007. This is an inherently unmaintainable list. The decision to wear a bow tie (or a vest or a button-down shirt or any other article of clothing) is not a useful encyclopedic distinction. The prior discussions have allowed ample opportunity for discussion and resolution yet the article remains fundamentally unimproved. My ability to give it the benefit of doubt has run out.
  Note: From what I can tell, the content about the history of bow-tie wearing was copied in from other pages so I don't think there are any GFDL issues. If that turns out not to be the case, then a protected redirect would be the better answer. Rossami (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you considered the points proposed in WP:DEADLINE? That's the only part of your argument I'm not clear about.--otherlleft (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per almost unanimous keep of 23 Oct 2008, and per WP:GiveItaBreak. Occuli (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Incidentally there was Category:Famous Bow tie wearers, renamed by cfd to Category:Famous bow tie wearers and then deleted (with quite a few 'listify' comments particularly in the first one). Occuli (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This is a highly trivial and indiscriminate list and in my opinion runs afoul of WP:FIVE pillars. Still. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This very vague. The list clearly discriminates based on whether the bow tie was an important part of the wearer's image or not, and you would need to explain which pillar is violated for that argument to carry any weight. —Kan8eDie (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't see any real point in this list; nothing really links Pee-wee Herman and Arthur Schlesinger with Robin Day other than their choice of neckwear. This makes it a mere list of coincidences. At the most, the article on the bow tie can note that contemporary western culture links it with a particular sense of style and social attitude, mentioning a few people embodying them - but even then there will be exceptions. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the article's first paragraph: Well-known people who become associated in the public mind with wearing bow ties can have a powerful positive or negative effect on the popularity of this type of neckwear, according to numerous observers, including writers and bow tie sellers.[2][3] It's a social/business/fashion phenomenon noted by multiple sources and used in industry advertising. That removes the objection that this list is "trivial" or a "mere list of coincidences". Inclusion in the list should be governed by proof that the person is not only notable enough for a Wikipedia article (the general Wikipedia criteria for people lists) but also by proof that the person is known for wearing bow ties. A vast number of items on the list offer just that sourced proof, and I think they all should. That answers the "indiscriminate" objection. I think the lead section would be strengthened by making the criteria more explicit, something which might have prevented a number of the "delete" !votes on this page. a particular sense of style and social attitude -- actually, there seem to be several different senses of style and social attitude, much of which is affected by associations with notable people who wear bow ties. The sources constantly bring this up. Footnote 10 source, for instance. [3]; also Footnote 1 [4] -- Noroton (talk) 06:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. WP:NOT, WP:NOT, and more WP:NOT. This is a trivial list, nothing more, and is utterly unencyclopedic. It's shocking to me that this has already survived three AfDs.  Xihr  22:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - what next? List of bald politicians? List of actresses photographed "wearing a little black dress"? NOT, please.  Frank  |  talk  22:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is why: Plenty of people are known for their bow tie wearing. People known for being bald or wearing little black dresses? Not so much: "signature bow tie" 2,060 ghits; "trademark bow tie" 3,290 ghits; "signature bald head" 168 ghits (surprised me); "trademark bald head" 460 ghits (shocked me); "known for her little black dress" 4 results; "known for his bow ties", 521. -- Noroton (talk) 05:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Then perhaps a move is in order after all: List of people known for wearing a bow tie.  Frank  |  talk  02:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; useful information about the social consequences of wearing a bow tie exists in that article; people who wear bow ties and have become associated with them should be noted in their respective article. A list of people who are almost completely and immediately recognizable by their bow tie could possibly be included in the main bow tie article, to which I would not object, but a separate list invites too many editors to add their favorite politician/movie star/notable person who once wore a bow tie to the list. A list is acceptable, but it should never be long enough to not fit on the main bow tie article. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you review the quotes beside most items or look at the footnotes for most of the items without descriptions beside them, you'll find that nearly every item on the list is of a person known for constantly wearing a bow tie. That implicit criterion should be explicitly stated near the top of the article. Nevertheless, it is the criterion (along with general notability). You can't fit all that in the bow tie article. -- Noroton (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the list and place the content about the cultural stuff in the bow tie article. If that requires a redirect, then fine. The people and fictional characters on this list have nothing in common past having chosen to wear (or in the case of cartoon characters, been drawn wearing) a particular style of tie. This is not an encyclopedic relationship. Otto4711 (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is absurd. What's next, a list of people who've worn top hats? Fedoras? Swords? These are all things that have been highly fashionable at some point. Aggregations of people in all those milieus, along with people outside of them who were anachronistic in their dress sense, is indiscriminate and pointless. RayAYang (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This, and many similar arguments above and below, are well wide of the mark. This list does not include those wearing bow ties as part of black tie, or Victorian morning dress. This is a list of people wearing bow ties as an individualistic statement, not as some sort of mass conformism. I think it is clear that, if a minority still notably wore swords these days, it would be a hefty statement, and that the list article for that would exist. Please read the first lead paragraph before commenting and just assuming that for those on the list, wearing it was simply conforming with what was 'highly fashionable'. —Kan8eDie (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is clearly a well-referenced article. It is notable that the wearing of bow tie conveys a specific fashion statement. It is also notable that Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, etc. wore bow ties. However Wikipedia:Notability states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." In this case, the topic "List of bow tie wearers" does not have these reliable sources. Therefore it is not notable. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not many Wikipedia lists would meet that notability criteria. Actually, articles on bow tie wearing constantly list numerous notable people known for wearing bow ties. Multiple sources that mention many bow tie wearers are quoted and referenced in the article, and those articles give substantial coverage to just that subject of notables-who-wear-bow-ties: A dozen mentioned in Footnote 10's source; seven in Footnote 6's source. Wikipedia, of course, has improved on these numbers. -- Noroton (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  "What about X?" is not an appropriate argument. Those sources are about the "fashion of bow tie wearing", not merely lists of who wears them. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  It isn't a "What about X" argument to say that Wikipedia's ongoing, longstanding, universal practice is not to demand that a stand-alone list be matched somewhere else in the universe by another list. The "topic" of this list article is "notable people who are also known for wearing bow ties" and that topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources referenced in the article -- and even the articles I just mentioned have lists. The article meets WP:N, hands down. -- Noroton (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  This is crazy! Since when has the list itself had to be notable? Please read the guidelines the deletionists seem so ready to brandish (Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Lists_of_people). The key point is the notability of the members of the list, not the list itself. —Kan8eDie (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I respect the classic view of what counts as encyclopedic (e.g., all the stuff one can find in say our cultural grand-daddy theMicropædia). I'm not however being paid by the Britannica company (nor would I imagine would anyone else participating in this discussion). There are things in wikipedia that re-define what is encyclopedic and this article like exploding whales is one of them. So Strong Keep per Wikipedia:Department of Fun#Humor. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, another case of people confusing "it looks pretty, and it's referenced, thus it's delete-proof" without noting that the opening sections to "establish" notability are only in this article as a coat rack for the regular bow tie article (where it has been admitted they were moved to this article because they were too trivial for the bow tie article) and that the references only state that X wore a bow tie at some point in their lives, without associating one individual with another. This is not a list that should be saved because it is amusing or because it is in the widest sense an... interesting concept... using such reasons to save it are pretty much invoking a version of IAR to ignore that the article itselfs foundation is non-existent. