Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monofibre

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was ambiguous.

I count 10 "delete" votes, 6 "keep" votes, 5 "merge" or "redirect" and one apparent abstention.

There is a clear majority arguing that this should not remain as an independent article. The largest vote was for deletion but it did not achieve the overwhelming majority necessary to show concensus for deletion. I am going to call this one a "no concensus".

In my capacity as an ordinary editor, I will now turn this into a redirect. (I didn't see anything worth merging but if you do, please recover it from the page history.) Rossami (talk) 7 July 2005 23:28 (UTC)

[edit] Monofibre

This article passed a VfU because it was speedy deleted (possibly out of process). No vote Deathphoenix 15:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(changed my no vote to the default of VfD nominator's delete) --Deathphoenix 17:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I requested the article's undeletion, so I am supposed to vote to keep it. I am doing that, but this is just a provisional vote (to give it a chance); it can be nominated once again as a substub. - Mike Rosoft 16:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay. Redirect to Hair extension, and merge any useful content (if any) there. - Mike Rosoft 21:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep based on VfU --KharBevNor 16:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  The fact that it passed VfU is irrelevant; VfU is not a judgement of the merits of an article. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  Article was undeleted because of process not because it should be kept. - Tεxτurε 18:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I am aware of that. The discusssion of it in the vfu, however, convinced me it should be kept --KharBevNor 00:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, valid stub. Kappa 16:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. Monofibre is a trademark and refers to a particular product. See http://www.monofibre.com Monofibre is not a generic term for a family of materials used for hair extension. The word is not found in dictionaries. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Dpbsmith. --W(t) 16:38, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Merge with Hair extensions —Wahoofive (talk) 16:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn corporation.--Nabla 16:52, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Delete per Dpbsmith. Article was originally located at Monofibre�. As he said, it's specific to one company and not a generic term. Whatever the deletion summary said, I deleted it because I believed it to be blatant advertizing. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:40, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I changed my vote to Delete in light of the information by Dpbsmith. However, the link above is a dead link. I believe the correct web site is http://www.monofibre.com --Deathphoenix 17:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Advert, not notable, as above. - Tεxτurε 18:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The anonymous spammer who changed Hair extensions to a horrible advertisement also created Monofibre, but luckily managed to keep it as a stub with no blatant advertisement. Wikipedia already has N+1 articles about commercial products by for-profit companies, so what's the harm in this one? — JIP | Talk 19:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge with hair extensions. JIP forgets that Wikipedia is inconstent. (If someone will link to the guideline, thanks.) Septentrionalis 20:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to hair extensions. David | Talk 20:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Why redirect a company name to a generic site on hair extension? Sounds misleading since there is no mention of a specific company (nor should there be) in the article you plan to redirect to. Just because the content is similar does not mean the redirect is a good idea. Beyond that you are redirecting to hair extension when the company may have other products. This could result in confusion for someone looking for combs, hair gel, etc. - Tεxτurε 21:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The company name is "Dome Cosmetics". "Monofibre" is the name of one of that company's products, just as Abdomenizer, Ginsu knife, and OxiClean are products. A discussion of artificial fibre hair extensions versus hair extensions made from real human hair seems appropriate for hair extensions. Uncle G 23:09, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
      • "Monofibre" is not a single product. It is a trademarked name of a line of products. Linking this to hair extensions is misleading. From the Dome website:

        Select our individual Monofibre Products from the navigation menu on the left.

