![]() | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 November 24. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was delete. kurykh 00:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article seems to have been created in violation of WP:POINT in response to this Afd.turns out this may have been jumping the gun on a coincidence, redacted MickMacNee (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Article is also totally unreferenced and establishes zero notability MickMacNee (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should this thing be kept? Well, the Bowler hat makes something more of a fashion statement than a bowtie, and always did. Why this is, I do not know. This article was created piecemeal by very many contributors, and if it's gone, people will just start adding these things one at a time again to the Bowler hat article. That's rather unlikely that this would happen to the bow tie article, since there are so many other famous wearers. It's a bad idea to delete an article which will be piecemeal re-created, by people who had no idea of its initial existence! But what do you think of, when you think of Oddjob or Laurel and Hardy or Bat Masterson? Yes, the thing needs to be sectioned into real and fictional characters, and they need some kind of order. But we can't do that, if you delete it.
I'm a little shocked that people would say "might be encyclopedic in the future, but meanwhile since it isn't, delete it." That's not the way Wikipedia grows! A last issue is that many list articles have references embedded in the links they reference. For example: List of people who've been beheaded. [1]. Similarly, very many links in this list article are similar referenced, by a direct photo or drawing of somebody wearning a bowler, in the linked Wiki itself. SBHarris 02:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have made an initial collection into three categories. Many of them are interesting, and it's clear that if you read them (something I'll bet few commentators above have done) that they contain self-references in their Wiki-links. Also that the bowler hat is a distinguishing part of the character or work of art. Only the Western cowboy hat comes near it, in that regard. In any case, for the time it's taken some of the people above to comment, they could have been improving the article a lot. SBHarris 20:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SBHarris 02:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]Robinson (English/University of San Diego; Comic Moments, 1992, etc.--not reviewed) traces the cultural significance of the bowler hat from 1850 to the present--in a study as lighthearted and charming as its subject. Having asked, "Why did Samuel Beckett specify that the four major characters of Waiting for Godot wear bowler hats?," in a 1986 TriQuarterly article, Robinson was moved to expand his inquiry to book length, studying modern life through the evolving meanings of this item of fashion that combines--symbolically and literally- -both lightness and weight. Following the history of the bowler "as though a wind were blowing it just beyond [my] reach," Robinson tells of the hat's debut, in 1850 London, where its combination of style and function satisfied Victorian England's obsession with the practical and the correct. The bowler soon passed from informal use among the aristocracy into a badge of respectability by the upwardly mobile middle class, eventually inspiring Chaplin to use it in his parody of the earnest "little man." As 20th-century life brought new strains of malaise, the bowler became a symbol of mass-produced anonymity in Magritte's paintings; of grim soullessness in the works of Anton Raderscheidt and Georg Grosz; and, finally, in Germany, of Jewish greed and evil. By 1948, when Beckett began writing Godot, the bowler had come to stand for an immutable social identity. It has since settled into the relative obscurity of costume wear, resurfacing only occasionally--e.g., as Oddjob's weapon in Goldfinger and an erotic toy in Milan Kundera's The Unbearable Lightness of Being. Yet the bowler continues to "[express] its history precisely as it floats past it," Robinson concludes, until it becomes a pure design object that can adapt to anything--and "the dream of the modern will be realized, in at least one small object, at the end of the modern age." A tip of the hat to this playful yet thought-provoking work. (Fifty-two illustrations)
The subarticleWP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS appears to me to be nothing more than a combination of IDONTLIKEIT combined with the dubious assertion that Wikipedia actually has no obligation whatsoever to be consistant. But unfortunately, pillars, policies and guidelines are no help whatsoever without examples, so a certain amount of consistancy is needed. Also, since WP:lists and categories on Wikipedia duplicate and compliment each other, per policy, your argument that something should not be a list basically fails unless you can make an argument that it shouldn't even be a category. SBHarris 22:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A continuous problem at AfD is the category-vs-list conflict. One purpose of this guideline is to end that conflict. The lead included a good explanation of the conflict, but it was recently removed. I've restored the version of the lead that includes Dcoetzee's refinements above. The Transhumanist 03:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I recommend anybody who doesn't want to repeat past wikiwars familiarize themselves with WP:CLN and WP:LISTS. For a shocker, also look at List of lists and some of the extensive materials therein. SBHarris 03:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]