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • they were moved to this article because they were too trivial for the bow tie article I wrote some, or most, of those opening paragraphs. My memory could fail me here, but I thought I researched it myself and wrote it up for the list article. I think elements that influence bow tie sales are not too trivial for Wikipedia, given what Wikipedia covers. -- Noroton (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I think we should have a List of people who object to useless lists of things on Wikipedia.  Xihr  00:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delightful sense of humour. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't that be a category of Wikipedians? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deletionist_Wikipedians htom (talk) 06:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, since this is an indiscriminate collection of information. If a bow tie is notable for some specific person, it should be mentioned in that person's article. What's next here, List of people that like to listen to a specific ABBA song? --Tone 00:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a good argument: by the same logic, we would outlaw all list articles. What are you saying: List of battles since 2001 is not a useful list, since the notable fact that each battle occured after 2001 is listed on the individual page for that battle? The entire point of lists is to save trawling through thousands of articles to find which battles did occur after 2001, or who did wear bow ties notably. To suggest a merger back to bow ties article is one thing, but to say that we should merge this back into the articles of the individual people on the list misses the point of list articles in the first place, especially one like this accompanied by useful commentary. —Kan8eDie (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the keeps above, and per WP:NOTAGAIN (where it says to avoid arguments that go "I do not care that it survived three AFDs in the past week, I'm going to nominate it every day until it is deleted. – Trytryagain 16:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)") -- Mvuijlst (talk) 01:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read the keeps above, you would notice that I wasn't aware of the previous deletion discussions, and haven't been involved with this article at all before now. That argument has not once been used by me. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and instead of quoting policies and guidelines, which everyone else has already done, let me offer this rationale: When I look at this, it just makes sense. Bow ties are fairly uncommon and a statement in themselves. News sources will even note when a politician wears one, which clearly tells me THEY think it is notable. Without looking up a single criteria for inclusion, I am confident that this belongs here because it improves Wikipedia. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't imagine how many articles we would have if notability were based on what "they" think is notable. This is a community...and the community decides what is notable, not news sources.  Frank  |  talk  02:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Not exactly The Nutshell of WP:N clearly states If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Since "they" includes news sources, it is "they" that decide what is notable, not us. We are a tertiary source. We don't "decide", we document, source and verify what "they" have decided is notable enough to warrant writing a book or article about, within our guidelines. The very definition of notability is when news and other reliable sources provide significant coverage. Literally. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 03:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not all there is to it, though. Many people are listed in a newspaper when they die, either with a short obituary or even just a death notice. Does that make them notable? Not by itself. Sure, Tucker Carlson has been known to wear a bow tie, but if that were all, he wouldn't rate an article here. On the other hand, the note that he has worn a bow tie is worthy of mention - in his article. To have a separate article listing him (among many others) doesn't make sense to me. And, I just found out he no longer wears one...is that another article...List of former bow tie wearers? Frank  |  talk  02:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Not only has Tucker Carlson worn the occasional bow tie, articles have been written in reliable and verifiable sources about his bow-tie wearing practices. The 2005 article "A Red Flag That Comes in Many Colors" in The New York Times is primarily about Carlson's bow tie preference, with the remainder about other notables who wear bow ties. As we base our notability decisions on how the media covers the world, this is a subject that has been deemed notable. The reliable and verifiable sources support this article. Alansohn (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, but the threshold for inclusion isn't just coverage in reliable sources, but also notability. I don't think that one or even a few articles about Carlson and his bowties makes it worthy of an article by itself - and that's the key. "Significant coverage" is different from "it appeared in the Times". Yes, he's notable;  Done he's got an article. Yes, his bow tie wearing is notable;  Done it's mentioned in his article. That should be the end of the line.  Frank  |  talk  02:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete How is this article different from List of people who wear clothing? Per Wikipedia is not an an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a directory. Also, people may like it, it doesn't mean it's notable or not original research or synthesis. Fraud ^{talk to me} 03:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:NOT indiscriminate information. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and when "colour shades of apple sauce" is referred to as a "signature" or "trademark" element of the public images of a collection of notable people, I'll support that list, too. As I said above (reply to FT2), WP:PILLAR #1, sentence #1, tells us Wikipedia is meant to cover topics of specialist encyclopedias, and notable people wearing bow ties is a worthy article in a specialist encyclopedia on fashion -- for business, art and cultural reasons. The list is not indiscriminate because notable people influence bow tie wearing by others (as this article states), and bow-tie wearing in turn seems to affect the public image of those notable people so much that the continual wearing itself is frequently commented upon: The bow tie is such an integral part of Tsang's identity that he is nicknamed "bow tie Tsang," according to the Associated Press. The list is important enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. I don't think the fact that it's also fun should be held against it. -- Noroton (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noroton, can I ask: Would you support List of people who wear hats? If it was equally well-sourced? This is a serious question - hat-wearing is a key characteristic of many people - hats are not often seen in this day and age, and haven't been popular - in Europe at least - since 1949. Hats say as much about someone as bow ties do, and I think the two are comparable (see [5] for potential sources). Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 04:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

when "colour shades of apple sauce" is referred to as a "signature" or "trademark" element of the public images of a collection of notable people, I'll support that list, too. Applesauce, hats, whatever. Got my support. If Winston Churchill was "known for his trademark cowboy hat" or "John F. Kennedy was known for his signature tam o' shanter", I'd vote "keep" for that list as a useful fashion-encyclopedia-type article. Especially if JFK's headgear prompted American males to go out and buy them and wear them. That seems like a social phenomenon important enough for Wikipedia to cover, given the level of prominence of the average Wikipedia article. -- Noroton (talk) 05:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment and FYI to other prospective commenters: Due to extensive removal of content by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (the nominator), this article is now very different from the article that was nominated for deletion. --Orlady (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC) It appears to me that this AfD and the subsequent massive modifications to the article are a case of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. --Orlady (talk) 05:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If this article is deleted, it would become much more difficult to do this crossword puzzle. [6] Come now, deletionists. See the error of your ways. -- Noroton (talk) 06:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Waving the brush of anyone arguing for its removal as deletionism seems to ignore that every delete reason given, every one, has included the topic of triviality. No keep argument has said anything resembling a refutation that this is not trivial, and including such links (even as a joke) that it is a solver of crosswords really doesn't aid in trying to illustrate the article is neither trivial nor indiscriminate collection of triviality. –– Lid^(Talk) 09:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The topic is clearly non-trivial since we have numerous sources which discuss the topic specifically. Our personal opinions of the topic's importance are irrelevant - we go by the sources. The topic not indiscriminate either. I had no difficulty finding another good source to add to the article just now. We use editorial commonsense in selecting such sources in a discriminate way, since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the following:

1. Mentions which used Wikipedia as a source
2. Mentions which were unsourced
3. Sources which had only a trivial mention
4. Sources which, as we have agreed on, are original research, such as "Mr X is wearing a bow tie in picture Y, therefore he often wears bow ties and is eligible for inclusion".

