Deletion of List of bow tie wearers (4th nomination)

Comment: Seriously, talk about |original research!  The premise of the article is a "list of bow tie wearers", which in itself is NOT a notable topic for a list, so I'd vote to delete based on  alone.  The article itself is a long-winded essay (properly sourced be it as it may) that constitutes .  Wikipedia is just facts, no synthesis.  This article is more of an ESSAY about bow-tie wearers than an encyclopedic list.  Perhaps the article could be broken down into smaller, more notable sublists, but as the bowtie was an extremely popular piece of attire in a previous age, Wikipedia might as well have a "list of bell bottoms wearers
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:N||WP:OR)

Comment: per the keeps above, and per  (where it says to avoid arguments that go "I do not care that it survived three AFDs in the past week, I'm going to nominate it every day until it is deleted. – Trytryagain
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTAGAIN)

Comment: per #INDISCRIMINATE. This list provides no useful information, and could possibly include just about every singe person on the planet
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: This has got to be one of the most absurd articles I've ever seen, but it passes  with flying colours
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: This is going to be boring because some of my comments are going to be repeats of comments I made in previous AfDs, but it's not my fault that we are being subjected to repeated AfDs for this article. The phenomenon documented by this list is notable. The vast majority of the entries on this list are notable men (and fictional characters) whose habit of wearing bow ties has been widely remarked upon in reliable sources (for example, for many of the real people who have died, bow-tie-wearing is mentioned in the first sentence of the obituary). This is not original research -- contributors have worked hard to ensure that every entry on the list is sourced, and many of the list entries are based on lists in published articles about the phenomenon of bow-tie-wearing. It would be logical to merge this into Bow tie, but that would not be desirable because the resulting article would be excessively long (this list article is over 40k by itself). Combining the two articles would merely create a new problem needing a new solution. For the people on this list, "wearing of bow ties" is not a trivial association. The overwhelming emphasis of the sources cited and quoted in this article is on the bow tie as a major, deliberately chosen element of a man's identity or public image. How else to explain (for example) the university president who capitalizes on his reputation for a "trademark bow tie" by calling his travels around the state "Bow Tie Bus Tours"? Or how about the TV journalist who stopped wearing bow ties when he joined CBS because a network official told him that Charles Osgood was CBS' bow-tie-wearing personality and "We can't have two guys wearing bow ties"? Or how about the politicians who are nicknamed "Bow Tie" by their opponents and/or supporters? This is an association that goes beyond mere personal taste. An earlier commenter urged people to avoid making  arguments. I also suggest avoiding  arguments, which is what most of the arguments for deletion have been
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: It just doesn't satisfy , as many notable individuals have worn bow-tie's. I like the fact that Wikipedia cater's to niche interests, but this list is altogether far too trivial to the point of being unencyclopedic. One of those rare cases where a well-referenced, overall good article is better off deleted - |ignore all rules applies here. This is, of course, no disrespect to the editors of this article, who have overall worked hard at maintaining and improving this article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:IAR)

Comment: It is bad form to bring this here again as checking for previous discussions is one of the pre-requisites listed at .  The nomination's focus upon inclusion criteria is a weak argument since the list is obviously of habitual bow tie-wearers.  The claim of OR is false as the article has excellent sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: Almost every deletion rationale and argument is wrong, and can be proven wrong by consulting |reliable sources. The article is not original research, the fact that someone is famous for wearing a bow-tie can and is attributed to reliable sources (and any claim that is not backed up by a reliable source can be removed without having to delete the entire article). This is not a list of "almost everyone who has worn a bow tie at some point", this is a list of people for whom wearing bow-ties is a notable part of their public image. This article fits the very description of what is exempted from being "|what Wikipedia is not": "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List." The ''http://docs.newsbank.com/g/GooglePM/SB/lib00167,0EB0D9E4C13AAF4D.html Sacramento Bee'' says "Lots of famous people are famous because of their devotion to bow ties." The fact that there is so much "attention to famous bow tie wearers in commerce and fashion commentary" is the exact reason that this list is encyclopedic and should exist. Whether it is "trivia" or not is irrelevant; notable "trivia" is still notable and thus encyclopedic
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:NOT)

Comment: Surprisingly, the introduction to the list provides a reasonable justification for inclusion, with well-known people using the bow tie as a fashion or character statement. Since the choice of wear is often made a point of, coverage of this passes the basic criteria of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: This may just be me, but considering that most of the 'keep' votes in previous AfDs have come from major contributors, does anyone else detect a slight hint of ? Remember to 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ownership of content (WP:OWN||WP:AAGF)

Comment: On the article's talk page there is a delightfully cogent discussion about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_bow_tie_wearers#rename renaming the article, as even the use of the word "list" in an article title evokes all kinds of dissention. Since the article itself is far more than a haphazzard list... being a well written and well sourced article that then includes several different and related lists in its body, a renaming should be seriously considered. Let the word "list" be used in the article's sections, but not in the title... as can be understood from the text of 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LISTS)

Comment: what next? List of bald politicians? List of actresses photographed "wearing a little black dress"? |NOT, please
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per nom.  , , and more .  This is a trivial list, nothing more, and is utterly unencyclopedic.  It's shocking to me that this has already survived three AfDs
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: as per  items 2, 4, 9, and 10
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Listcruft (WP:LC)

Comment: Keeping  in mind, the last AfD was just a few weeks ago and consensus was a resounding keep.  Consensus can change but some time must be given to allow editors to address any concerns that brought up the previous AfD in the first place.  Besides that I'd think overall the article is well researched and encyclopedic and should be kept
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTAGAIN)

Comment: Let me point out that there is Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_United_States_presidents_by_handedness|some precedent for keeping bizarre but well-sourced articles. Wikipedia is , so we have room to be slightly weird every now and then
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPAPER)

Comment: Two areas of concern. The first is as stated above, there is a genuine question if this is encyclopedic enough () - do we want articles of the form ''"List of people who wear/don't wear clothing item X"''? Although harmless, it strays too far into "indiscriminate collection of information" and "non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations" for me. I'd also feel it is too marginal a topic to be really appropriate as a list.The other concern which applies if the content is kept or merged is, this is supposedly a list. But in fact the introduction and entire long first section is essentially full of bowtie promotion (!) - ''"A man's wearing of bow ties is often noticed and commented upon" ... "Men's clothier Jack Freedman told the New York Times that wearing a bow tie 'is a statement maker' " ... "can be a badge of courage" ... "have certainly helped businesses"'' -- sentence after sentence of "bowtie positive" allusions, quotations, and commercialization. None of this belongs in a "list of wearers". Whatever else may happen, if it's kept then as a list, this isn't needed, and if merged into bowtie this aspect probably needs a bit of review, balancing, or sanitizing
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: How is this article different from List of people who wear clothing? Per |Wikipedia is not an an indiscriminate collection of information and |Wikipedia is not a directory.  Also, |people may like it, it doesn't mean it's |notable or not |original research or synthesis
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:NOTDIRECTORY||WP:ILIKEIT||WP:N||WP:OR)