Talk:facial hair

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

facial hair

WordNet only at OneLook. Seems SoP to me. DCDuring TALK 00:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep per WT:COALMINE. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Where is the proof at facialhair or Citations:facialhair? Not as of this date. DCDuring TALK 12:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to say the same thing (as DCDuring). :) - -sche (discuss) 12:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, to save time, citers should make sure that the orthography is unambiguous: "facial-hair" with the hyphen appearing at the end of the line is ambiguous. It could be hyphenation of facialhair or it could be facial-hair. And it saves time if the url is specified. DCDuring TALK 13:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Granted, but this is not WT:RFV#facialhair! Mglovesfun (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per the "especially..." part of the definition, which is not guessable from facial + hair. The peachfuzz on a woman's or child's face is generally not what people mean by "facial hair". —Angr 15:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• That's true, but the peachfuzz on a woman's or child's face is also generally not what people understand by "the hair of the face". See google books:"hair on her face". I think [[hair#English]] needs to be significantly expanded. —Ruakh_TALK 16:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: per Fan Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 20:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Who or what is Fan? Equinox ◑ 02:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Mglovesfan... Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 22:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Eyebrows and eyelashes are hair located on the face, but they generally aren't considered facial hair. Hence I wouldn't count this as SoP. Astral (talk) 00:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

  Do you have any citations that contradict those on Citations:facial hair which indicate that facial hair includes eyebrows and eyelashes? The citations on that pages, incidentally, suggest that "man's" is not part of the definition because both women's and animal's facial hair is included in normal use of the term, when women or animals are under discussion.

  That is, the definition is wrong. Cloaking an SoP term in an unsupportable, falsely narrow definition is a commonly used device to complicate the deletion process. I find it hard to believe that it is always done in good faith. DCDuring TALK 01:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

  And another thing. That women don't normally have facial hair is a fact about the world, the kind of thing that fills encyclopedias. What women have on their faces in non-normal situations is called facial hair. This is the kind of thing that is part of language. DCDuring TALK 02:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Astral has produced clear evidence that many users think of facial hair in the limited way the definition provided. I don't agree with "man's" rather than "one's" as the definition should include women and animals as usage indicates. We don't want to be unwarrantedly speciesist, do we? What goes inside an "especially" phrase, OTOH, probably should reflect human, male beard and mustache, though I don't think neck hair necessarily merits inclusion. Alternatively, we could have two "senses", a pseudo-sense using {{&lit}} and a sense such as might go inside the "especially". DCDuring TALK 23:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

    • (This is mainly a reply to your first post above) It wasn't my intent to suggest the term "facial hair" is never inclusive of eyebrows and eyelashes. Rather that, for many, "facial hair" means only the beard and moustache, and that because of this narrow usage, the term itself can't be considered SoP, even though it's sometimes used in a SoP-y way (as the citations you provided show).The current definition, "the hair of the face, especially…", is smart because it allows for both eyebrow-inclusive and eyebrow-exclusive usages. But I agree the "man's" portion of the current definition is inaccurate, and should be removed. Astral (talk) 00:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Having seen too many tacky commercials aimed at women that offer to "get rid of unsightly facial hair", I would suggest rewording that part to something like "especially of the characteristically male androgenic type such as beard, mustache and sideburns". Chuck Entz (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Androgenic seems like a particularly poor word to use in a definition, even one with wikilinks. DCDuring TALK 01:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Two of the users voting to keep the term, Mg and PBP, are voting based on COALMINE, even though COALMINE does not apply because no single-word variant of this has been cited. If I were to close this discussion, I would discount their votes for that reason... - -sche (discuss) 07:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I wonder what I was thinking when I wrote that. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was so snappy about it, though. - -sche (discuss) 05:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Kept for no consensus.--Jusjih (talk) 12:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)