If anything, I think that improves the article, by increasing the overall quality of the sources you're using. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No keep argument has said anything resembling a refutation that this is not trivial Colonel Warden has addressed "trivial" in the sense that WP:N addresses that term, but Lid, I think you may have meant it in the sense of "unserious". But Wikipedia commonly covers topics relating to business (as this does -- the bow tie industry, a part of the fashion industry) and that is a serious/nontrivial topic. Multiple sources say that notable people wearing bow ties is an influence on bow tie sales and on the perceptions that people have of bow tie wearing. It isn't hard to imagine this topic being the focus of a paper written by a student in a fashion school. If, as asserted by the sources, there are various cultural symbols wrapped up in bow tie wearing that come from the various people known for wearing bow ties, then an extensive list -- not just a few examples -- is justified. Ultimately, Colonel Warden is on the mark anyway: Wikipedia notability policy identifies what's important enough for a WP article: a sufficient number of reliable sources. -- Noroton (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the "Attention to famous bow tie wearers in commerce and fashion commentary" section into bow tie, since this is clearly encyclopedic information that would be appropriate in that article, but I don't think a list of bow tie wearers is encyclopedic. Hut 8.5 11:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A merge is actually a good idea. --Tone 12:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Excellently presented, high-quality, well referenced article; a model of what crappy trivia articles/lists should look like. You're going after the best article of this genre, which seems counterproductive.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge WP:BOWTIECRUFT.--Koji† 16:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Answering the "indiscriminate list" complaint. I answered this above, but as I looked further, I found quite a few editors repeating it. The list is not indiscriminate. To get on the list, a person must be both notable by Wikipedia standards and be known for constantly wearing bow ties. No one else should be on the list. It's a simple criteria and it is met with sourcing almost throughout the article (if you don't see the justification in the wording beside the name, look at the footnote). The wording in the lead states the criteria. -- Noroton (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define 'being known for constantly wearing bow ties'? Is once per month enough, or once per week? Or does it have to be every time he wears clothes? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When a reliable source states that a person is "known for wearing bow ties" or has "a signature bow tie" or wears his "trademark bow tie" the assertion is being made that the person is notable for bow tie wearing. We don't need to have a source saying a fact was measured in a test tube in order to cite the information. Constant bow tie wearing is sourceable information. -- Noroton (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is a picture of the professor in question wearing a bow tie on his university page a reliable source? Or is it self-published? How do you know that he constantly wears bow ties, by quoting a single photograph - in some cases, a photograph on Wikipedia? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider that adequate sourcing. In the past, editors have marked inadequate sourcing with a citation-needed tag and, after some weeks or months, moved the item to the talk page. I've done that myself when I was active in the article. That's a content question, no an article-deletion question. The list really is maintainable and doesn't have to have everyone's Uncle Darryl in it. -- Noroton (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Answering the "not encyclopedic" complaint. As WP:PILLAR notes (first pillar, first sentence), Wikipedia aims to have content that would be in both a general encyclopedia and specialist encyclopedias. The effect of notable bow tie wearers on bow tie sales and fashion, as noted by the sources, shows that this would be a fit article in a fashion encyclopedia. Also, the article has in fact been used as an encyclopedia article, providing information for this newspaper article, which obviously got the information from the "Journalists" section of the list:

Sioux City Journal, June 15, 2008: NBC News economics reporter Irving R. Levine, according to Wikipedia, began wearing a bow tie in 1994 when he delivered a commencement address. "I needed help in tying it," he said. The same Web site reported that Central College (of Pella, Iowa) graduate Harry Smith of CBS used to make his bow tie fashion statements on television in Denver before going to CBS nationally. Once there, the network executives asked him to retire his shorter ties as Charles Osgood had cornered CBS' bow tie market.

(actually, the reporter misread the Levine information, but let's not quibble -- he meant well) -- Noroton (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge useful content into Bow tie and/or the relevant biography per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. This list provides no useful information, and could possibly include just about every singe person on the planet. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 17:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1st sentence in the article states the discriminating criteria, see my comment at 16:44; my comment just above at 17:00 answers the "not useful" argument. WP:USEFUL: Usefulness is a subjective judgment and should be avoided in deletion debates unless it supports a cogent argument. -- Noroton (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to remind you that merging material requires the history to be preserved per the GFDL. Deleting the page before or after merging would therefore be against policy. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article establishes criteria for inclusion making it not indiscriminate (people where wearing a bow tie is a notable characteristic of theirs), it is well sourced and verifiable. If the criteria is not being followed then it should be addressed by editing not deletion. If reliable sources find wearing a bow tie to be a distinguishing characteristic then that establishes notability for the topic - that it is how we (should?) determine a topic is discriminate or indiscriminate not by a subjective judgement of the importance, which imo is what some delete opinions are arguing. Davewild (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Answering the "It's an embarassment" complaint DS at 00:43, 14 Nov and JuJube, 8 minutes later, made this complaint, and they're entitled to their opinion, which may be implicit in other comments. On the other hand, all the "Keep" comments except Fat Man's imply the opposite. In addition to the Sioux City Journal newspaper report above, this Wikipedia article has been commented on elsewhere on the Web and in ways that don't exactly hurt the reputation of Wikipedia:
  • Washington Post "Celebritology Live" blogger Liz Kelly, Oct. 18, 2008: This is an interesting list.
  • J-Walk blog (October 28, 2008): Another fine entry at Wikipedia: List of bow tie wearers. It's a distinguished list.
  • The article was the featured link for the "Fried Chicken Buffet" blog for August 1, 2008.
  • "Blogging the Renaissance" April 8, 2008, see the second comment by "Calantha": (I do love Wikipedia. How did we all survive for so many years without an easily -accessible and -updatable list of famous bow tie wearers?) ...

I couldn't find any disparaging mentions on the web, unless you interpret Calantha's as negative -- but she demonstrated how encyclopedically useful she found the article. -- Noroton (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I started reading the {{afd}} first. And, from it, I got the impression that the article was bereft of references. It isn't far from it. Geo Swan (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- As in some other {{afd}}s some of those in the delete party assume it is obvious why articles on things they consider beneath notice should be deleted. Geo Swan (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Popular culture can be far from trivial. It is important to cover it because the wikipedia is read by those who are not native speakers of English, people outside the mainstream culture of the anglosphere. In addition these fads that high-brows consider beneath notice come and go, and not documenting them, when they are current, and misunderstood, makes references to them opaque when they have dropped from the public consciousness. Geo Swan (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This may just be me, but considering that most of the 'keep' votes in previous AfDs have come from major contributors, does anyone else detect a slight hint of WP:OWN? ^{Remember to WP:AAGF}Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not a major contributor (first edit after my first comments herein), and I feel that comment was made in bad faith, and frankly, as an administrator you should know better. However, since you admitted that you don't know enough to look for previous deletion debates prior to nomination, it appears to be a pattern. The appearance is based solely on your contributions here, but perhaps taking a break is in order - you seem to be taking the existence of this article quite personally.--otherlleft (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise - I think perhaps you may have read my version of the statement with the wrong formatting. I did not mean to strike anything through, instead it was meant to be supertext. I meant no bad faith through bringing this to light, but I think it might be an issue, considering the main keep votes are from major contributors, and that the main delete votes are from uninvolved editors in good standing, as well as uninvolved administrators in good standing. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that I might be assuming bad faith here, and for that I apologise. It may have had something to do with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possibly threatening email, which has unnerved me slightly. Again, I apologise if I'm assuming bad faith, but I think it's a valid argument to bring forth. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per The Fat Man. Most Only lucid keep argument I've ever encountered in an AfD. X MarX the Spot (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Random break