        Some of the products in that line:

        • Monofibre Collection (razor, colour shade chart, shampoo, conditioner, mist...)
        • Monofibre colour shade chart (in above collection)
        • Monofibre Laminate
        • Monofibre Window Poster
        • Monofibre classic
        • Monofibre wave

        The trademarked Monofibre product line is not a single product and not only a hair extension. - Tεxτurε 15:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

        • I see nothing of the sort on the Dome Cosmetics website, but I'll take your word for it, given how bad that site is. You'll find that the colour shade chart is a chart telling people what colours the Monofibre hair extensions are available in, and the window poster is a poster that salons can stick on their windows advertising to passers-by the availability of Monofibre hair extensions. You'll also find "Monofibre is the original hair extension product." on the web site given by Dpbsmith at the beginning of this discussion. Uncle G 19:42, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Being specific to one company, and being not a word in the dictionary, does not preclude something from being an encyclopaedia article. Trademarks are not supposed to be in dictionaries, and trademark holders vigourously oppose their inclusion in dictionaries. Photoshop, McRib, Pepsi, and Gatorade are trademarks, not dictionary words. So the question is, really, whether Monofibre is a product/invention worthy of an individual encyclopaedia article, not whether the word is in a dictionary. Uncle G 21:29, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Keep. Fuck trademark holders, they don't control encyclopedias and dictionaries. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • So your rationale for keeping is that you want to fuck trademark holders, rather than anything at all to do with Monofibre the product/invention, what the article at hand is actually about? Uncle G 23:09, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
  • My rationale for keep is that it's a word as common as sellotape or aspirin. If I talk to my hairdresser about monofibres we're not engaging in advertising, just talking about a form of hair extension that she may or may not want to use. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • "a word as common as sellotape or aspirin?" Aspirin, 2,800,000 hits, Sellotape, 157,000 hits, monofibre, 532 hits Dpbsmith (talk) 18:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Dear Mr. Anthony Sidaway: "FCUK™" is a registered trademark of French Connection Group Plc, for its line of products including but not limited to shoes, sunglasses, fragrance, mens grooming, and childrens' wear products. We respectfully require you to cease and desist from using terms that could be confused with or suggest an association with the valued products of our company. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely yours, J. Smedley Ramsbotham III Esq, Jarndyce and Jarndyce, Department of Intellectual Property Law. This is intended to be an obvious joke. Or an obvious attempt at one.
• Merge with Hair extensions, allowing any searcher to learn about the product without advertising problem. Xoloz 01:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: If it's not a vanity/promotion item, then it belongs in Wiktionary.
• Delete: Advertising of something that, by itself, is not notable enough for an NPOV article to serve. Geogre 05:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad. Radiant_>|< 08:04, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if rewritten and expanded. Valid topic. JamesBurns 09:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with hair extension. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verified stub. Almafeta 00:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete but merge into Hair extensions Vonkje 20:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Vonkje, delete and merge are incompatible votes according to GFDL, because content that is merged must also have the proper author attribution. I assume you mean Merge and redirect to Hair extensions? --Deathphoenix 21:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • No, they are not. "Merge and delete" is perfectly valid, but strongly discouraged because if the edit history is nontrivial it is a lot of work for the acting sysop to merge the histories. But in this case and many others, the edit history is trivial, as the entire content of the article, other than adding VfD notices and so forth, is the result of one edit by one editor. All that needs to be done is to insert the text of the 07:19, 22 Jun 2005 revision before making any changes, make a simple note on the talk page saying that the inserted text was created by 210.86.121.151 on 07:19, 22 Jun 2005, and then making any desired edits, and GFDL is fully satisfied. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Hear, hear. And even for pages with really big edit histories, you can always move the page edit history to a subpage of the talk page (as some bright person brightly suggested on the VP a while back). --W(t) 00:31, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
        • In that case, we need to update the VfD guide, because the guide seems to indicate that this is an incompatible vote. --Deathphoenix 05:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I haven't read this guide but really people make "votes" but all we're doing is expressing our opinions. The closer decides. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Note that the actual language used is "should be avoided," not "is prohibited." And in general it should, but there are times when it is reasonable. Note, too, that the rationale is the requirements of the GFDL. Well, the GFDL requires only that the history be preserved. The automatic history features of Wikimedia are not the only way to satisfy this requirement. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.