The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 05:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Just a slang phrase, and not a particularly notable one. Not much documented history, and no notable use as to warrant an encyclopedia article. After having removed a lot of original research (see here for the revision prior to my edits), this is basically a dictionary definition for a slang phrase. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:41, 2 Mar 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Completely nonnotable slang, and second cited reference doesn't even contain the term, so it's an extremely rare term if one tiny mention in a huge slang book is all they have. DreamGuy (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm an inclusionist who thinks that virtually anything makes a legitimate wikipedia article, but this is obviously a sophomoric in-joke that is neither amusing, interesting nor, most importantly, notable. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the article is amusing or interesting are your OPINIONS. The only valid subject your statement addresses is whether or not the article is notable, and you fail to provide any evidence as to why it is not notable.--Fasttimes68 (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral for now - There are some mentions in Google books, so the origin and use of this term can be sourced. That being said, it probably violates WP:DICDEF and maybe WP:NEO. On the other hand, the term is at least 30 years old (in a book published in 1973, see above link). If someone wants to take on the challenge of sourcing, cleaning up and expanding this article past a dictionary definition, I would support keeping it. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has been expanded and sourced, successfully (in my opinion) addressing WP:DICDEF and WP:N concerns. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  17:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• comment - It's not a childish term, and it's not as rare as you might think, just perhaps limited to a certain field - ie engineering types in the UK. I don't know about other countries, but it is relatively common over here. Please consider non-US wiki visitors - this is exactly the sort of thing a non-engineering type might stumble across and wonder about. Also, if you are voting against, please give a policy reasoning, so I can at least attempt to improve the article as required. Don't be too quick to delete it; I'm going to do some digging for better refs. It's always difficult with slang...they have the same issues in 'Cunt', for example, where everyone in the UK knows that it's less offensive over here, and frequently used as a term of endearment amongst mates, but they can't find a citable source to prove it. --  Chzz  ►  16:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think WP:DICDEF is the most pressing concern. There were already refs showing that the phrase is "legitimate" as slang, and what its definition is, so the way I see it, that was really never in question. The question is, is there enough reliable material available to make it an encyclopedia article, rather than a mere definition? Equazcion •✗/C • 16:36, 2 Mar 2009 (UTC)
  • I forgot to add, I think WP:N is also a concern. That the phrase shows up in slang dictionaries isn't proof enough of notability, I think. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:42, 2 Mar 2009 (UTC)
    • Hit that 'refresh' button. Red cunt hair --  Chzz  ►  16:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've been keeping up, don't worry :) I see a lot of added refs but I'm not sure they "count" towards notability. I'm so far just seeing examples of usage in literature. Normally notability requires actual coverage of the item as a topic, not just examples of use. Unless I missed a ref that does that, in which case feel free to correct me. The DICDEF concern still stands too, just as a reminder. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:01, 2 Mar 2009 (UTC)
        • Understood; I'll work on it. With it being offensive to some, makes it much more difficult to source. Well, that and the *very* distracting websites you come across! I've found not-too-obscure publications using 'cunt hair' in context, and maybe the article will need to make more of that version of it, which appears a bit more popular than I expected. I'll work towards negating DICDEF though. Maybe a picture would help? --  Chzz  ►  17:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Depends what the picture is of :) Sorry couldnt resist. It's possible the article could benefit from a shift to encompass the general "hair width meaning small measurement" group of phrases. I'm not sure if there's any article on that yet, and it seems that this is really just one specific instance of it. Like missing something "by a hair's breadth" has a similar meaning. Maybe the article should be expanded that way, with the pubic hair variation being a section of it. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:17, 2 Mar 2009 (UTC)
            • You read my mind, see Talk:Red cunt hair#Actual dimensions --  Chzz  ►  17:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. (edit conflict) Here's an idea. Maybe red cunt hair and cunt hair should both redirect to Hair (unit of measurement) and in that article, the use of "hair" (and all the variants) as a unit of measurement. (I see now that Equazcion suggested something similar above too) — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  17:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup, we may be on to something with that. "by a hair" shows 884,000 Google results, vs. "red cunt hair" at 15,000. I just hope there's some reliable material that examines those uses. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:37, 2 Mar 2009 (UTC)
    • I reckon RCH is specific and notable enough to merit an article, but yes, another on hair dimensions would support the article.