• Note — I have started a thread at the village pump to hopefully spark some discussion in possibly making changes to that guideline. I have noticed that there have been many AFDs like this, and perhaps we need a change in policy or at the least some sort of community-wide discussion (I was hoping eventually an RFC provided there is enough interest in having such a discussion) so we can have a better consensus of what is considered an acceptable list instead of having the same two schools of thought locking up against each other every other AFD. MuZemike (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am happy, at least, that this discussion is leading to the article being tightened and cleaned up :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep After laughing to myself at the very concept of such a worthless article, and after toying with the idea of !voting "delete", I was on the verge of deciding I really didn't care much one way or the other and going somewhere else when I saw a comment about The Fat man. Having come across his erudite comments before I scrolled up to read them and found such praise of the article, that against my better judgement I actually went and looked at it. GIVE ME BREAK. Why is this up for deletion just a couple of weeks after it was last here? It is an excellent article. There should be a speedy close on this in light of three previous AfDs. Try again in a years time, you can't keep renominating it every week. SpinningSpark 21:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see above: I did not know this was up for deletion three weeks previously when I nominated it, I conferred with other admins and we agreed that it was listcruft, and should go up for AfD. A list - especially one which, if you look at the sources quoted - does not meet WP:RS even in the broadest sense, has no place even in a fashion encyclopaedia. In addition, none of the concerns raised in the previous AfDs have been seen to. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And these "other Admins" did not look at the talk page or article history either? Did they, like you yourself stated above, "know the process"? The "concerns" of the previous AfD's resulted in the article being kept... and two weeks ago with a resounding KEEP. Your opinion as to the worth of the article flags in the face of the strongest of consensus to keep.... and a consensus which hasnot changed since October 28. And continung to speak disparigingly of the article as if it were an indiscriminate collection of trivia, when it is in fact a humourous and well sourced article, feels most definitely of WP:UGH... specially since you feel so strongly about removing it that you answer just about every comment made at this discussion. This is not a vote. Wiki is not a beaucracy. You have repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated your points ad-naseum. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wah, calm down, chap. The last AfD was voted on almost entirely by contirbutors to articles, or avowed inclusionists. In this debate, we do at least have a wider spectrum of views from uninvolved people, on both the delete/merge and keep sides. The consensus has changed, as I think you will see if you add up the respective arguments made by people from both sides. It is no longer a 6-1 stand, indeed, it is much closer now to 50-50. The last editor who closed this - who, let's note, was not an admin - closed with the reason The result was For some reason that I cannot comprehend, this is a keep Ah well... The problems brought to light in the last discussions , on the talk page, and here, have still not been addressed, and the contributors to the article are all denying any attempt at discussion of alternative options, such as a renaming or clarifying of criteria. I am repeating my points because no-one is addressing them adequatly, and, oddly enough, I am not the only person repeating them. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a frequent contributor to this article who has repeatedly supported its retention, I wish to register my resentment of the implication that my involvement with this article represents some sort of conflict of interest. Not only am I not male, but I have never worn a bowtie, no male in my family wears one, and I have no known connection with anybody in the business of selling, photographing, advertising, or recycling bowties. I don't recall how I first became aware of the article, but I believe my first involvement with it was in June 2007 when I added Chris Whittle to the list because I was interacting with his article and he is well-known as a habitual bow-tie wearer. After that edit, the article ended up on my watchlist, and several weeks later I spent time trying to fix some of the problems with it -- adding sources for unsourced entries, reorganizing, alphabetizing, adding images, etc. Since that time, I've continued to keep an eye on the article and have spent time maintaining it. I confess that I have often found it amusing to search for sources for the unsourced names that other users have added to this list. Unlike many other lists in articles I've worked on, for almost all of the people added to this list there turns out to be solid evidence that they belong on the list, and the references I find often include amusing photos and anecdotes. Furthermore, because there's nothing particularly controversial or potentially defamatory about a person being identified as a bowtie wearer, I have not felt it necessary to apply as strong a standard of proof to this list as in many other lists I've worked on. I guess I should have anticipated that someone like User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry would show up and insist on the same rigor in sourcing that is applied in (for example) List of HIV-positive people, but I don't believe that the article necessitates that degree of rigor. Accordingly, if an anonymous user adds a notable person's name to the article and I find (for example) a formal portrait in which that person is wearing an outlandish bowtie, I conclude that the person truly is "known for wearing bowties," so I insert a link to the portrait as a source and leave the name in the article. --Orlady (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The story we heard earlier was that you had no idea that there had been another AfD. Now it turns out that you had analyzed the previous AfDs and determined that you knew who all of the "avowed inclusionists" were and were therefore entitled to disregard their opinion. Does this mean that all of the thousands of articles deleted by participation from "avowed deletionists" will now be restored? Alansohn (talk) 22:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once I was informed that the article had had a previous AfD only 3 weeks prior, I checked it, was asked to review my AfD, and declined. Please believe me when I say that this AfD was not in bad faith! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I am seeing here, is that you will not accept consensus, unless it agrees with you. WP:WAX is WP:WAX. WP:ATA is WP:ATA. Fun stuff. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Micheal, I'm trying to be civil here: I'll happily accept consensus, but the above discussion is leaning towards no concensus, or merge. Both sides have been making fallacious arguments: i don't like it, It's interesting, It looks good, notability inheritance, allornothing... What I'm after is a discussion which encompasses people who aren;t involved with the article. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My aplogies. I read it differently. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have never edited the article, and only came here when I saw the notice on a friend's talk page. I felt that it would be risible that such an outstanding article, proving its notability by the plethora of references, should be deleted. I find many of the arguments above for keep highly persuasive, and have made several replies here myself in defence of this article. If you want the thoughts of neutral by-standers, I can happily say that this one finds the feeling against this article frankly incomprehensible. Every argument for the deletion seems to have been rebutted, and in many cases several times when the same mistakes have been wheeled out by multiple people who seem to think that a one-liner contributing nothing new is a worthwhile addition (see: not a vote). —Kan8eDie (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kan8edie - are you neutral? Your self-declared interests are clothing-only. One might be concerned that you were not concerned about WP:N or WP:LIST, but instead about articles of clothing. hardly neutral, that would be like me arguing to keep a page on the Royal Navy! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That list was clearly incomplete, and had just a sampling of clothing articles as one section, to let me follow a partial watchlist when not logged in. My recent edit summaries show the wider scope this account has always had, for example my largest work this week has been on composers. I have not had interest in this particular page, which is the point. While you might well have a conflict of interest with editing articles about your employer, it is impossible to demand that clothing articles be written by those who not wear any. Having an interest in this area merely qualifies me to edit with more confidence in this area. Besides, what is your point anyway? I edit in this area => I want to see clothing articles improve => ??? => I might want to keep an article in this area when it would not improve the encyclopaedic coverage of clothing (which, I think, you seem to be implying is the case). Further, by starting off this process, you have displayed a much stronger attachment to the article than I have, and so are certainly under no less conflict of interest than I am. —Kan8eDie (talk) 02:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Whats next, List of people who wear bowler hats? How much more ridiculous can you get??!!??!! JBsupreme (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I think there might be some slight confusion here. I realise that the notice at the top of the page saying "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bow tie wearers" is in too large a font to be readable, but I hate to inform you that actually this debate is about bow ties, not bowler hats. (See also: WP:WAX) —Kan8eDie (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But surely, list of bowler hat wearers and list of bow tie wearers are related in some way? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite, and I would have no objection to a list of post-1960s bowler hat wearers, if the list were too long to fit onto the bowler hats article and had to be forked out. On the other hand, apart from hunters and Trinity porters, I have never seen bowler hats worn, while a few politicians and fashionistas do wear bow ties, so the situation is rather different; merging here would make bow ties ridiculously long, while the bowler hats have so few wearers that the article does not have a section at all.

