Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synthetic dreads

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, defaulting to keep. Unsourced (though one provided here), but without a clear merge target, there isn't a clear course for action. ansh 666 09:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Synthetic dreads

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

uncited for 8 years of existence-does not meet WPN. Would support a merge if someone can find a target for this turkey Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Artificial hair integrations. There are some sources discussing this (e.g. [1]), but I doubt there's enough to support a separate article. --Michig (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Artificial hair integrations. Rhadow (talk) 02:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These aren't hair extensions, so that's not a good merge target. Also, unlike extensions, they're usually worn for one night, not semi-permanently. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Comment: Andy Dingley, they're stated to be made from synthetic hair, and in the case of Dread Extensions to be braided/sewn/wrapped as with extensions/integrations at the proposed target. Dread Falls are attached and removable but then so apparently are some clip-ins. Proposed target also briefly mentions wigs ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia typically underrepresents stereotypically female topics such as fashion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.133.173.219 (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say Keep as an independent article. They're not the same as hair weaves. The article badly needs some sources to demonstrate notability, though. Robofish (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has zero sources after 8 years and 3 weeks of AfD. This means it fails WP:V, making deletion mandatory, as well as WP:N. Sandstein 08:36, 11 December 2017 (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.