    • I am somewhat suprised how little research seems to be available regarding the ratio of pubic hair colour to width. What are research students coming to these days? --  Chzz  ►  17:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was referring more to an article on the general use of hair as a metaphor for small width in phrases, which I think is notable and encompasses this use, rather than an examination of its actual physical dimensions. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:59, 2 Mar 2009 (UTC)
        • I agree that hair width is a subject worthy of an article, but I don't agree that applies directly to this discussion. Do you think that the article has now addressed the concerns listed? oh, and of course,
• Keep WP:DICDEF seems vague to me - length of article seems about as important as anything else. I believe that the article is sufficiently well sourced to pass muster, and has possibilities for expansion. --  Chzz  ►  18:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or move to Wictionary--Fasttimes68 (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In response to Chzz above, no, I don't believe the N or DICDEF concerns have been addressed. There are a lot of refs now, but most of them are, as I said, examples of use in literature and slang dictionary listings, and don't constitute significant coverage as a topic. And the article is still just a dictionary definition. Aside from the one sentence on the probable origin in military slang, the article is devoted entirely to a long-winded guide to usage. It's now a good article, but still not an encyclopedia article, and might be better suited to Wiktionary. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:55, 2 Mar 2009 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary and delete. Most of the article is a long-winded repetition of the first's line "notional unit of infinitesimal measure", while the last two sentences are relational ("this word has a connection to another word") and a possible origin. Sounds like a dictionary definition to me. Hair already includes a link to wiktionary:hair, which includes a number of related terms (wiktionary:hairbreadth, etc) - BanyanTree 23:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is more than a WP:DICDEF, and seems to have sources beyond dictionaries. Yes, WEDONTLIKEIT, but not a reason to delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which source in particular do you see as constituting significant coverage? The ones that aren't slang dictionaries are examples of use in literature. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:52, 3 Mar 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - this is simply an academic in-joke and has no notability (and I'm an inclusionist).DiverScout (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - classic example of WP:DICDEF, with no encyclopedic as opposed to lexicographic purpose. As Equazcion points out, all the cites we have are dictionaries defining it, and examples of its use: both lexicographic content, not encyclopedic. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary, remove from Wikipedia. As others have noted, this is a phrase, not a topic, and once it's been defined, there really isn't anything more to say. (If, say, there was a rich literature of analyzing the phrase, with magazine articles and journal pieces and whatever, arguing about its origin, discussing the different ways it has been used historically, euphemisms, and so on, that would be different. But that's not the case here; it's just a phrase.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Hair (unit of measurement) and include all content on hair as a unit of measurement. Usage of hair in this way is a common colloquialism on both sides of the pond (does that make it not colloquial anymore? anyway, moving on).If the common hair article were created, moving all content from Red cunt hair would not be incredibly large/in need of its own article and would be more searchable/accessible to people looking for info on this. SMSpivey (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've looked for sources on that too, and while the Google search counts are a bit higher, I haven't found any sources that would support an article like that either. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:50, 3 Mar 2009 (UTC)
• Keep or Move to Hair...The subject of the article being what it is I think the article is actually well written and serious. There is more to be written: it just hasn't been written yet. It is a phrase that is used in Carpentry, Auto Mechanics, Masonry and the like where minute increments are required. "Move it just a cunt hair to the left". I'm sure it's not in the Carpenters Apprentice Manual or the Journeyman Mason's weekly magazine but it's use is not an in-joke. Its intended to clearly express a distance, infinitesimal as it may be. Not something I would say but if I heard it I would know exactly what was meant....and that is the point. It is more than a definition since it requires explanation...which the article provides. For instance, that no other color but 'red' is used. Why is that?--Buster7 (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The only problem is now I am going to have to explain to my wife why there is red cunt hair all over my watch list!!!!--Buster7 (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • responseBuster7, thanks for your insight, here and on my talk. Good luck with the wife; I'd ask you to help out with the search, but it does tend to cause problems with, ahem, 'false positives'! I'm trying to source more; it's tricky with a slang term. I'm fully in agreement that it requires more than a dictionary definition, and is precisely the sort of information that WP can provide that others cannot. As to why the colour Red, I believe - but am researching to verify - that red hair is more coarse than other hues.
    • I intend to do some off-line research through libraries to establish further examples (besides the one given) for usage outside of definition - i.e. further literary references etc. I would ask all to give this article some time to develop. I will also investigate the ideas regarding other hair measurements, hairs breadth, whisker, etc etc, as well as trying to provide comprehensive information on the true diameters of hair; that may require a further article or a merger as discussed above, but these matters could be addressed via the article talk page(s). Please don't rush to delete or transwiki unless there's a solid policy reason; there is no deadline. (Any help very welcome!) Regards, --  Chzz  ►  13:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. Any German speakers, could do a bit of research about 'Schamhaaresbreite', which I'm given to understand is a translation, or similar idea? Thanks --  Chzz  ►  14:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Indescribably well cited for slang.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many reference does not equal good references. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:38, 4 Mar 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. We're trying to make an encyclpedia, not document every piece of slang in existence. Moreover, "dictionary definition" is listed in WP:NOT. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and its brother Little red cunt hair. This term has been in use since at least the 1940s. With the good references, it seems like a given to keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary and delete. The term is well-documented and verifiable, but has no chance of being evolved beyond a dicdef/stub. Stifle (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Cunt hair" as a measure already has a mention at Cunt#Others, so merge into that section. pablo_hablo. 23:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editor:Pablomismo has a good, sensible solution of Merge to Cunt#Others. It can be "cultivated" there. --Buster7 (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It will need trimming though. pablo_hablo. 00:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the contrary. I think it should be allowed to grow as it will. We jest but it confirms that there is more here than meets the eye. The topic is more than a mere definition and is intitled to more than devaluation. It is knowledge and should be included in the Encyclopedia.--Buster7 (talk) 00:44, 7 March 2009 (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.