JBsupreme is wrong to imply that WP:WAX arguments would somehow forcibly justify the existence of a bowler hats list. Despite being qualitatively similar, the quantitative link is not there (there are proportionately orders of magnitude in difference between the quantity of coverage in sources for recent bow tie wearing and recent bowler hat wearing). —Kan8eDie (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not obvious to me that the conception underlying the list of bow-tie-wearers is fundamentally different from List of HIV-positive people and List of poliomyelitis survivors (surely there's no expectation that these people have anything in common other than their health concerns). I don't know about bowler-hat-wearers as a topic, but I can imagine some other lists of notable people who are strongly identified with some sort of popular culture phenomenon. One such would be List of amateur golfers, to include Bob Hope, Dwight Eisenhower, Gerald Ford, and others whose golfing hobby is or was widely documented and may possibly have influenced history in some way. Another example would be People associated with coonskin caps, but that topic does not require a separate list, since it fits easily into Coonskin cap. --Orlady (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Indiscriminate list. What is this list in support of? There's no such article as Bow tie wearers, nor can I imagine how there could be, but until there is, this is a list in support of a non-concept. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This list is in support of bow ties, as should be obvious. There are vast numbers of lists with names which do not mirror their parent article's name exactly. —Kan8eDie (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research. --Carnildo (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most statements, and all entries on the list, are sourced. What part precisely is original research? —Kan8eDie (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Er, what's the point? Why do we need to list people who wear bow ties?

  This information could be better placed on the individual bios, and on Bow tie. Most readers wouldn't look for a list of bow tie wearers to research Winston Churchill, but if it's significant that he wears a bow tie, then that information belongs on his article. I reserve judgment on whether that information belongs on Wikipedia, however it would be more helpful on the individual bios and summarized on Bow tie.

  The argument that 'this is sourced, therefore it is notable' is invalid. The existence of reliable sources is an argument for existence for biographies and theories, not for lists. It is a requirement for lists, but not a justification of existence. While sources exist showing what President Bush is wearing when he makes his speeches, List of President Bush's outfits is not a useful list.

  A list is only necessary where a list provides more information than an article could. If a list exists, it should exist to provide a list. If the primary information offered is a list of people, then a list is acceptable. If the primary information is an explanation of the social implications of bow ties, it should be merged into Bow tie. If the primary information is a comment on the bow-tie-wearing habits of Winston Churchill, then it should be on Winston Churchill.

  And don't even think about Bow ties in popular culture. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • what's the point? The point is that notable people influence others and therefore, among the 2.5 million some odd articles in Wikipedia, there's room for an article that details just which notable people have been constantly wearing them and may have had their own public image influenced by them -- it's the type of thing we can source well because it is remarked on so very often. Most readers wouldn't look for a list of bow tie wearers to research Winston Churchill -- no, but 3,000 readers a month look at the article, probably because they have a curiosity about bow ties and who wears them. The argument that 'this is sourced, therefore it is notable' is the way Wikipedia's WP:N guideline works. Noroton (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Careful you don;t stumble into OR yourself there. They might equally be looking at the article because it's amusing, and because it's registered on StumbleUpon, which itself will send thousands of legitimate users there whether they like it or not. I would also note that 'this is sourced, therefore it is notable' is a gross over-simplification of how WP:N works. Furthermore, your argument doesn't mention the three problems that ST47 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) brings up. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete after merging anything useful to Bow tie per many arguments above. Verbal chat 00:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Please, say something if you have something to say. This is not a vote. I would hate to think that anyone were under the impression that the process at the end involves counting up the number of delete or keep marks in the margin. Both 'sides' seem unable to convince each other, however many policy pages are linked, but this is not solved by trying to turn this into a numbers game. Incidentally, if we want to play the counting game, I notice that the number of argument-less posts in favour of delete outweighs those in favour of keep, which might indicate something about the priorities placed on constructive debate (though this in no way of course smears those in favour of either views who have provided good points). —Kan8eDie (talk) 03:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  You can't delete something after merging it, the history has to be retained after mergers for GFDL reasons. Hut 8.5 13:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  To expand, I support the deletion/merge and redirect reasoning given by the nom and many other contributors to this page. I haven't "voted", I have voiced my support for the deletion per policy and the good of the project. I'm not on any "side" - wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I have trouble assuming good faith from someone who calls someone's statement a vote, and "smears" them in the way you are doing. I suggest you have a look at our civility policy and personal attacks policy - I'm sure you know where they are. Attacking me to then explicitly note how many people have "voted" each way is dishonest - this is not a vote; it's about policies and what is good for the project. This page is not good for the project. I suggest you remove your comment and "tally" of "votes". Verbal chat 13:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see any tally of votes that you speak of. And again, you can't delete and merge because it violates the GFDL 99.99% of the time. I also don't see any personal attacks. And we don't remove comments in an AFD in general, we strike them. Did you mean this comment to go here or just misunderstand the other editors comments and policy and the GFDL? DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 13:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I am sorry for the way tone is hard to convey when typing. I apologise for any insensitivity, and can confirm I was not intending to accuse or smear you. I withdraw any negative labeling you feel my comments may have applied, but stand by exact meaning of what I said. For example, by writing 'side' (with quotes) I was trying to show that I was not supporting any categorisation into sides, and my comments were (I hope clearly) relying on my first statement that this is not a vote (it would be hard to argue from the first line of my reply that I somehow thought that any tally did matter). Indeed, there was no tally given, and my description of your reply as a vote is no more than WP:NOTVOTE/WP:PERNOM support. —Kan8eDie (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Has this gone on long enough or does someone need to invoke Godwin's law and get it over with? It is starting to sound like the same arguments over and over. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this defies sound categorization. Let's start with a good list-type article, the one on 100 meter world record holders [[7]]. This is a great one. It's specific and narrowly-defined. It's also helpful that making it on this list establishes the notability of a person. A bad list would be one for "people who have competed in a 100 meter race." Now, there are some lists that might be trivial and written for amusements sake but might be worth keeping because they categorize something unusual. A list of "People who cut off one of their own limbs for instance. Bow-tie wearing says nothing about an individual. Blacks, whites, atheists, fundamentalists all wear them. Any argument that could be made for including a "list of bow-tie wearers" in an encyclopedia would serve equally well to argue for the inclusion of lists like "people who prefer boxers to briefs, "people who wear baseball hats" (with subcategories for "conventional," "backwards," and "askew") and "people who like cats" (sub-cats "moggie lovers" and "fancy lovers). Etc. This way lies the madness of indiscriminate categorization.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Very well researched with encyclopedic information supported by reliable sources. It is not an indiscriminate list. The previous AfD with concensus to keep was less than a month ago. It is appropriate for editors to oppose a re-nomination that does not give enough time to improve the article. McWomble (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the time in the world isn't going to help this article. Hopefully we won't need a fifth go round of this. JBsupreme (talk) 09:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this article is the very essence of WP:IAR to which you Jimbo Wannabes aspire. It's wrong. It britches all of our dry-as-dust rules; WP:OR, WP:SYN all that shit. Strictly speaking it should be deleted in accordance with the nomination.

