Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Clinton haircut controversy (2nd nomination)


 * 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 redirect to Public image of Bill Clinton. Opinion is about equally divided between keep, merge and delete, mostly with defensible arguments (except Carrite). This is essentially a matter of editorial judgment, so I can't determine by fiat who's right and who's wrong. Still, we have rough consensus that we do not want an article about this topic, so what remains to be determined is whether and how much of the content to merge. In such cases, I normally close as redirect, as this allows subsequent discussions to hash this out. Happy election day, American friends!  Sandstein  13:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Bill Clinton haircut controversy
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I think it's time to revisit the earlier discussion. I see no reason why this short article on this one-time little event should deserve its own article--unless the reason is to somehow disparage the subject, by having yet another entry for the category "Clinton administration controversies". "Controversy" is a strong word and all-too easily used, esp. by partisan editors. For similar non-topics, see Articles for deletion/Donald Trump's hair, Articles for deletion/Justin Bieber's hair, Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's arms. Seriously, this is getting stupid. Merge to some Clinton article or other, in a few sentences or less. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Speaking of non-starters: "A Pew Research survey from mid-1993 reported that 18% of respondents followed the story "very closely"". So, 18% of respondents in 1993? That's really not much of anything at all. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: supported by many quite notable reliable sources; meets all other notability guidelines. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 18:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Here also this talk of guidelines--what notability guidelines? This was a news event which, afterwards, received some minor coverage. That's all. Not everything that's verified deserves its own article. Are you going to write an article for every verifiable factoid. Drmies (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Long forgotten about news story for a few days. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - the two post-1993 references in the article indicate there is some degree of lasting historical significance. StAnselm (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Disclosure, StAnselm is the creator of the article in 2014. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Govindaharihari, that's not a secret. User:StAnselm, I can't see the one book, but the other, Overholser and Jamieson, devotes one single paragraph to it and calls it a "news story". But I will admit that with two book references it becomes a viable addition to Public image of Bill Clinton or some other article like that. Drmies (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's no longer on GBooks, for some reason. Neither is it on Amazon, though the snippets there indicate that it covers several pages (pp. 118-121). StAnselm (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. It wasn't a controversy, I'd call it an anecdote, and "subsequent investigations (...) showed that no commercial airliners suffered delays". In short, nothing really happened, this wasn't a news event, it's just tabloid filler material. Not encyclopedic.  Yinta n  21:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Public image of Bill Clinton. The US presidency is so high profile that even minor events get substantial coverage in news media, which may even persist as authors later write very detailed books about every aspect of the presidency. Per WP:NOTNEWS Wikipedia is not one of these organisations. It looks to me like the lasting coverage this has later got in books either uses it as an example of how Clinton was treated by the media at the time or includes it in some larger list of Clinton administration controversies/scandals/incidents. Given this I think it would be better presented as part of a larger article. If it is kept as a standalone article then I would suggest renaming it to something other than "controversy".  Hut 8.5  08:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I should also point out in response to some of the below that this objection isn't that the subject isn't notable. The fact that some subject passes our notability guidelines does not mean that we can have an article on it. It just means we can have an article unless some other policy or guideline disqualifies it, such as WP:NOT. That's what's happening here.  Hut 8.5  17:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. There are good reasons why we did away with the trivia section of thousands of articles that made the Wikipedia look like gossip fan magazines. The fact that it happened does not mean that we have to give recognition at article level. A brief mention of the incident on a Clinton-related page will suffice. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 08:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Question. Is there any merit to an article that exists simply because of this hair incident, such as Cristophe_(hairstylist)? Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 09:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The article about that hairstylist could be a case for WP:SINGLEEVENT. Personally I think even if the article about the incident itself gets not deleted, the article about the connected hairstylist definitely has a very weak case for staying. Dead Mary (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The article about the stylist has been sent to AfD in the past, and was kept because of the (reasonable) point that he has been the subject of dedicated news articles since the incident, some of which don't even mention it.  Hut 8.5  17:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - If this was a genuine controversy, there would be retrospective pieces in newspapers and books specifically about it - but there aren't. (Yes, I've changed my mind since round 1) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete not a real controversy as Ritchie points out; there otherwise would have been much more reported on the matter. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. See Articles_for_deletion/List_of_sitting_U.S._Vice_Presidents_who_have_shot_people, Articles_for_deletion/George_W._Bush pretzel_incident, and Articles_for_deletion/George_W._Bush_Scotland_bicycle_accident for precedents about presidents. Bearian (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge per Hut 8.5. While it may not deserve its own article, it could get a paragraph at the proposed target. Since this is well-sourced and it's interesting content, we should merge it somewhere appropriate instead of outright deletion per WP:PRESERVE.  Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge per Hut 8.5 and Patar knight. Public image of Bill Clinton is probably the best target for merging. Ceosad (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge per Hut 8.5 or delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ten year test. Widefox ; talk 01:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge per Hut 8.5, but very selectively (i.e. maybe two sentences). Not enough lasting significance and not something that needs a stand-alone article. &mdash;  Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 01:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - it meets WP:N however trivial it turned out to be. Well sourced and interesting. A possible reserve option of setting up an article for Bill Clinton controversies but the content is both good and useful. Neonchameleon (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Public image of Bill Clinton and then decide what is to be merged (I agree with a comment above that it's at best a paragraph). I prefer a redirect rather than a merge, as it would solve the issue of keeping the stand-alone article. It's title is dubious -- this is at best an "incident" (and not a "controversy" -- or perhaps only on a slow news day). Anything useful can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep and move to Bill Clinton haircut allegations without redirect. As this story is still widely online: by the NYT (without correction!) and other media... and still gets reproduced over the years again and again: 200020072010 (updated)20162015... So our Wikipedia entry has an important NPOV value; WP is for smaller historic events, too. I certainly support the simple keep and at second choice merge/redirect, but do not delete! --SI 11:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Plenty of media coverage, as Schmarrnintelligenz has shown. Notable enough for its own article. I also agree that smaller historical events should also be covered by Wikipedia. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: I see the subject not as about a "one-time little event" but as an article about how journalism presented that little event and talked it up into being something it was not and what the results of that sort of journalistic approach has on the public perception of truth and accuracy. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 100% Delete — A haircut? Are you kidding me? Is there really any coverage about a single haircut given to Bill Clinton necessary on Wikipedia? Aria1561 (talk) 03:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, as Schmarrnintelligenz has shown, there is plenty of coverage about this incident, which makes this article notable enough for inclusion. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge -- The event is too trivial to merit an article. NOTNEWS Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't like it. Other stuff like this was deleted. Hopefully we'll have another close by an administrator that just counts noses instead of dispassionately assessing arguments, then my side will win. Carrite (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You just used IDONTLIKEIT and OTHERSTUFF arguments, which, frankly, are invalid for and AfD. This might disqualify your iVote from bearing any weight. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Carrite's being sarcastic.  Hut 8.5  08:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That may be, but he wants his iVote to have weight, he should make a substantial argument. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 02:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Even for national politicians, some parts of teir life are trivial. This is an excellent exapkle of one,and the reelevant principals ares NOTTBLOI and UNDUE,  DGG ( talk ) 09:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Trivial nonsense. Zerotalk 05:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge to Public image of Bill Clinton, because the sourcing is very strong and it does appear both to have been a major deal thing at the time, and to have been the subject of later analysis.E.M.Gregory (talk) 07:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, lots of attention, press coverage, etc. Everyking (talk) 05:35, 7 November 2016 (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.