Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toupees in popular culture

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.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toupees in popular culture

Toupees in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete - article is a mishmash of "famous people who wore toupees" plus "times someone had a toupee mishap in a movie" along with a healthy dose of speculation about the future of toupee humor. Wikipedia articles are not directories of loosely associated topics and original research is forbidden. Otto4711 13:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Regretfully, while this article is somewhat more than the average "in popular culture" article, it is still rather loosely connected. I could see an article on history of toupees in humour as being potentially encyclopedic, which might be able to reuse some of the content here. JulesH 13:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If a better article could be made from the information in this one, either here or under a new title, it seems like an obvious keeper. Only articles with no such potential should be deleted. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the nominator's argument. The topic fails notability standards in lacking significant independent coverage. Without any established real-world context, this article's contents are trivial and unencyclopedic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom; speculation and trivia. --Eyrian 17:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 17:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Way too long. Mandsford 02:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. one of the funniest of the IPC articles, but still neither notable nor encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 21:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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.