But WP:IAR is precisely the point here. If the Objectivist Pornographer was here he'd be leading the charge to preserve this luscious morsel. This article should persist because it's the exception that proves the fucking rule. It's beautifully written; shapely of par and alluring of phrase. This is the archetypal not-article. X MarX the Spot (talk) 09:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good comment, but it leans more towards 'move to BJAODN' than deleting or keeping, and I'm not sure if you meant that! Sadly, it's written like an editorial, which is why it looks so alluring - and any attempt to make it more encyclopaedic is met with resistance. That said, I'm not sure you know the meaning of 'exception that proves the rule'. 'Prove', in that phrase, is analogous to 'test' - this article is indeed testing Wikipedia's rules, and people are finding it wanting. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Keeping WP:NOTAGAIN in mind, the last AfD was just a few weeks ago and consensus was a resounding keep. Consensus can change but some time must be given to allow editors to address any concerns that brought up the previous AfD in the first place. Besides that I'd think overall the article is well researched and encyclopedic and should be kept. --Banime (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Banime, I understand your point - but when I go and remove poorly sourced entries on the article, they are reverted on sight. Remember that well researched is not a criteria for inclusion. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Has it occurred to you that your deletions, as the proposer of the deletion of the entire article, are being looked at with an assumption of good faith, examined, and reverted in good faith? htom (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • CML,ITC, is it your intention to harass every single keep in this AfD? You've had your say when you made the proposal, now shut the #### up and let other people speak. SpinningSpark 21:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • CML I think he is worried that you are bludgeoning the process. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 22:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, Dennis - I'm not sure how I would have responded to that comment! Me speaking doesn't stop other people from doing so, I didn't think there was anything wrong with what I was doing... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well when you reply to every Keep/Delete in an AfD it usually looks badly upon your position, especially when you are just repeating the same things over again. I've made this mistake as well before, its best just to state your position then let consensus work, and only reply on certain remarks that need to be clarified or if you have new evidence or another idea. --Banime (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply Banime got me in an edit conflict, but he is right. This is the reason I wrote WP:BLUDGEON. I don't think you are doing anything in bad faith, or intentionally bludgeoning the process, but you kinda are slapping it a bit, even if innocently. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 22:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• It's important to keep in mind that a link to WP:WAX doesn't immediately render someone's argument moot (despite how much you may/may not agree with the essay).--Koji† 19:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Entirely trivial Mayalld (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. As the references in the article show, bow-tie wearing has been treated as a notable characteristic by many reliable sources. Reliable sources are the way we determine notability, not subjective judgements. To address the nominator's points, this is not original research, as it is well sourced, and it is not an indiscriminate collection of information as it lists notable people/characters who have been noted by reliable sources as bow tie wearers, not everyone who has ever worn a bow tie. To the question "how many times must one wear a bow tie in order to be included?" the answer is "enough times to be referred to as a bow tie wearer in reliable sources". Phil Bridger (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Before I comment further - I have several questions with regards to this article. I hope someone can be kind enough to take the time to answer them :)
  • What is the criteria for inclusion in this article? Many of the people on the list appear to be simply those that "have worn a bow tie". Indeed, their respective articles make no mention of their favouring this type of clothing. If their choice of neckwear is not notable there, then why here?
  • In an era when bowtie wearing was commonplace, and a social norm (the inter-war era) - what makes a person from said era notable for wearing one?
  • Also, if this list is considered notable, then is it reasonable for a corresponding list for every conceivable accessory and item of clothing to exist?
• Is there a possible alternative to deletion, such as defining stringent criteria for inclusion, or finding a peer-reviewed source for this list (Youtube videos and the term "is pictured wearing..." are NOT credible sources)? - Sarah Reavenhall 78.150.21.55 (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC) — 78.150.21.55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • (1) As I understand it, those included are those who are both notable (in the Wikipedia sense of that word) and known for wearing bow ties when it is not required. Bow ties worn with formal wear should not "count"; for photos, they should be of the subject in a situation where his wearing a necktie would not be commented upon. I assume that their articles do not mention their choices in neckware as a matter of common courtesy. (2) It was more common then (I'm assuming WW1 and WW2) but a minority practice. Previous to WW1 it might have been the social norm. (3) If their wearing is commented upon in RS, perhaps it is. Part of fashion is the fickleness of "taste" and "social norms". (4) I'll agree, to a certain extent, that "pictured/videoed" is not always good evidence; but if they show that the subject is doing so when his wearing a necktie would not be remarked upon, they might be, and a number of them, with different bow ties in different circumstances, might be a RS, or approach that. Wearing a bow tie with a tux at a wedding, or receiving an Oscar, shouldn't be counted. htom (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In general, photos are for illustration, not verification, although there are some exceptions. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Answers here and here. At least that's the way I edited it when I was editing the list. It's amazing how often you can find reliable sources that say "his trademark bow tie" or "his signature bow tie". -- Noroton (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I didn't notice the other questions. Here:
        • In an era when bowtie wearing was commonplace, and a social norm (the inter-war era) - what makes a person from said era notable for wearing one? I think it's worth mentioning a few examples of bow-tie wearing when it was the norm, but no more, so I think Karl Marx and Lincoln are worth including, but not more than some representative examples like those.
        • Also, if this list is considered notable, then is it reasonable for a corresponding list for every conceivable accessory and item of clothing to exist? I would oppose keeping any similar article which did NOT have (1) multiple sources stating that the wearing of said item by notable people affects the image of the item and sales of the item -- we have multiple sources saying this for bow ties, proving that it's an important aspect of bow tie wearing. (2) reliable soucing for each individual on the list saying that the person is "known for" wearing the item -- in other words, that it forms part of the public image of that notable person. If the source says the person is known for his "trademark" wearing of the item or his "signature" wearing of the item, that would work too. I think that's reasonable. I think that means a student of the subject or someone with a serious interest in the subject would find the article a good resource for learning more. -- Noroton (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This was just kept a few weeks ago at AfD! Please trout slap nom as AfD is particularly backlogged 4000+ right now. List of sourced and has been explained this is for those known for the fashion choice - this is the stuff of books and has been sourced as a notable aspect of these people/characters. -- Banjeboi 02:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know I've been troutslapped for responding to every argument on here, so troutslap me again if you want - but AfD is not backlogged at all. Well, ok, it is, but only by one AfD, Bethmanns and Rothschilds, which is pretty close run. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (interposting) As unwittingly and unintentional as it no doubt is, there's a falsehood being maintained here. Fromthis AFD's initial post, it can be seen that Calvary included the AFD from two weeks ago. Next, Calvary seems to say that he is not taking advantage of the process so long as he has never heard of previous AFD's, yet the initial state of this AFD--that is, his initial post--shows an awareness simply through his inclusion of last month's AFD. Who doesn't make mistakes--no one can fully and completely read every link and citation--yet why not just take responsibility for the initial post which does indeed include last month's AFD? --Firefly322 (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The {{subst:afd2}} template creates that list automatically. However, xe should have seen "(4th nomination)" in the title of the discussion page as xe was creating and saving it. If xe didn't, then that is a significant deficiency of Twinkle. Uncle G (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: This has got to be one of the most absurd articles I've ever seen, but it passes WP:V with flying colours. Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed from Keep to Strong keep per New York Times quotation in article: "A list of bow tie devotees reads like a Who's Who of rugged individualists," which appears to justify this article in its current form. See also my comment below. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nomination contains the assertion that "almost everyone" has worn a bow tie at some point. Well, speaking as a working class northerner, I've never worn a bow tie in my life -- not only does it clash with the flat cap and braces, but I prefer not being beaten up on a daily basis. Seriously, if a number of notable 20th and 21st century figures are willing to flout sartorial convention in order to look like complete berks, and reliable third-party sources pick up on this, then we have verifiability and non-triviality rolled into one. -- Molotron 08:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It just doesn't satisfy WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as many notable individuals have worn bow-tie's. I like the fact that Wikipedia cater's to niche interests, but this list is altogether far too trivial to the point of being unencyclopedic. One of those rare cases where a well-referenced, overall good article is better off deleted - ignore all rules applies here. This is, of course, no disrespect to the editors of this article, who have overall worked hard at maintaining and improving this article. Master&Expert (Talk) 10:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reminder that the lead paragraph establishes the criterion that the individuals must be known for wearing bow ties, which is clearly discriminate. And ignoring all rules includes ignoring WP:IAR to my relief, since the nominator has indicated on his own talk page that he was tempted to simply delete the article using that principle and "fight to the death" if the deletion was reviewed. This is a case were the rules seem to be working just fine.--otherlleft (talk) 12:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Must be known for wearing bow ties. Define known for? Otherwise I could find a picture of just about anyone wearing a bow tie on wikipedia and use that as a reliable 'source' for them being known for wearing bow ties. The terms aren't defined clearly, and if this article is going to be anything more than a farce they should be, there should also be a clear criteria for sources as linking to other wiki articles or non-reliable third party sources is rediculous. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. We decide whether someone is known for wearing bow ties in the same way as we make decisions on any other article content. If reliable, verifiable sources say it, we accept it. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Define known for Sure. When a source specifically states that someone "typically", "constantly" wears bow ties, or the equivalent (often sources mention "his signature bow tie" or "his trademark bow tie"), then we have a well-sourced item on the list. The vast majority of items have sourcing just this good. For instance: Sir Robin Day (1923-2000), British television commentator and interviewer; his BBC News obituary said "With his thick horn-rimmed spectacles and trade mark polka-dot bow tie, he was the great inquisitor"[50] If you don't see this kind of quote beside the name, please follow the footnote, it's often there. If you see the talk page, near the top, you'll find about a half dozen names I'd taken off the list for inadequate sourcing. I'm all in favor of making the criteria even more explicit on the article page. -- Noroton (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP - This article is outrageous, and rather WP:ILIKEITish. However, the reason for keep is it's absolutely a well sourced article. My regards to the editors who created such a thorough piece (only on Wikipedia would an article/list like this come to existence). That being said, WP:V, no problem. The real question here is notability. This is a tough one because we're talking about bow ties. As the nom mentioned, everyone wears a boe tie once in their life...right? However, if you look at the list, it's not the fact that these people are sourced as wearing bow ties, but the individuals themselves are rather notable. The list, simply stated, is just the medium that brought all these notable bow tie wearers together. Some might take this as an indiscriminate collection of information. That is not the case at all, as the excellent prose and article itself are purely about notable people wearing bow ties, which is hardly indiscriminate. I would suggest some individuals to re-think their !vote, and take into consideration the definition of our policies WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:N when doing so. In my opinion, these policies were written the way they were to allow articles just like this. Besides that, this is an informative piece that makes the encyclopedia a better, more enlightening read. My I remind people of the single most important policy when creating a great encyclopedia; WP:IAR. Digital^NinjaWTF 14:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I don't see any reason why this article hasn't achieved GA status. After this AfD, if the result is keep, I intend to start a discussion about nominating this article for GA review. Digital^NinjaWTF 15:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've had men tell me that they have never, ever, worn a bow tie at all -- they wear normal ties with a tux :eek: , not even using a clip-on or pre-tied bow tie. htom (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Let me point out that there is some precedent for keeping bizarre but well-sourced articles. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, so we have room to be slightly weird every now and then. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Even the phrase, "list of bow tie devotees" is sourced in the article. Something similar cannot be said about the vast majority of lists on Wikipedia. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - as this debate is now over twice the length of the article, I'm tempted to add {{Verylong}} to the top ;)--otherlleft (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There are times to be bold. htom (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Almost every deletion rationale and argument is wrong, and can be proven wrong by consulting reliable sources. The article is not original research, the fact that someone is famous for wearing a bow-tie can and is attributed to reliable sources (and any claim that is not backed up by a reliable source can be removed without having to delete the entire article). This is not a list of "almost everyone [who] has worn a bow tie at some point", this is a list of people for whom wearing bow-ties is a notable part of their public image. This article fits the very description of what is exempted from being "what Wikipedia is not": "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List." The Sacramento Bee says "Lots of famous people are famous because of their devotion to bow ties." The fact that there is so much "attention to famous bow tie wearers in commerce and fashion commentary" is the exact reason that this list is encyclopedic and should exist. Whether it is "trivia" or not is irrelevant; notable "trivia" is still notable and thus encyclopedic. DHowell (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable people who wore the bowler hat. MickMacNee (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yes, the article is well presented, cited and so on. That is missing the point. The subject itself is trivial in the extreme and the whole article is therefore unencyclopedic. When critics of WP want an example of an article to lampoon they may very well choose this one. Delete as non-notable: the wearers may be notable, their individual style may possibly be, but the collection is no more meaningful than, say, a list of people who drive a particular make of car or bathe on a particular day of the week. (No, I haven't checked - don't tell me we've got those too!) Ros0709 (talk) 08:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Triviality is not a reason for deletion (nor do you prove it - you have only asserted it), and it is not the purpose of this or any other article to make Wikipedia look good or avoid unfavourable publicity. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a popularity contest. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do I need to prove it. Rather, notability has to be proven WP:NOBJ and my argument is that the subject (specifically, the rather arbitrary list - not any individual element within it) is neither notable or shown to be notable. Ros0709 (talk) 10:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that in fact, the notability of the subject matter - individual bow tie wearers since 1900 - has been demonstrated by reliable external sources, not least the New York Times article cited in the lead. Your argument smacks somewhat of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a chicken or egg argument, the individuals are notable independent of the fact they wore bow ties. The bow tie wearing does not, in any of their cases, make the people notable nor does it unify the individuals in a way that is coherent and not near arbitrary (because when we think of Mickey Mouse and Woodrow Wilson we are not thinking about them at the same time ad comparing their choice of neck wear). It is for this reason this article violates the section of NOT regarding indiscrimination, and in the same phrasing triviality. It has absolutely nothing to do with "not liking" the article, it fails on its merits to meet the threshold for inclusion despite throwing more and more mentions of the phrase "bow tie" into the reference list nor expansion of already bloated coat rack sections that should be in the main bow tie article (if at all). The editors here are not on some vendetta against "trivia" lists, I myself have long defended "in popular culture" articles, and even sections, in articles because they have a basis of connections to an original source. There is trivia, and then there is trivial, and a list of everyone who wore a bow tie but have absolutely no other relation beyond this fact is completely arbitrary and meaningless. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed - and not did anyone else - that these individuals were notable because they wore bow ties. It's rather that (as attested by the NYT article and others) the idea of a set of habitual bow-tie wearers is notable because all of these notable people are members of that set, and that (in the opinion of cultural commentators cited in the article) the practice of bow-tie wearing conveys some kind of coherent or semi-coherent cultural message about those individuals. They may not have a lot else in common; but the contention being reported in this article, and expressed in its sources, is that the common factor of habitual bow-tie wearing is a notable classification in itself. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've made it clear, Lid, that you don't believe that, in the specific case of this one fashion accessory, that there is any notable reason to collect them. Other editors have pointed to some of the numerous references as not only verifying the subject, but in themselves asserting its notability. It's obvious that you don't agree. I would recommend that editors who have already participated in this debate not comment further if they have nothing new to add - it's going to take long enough for the closing admin to make an informed decision in this case.--otherlleft (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find that quite amusing considering you have spent a significant amount of time in this deletion discussion attempting to refute every delete vote while I have made a grand total of three comments so far. The earlier assertion, of the sourced asserting the notability... when observed it illustrates the notability of bow tie culture, not a notability listing of every person in existence who has worn a bow tie, which is also a response to Alex above. One does not beget the other, no matter how often the connection is attempted to be made. In a strange twist, it's verging on notability via inheritance where no notability exists for the listing itself, but because the culture exists then the wearing is notable but the listing is completely arbitrary to people who have any relation to bow tie culture thus making the association incorrect and around and around we go. –– Lid^(Talk) 13:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If there is a strange twist here, I believe it is your attempt to divert and distort this discussion through your invention of the term "bow tie culture." The term is not used in either Bow tie or the list article, and it yields a grand total of exactly 3 hits in Google (two for "bow tie culture" and one for "bowtie culture"). No other participant in this discussion has suggested that there is a phenomenon of "bow tie culture," much less that bow-tie wearing is notable because it is a manifestation of this alleged "culture." There is extensive reliably sourced evidence that people take note of the wearing of bow ties by men who wear bow ties, and this simple fact (not a made-up "culture") is the basis for the notability of this list. --Orlady (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:There's a "bow tie culture"? :citation needed: Really, now, I've heard of making things up, but that's giggle-worthy. htom (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment) "The basis of connections" have been made by reliable sources per WP:RS. For example, the New York Times's Fashion and Style article written by Warren St John, who--in one article published on June 26, 2005--connected Tucker Carlson, Theodore Roosevelt, Charlie Chaplin, Winston Churchill, Fred Astaire, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Paul Simon, Louis Farrakhan, George Will, Charles Osgood, Andre 3000, Mark Russell, Pee-wee Herman, Mo Rocca, James Atlas, and Raj Peter Bhakta. Another example is the Wall Street Journal (a paper not at all known for its fashion articles) in this article it connects Tom Campbell and Tom Bliley among others to the set of "Classy Ties to Rich and Famous." To put it in very loose mathematical terms (an informal employment of the Algebra of sets), each WP:RS such as the Wall Street Journal or New York Times article provides information that can be used as a basis to justify--by means of basic set operations: union, intersection, complement. Thus the process of inclusion within the list is by no means trivial. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Best. Examples. Ever. Wish you would have shown up earlier, might have cut this discussion down to just a few hundred thousand words. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 13:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if we take this to first order logic we come back with an invalid argument under predicates. The conclusion is not supported by the article itself, which is qhere the question lies, but to go backwards the connection in the NY times article is that all those individuals are "unified" by something as meaningless as a choice of attire. The argument against this article is based on logical conclusions, and you use of Andre 3000 is a good one considering Andre 3000's wearing of bow ties is limited to... a music video? However in that same music video he is wearing suspenders. Now suspenders in the eighties were big, but now... not so much. However the categorisation of people who have no relations whatsoever because they each choose to wear suspenders is something completley seperate from the notability of a culture regarding suspenders. My arguments are not against that these sources exist, it is against the categorisation itself as being an extrapolated requirement from the sources rather than their actual supporting notion of bow tie culture which is an article that I personally would not have a problem with, but for whatever reason the listing itself has taken on a life of its own. –– Lid^(Talk) 13:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are saying we also need List of suspender wearers, too? ;) DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 14:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. All wearers are now referenced. Racconish (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Nominate for GA I would count myself a deletionist but cannot honestly conceive how anybody could read the opening few paragraphs and come to the conclusion that this was a trivial list of information. Lots of sources highlighting the quirkiness of the practice and how bow-tie wearers and bow-ties themselves are perceived as a consequence. It's also a sensible fork from the bow tie article in my view that would not be a great candidate for merging back in. Perhaps the list should be limited to public-facing figures (particularly politicians) where the way they are perceived is more important. I'd also like to see more comments about why the bow-tie was important for each particular individual - there are some examples, and those are the most interesting bits in the list. Also, perhaps there could be a better title - I think I saw "List of people known for wearing bow ties" somewhere in the above which seemed to be better directed to the point the article is trying to make. But these are relatively minor points. GDallimore (Talk) 16:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Seriously, talk about original research! The premise of the article is a "list of bow tie wearers", which in itself is NOT a notable topic for a list, so I'd vote to delete based on WP:N alone. The article itself is a long-winded essay (properly sourced be it as it may) that constitutes WP:OR. Wikipedia is just facts, no synthesis. This article is more of an ESSAY about bow-tie wearers than an encyclopedic list. Perhaps the article could be broken down into smaller, more notable sublists, but as the bowtie was an extremely popular piece of attire in a previous age, Wikipedia might as well have a "list of bell bottoms wearers". Themfromspace (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There are plenty of reliable sources in this article that say that this is a notable topic for a list, and, as has been repeatedly said above, we go by what reliable sources say rather than subjective judgements of what is notable, however loud you shout the word "NOT". If you can find similar sources about bell bottom wearing (which I doubt) then yes, we can have such a list. You might also want to check out WP:BEANS before making such comments! Phil Bridger (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Amwestover said just below reliable sources do not make a topic notable, they make it verifiable. Notability rests in the topic of the article being written about in third-party sources. The fact that we can prove that X wore a bow-tie has nothing to do with whether that fact should be the topic of an article. A compilation of people who wore bow ties isnt only an indiscriminate collection but also a nonnootable one. Since when have "bow tie wearers" been regarded as a notable group in themselves? Themfromspace (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Themfromspace puts it pretty well. The references being there isn't enough to keep the article, it's what the references show. In this case, they don't provide sufficient eminence.--Koji† 23:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read the sources in the article and mentioned above in this AfD, such as [8] and [9]? Nobody is claiming that articles saying that X wore a bow tie are enough to prove notability for this list - it's based on sources showing exactly what you asked for, that bow tie wearers are regarded as a notable group in themselves. As KojiDude says, it's what the references show. It's just a pity that so many people commenting here don't seem to have actually read them. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first article would make an excellant source for the Bow tie article (if it isn't being used already). The second article doesn't say much of anything and could only be used for verifying facts (such as certain people who wore bowties). What I still fail to see is discussion of a "list of bow tie wearers" (the article title) in sources. The reason why is that it is an indiscriminate collection of information: nothing links these people together! Many have worn it because it was the de facto fashion of the time, many have worn it to be different from fashion. The list itself doesn't have anything to tie the people together except that they've worn a bow-tie and as such this list doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Themfromspace (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's an extremely amusing article (and amusing topic) that has been very well maintained and referenced, but being well maintained and well referenced doesn't make a topic appropriate for Wikipedia. Ultimately, this is trivial and not suited for an encyclopedia. Someone's gotta save this article source and include/reference it in an essay on zany non-encyclopedic topics or something cuz it'd really be a shame to see this go to waste. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 20:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Out of considerable sympathy for the closing admin reading through all of this, I will simply state 1. sources show sufficient notablilty to justify the content of a list of this type, and 2. nomination two weeks after a prior "keep" AfD, while inadvertant, is inappropriate. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:52, 19 November 2008 (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.