Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair


 * 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   keep. L Faraone  01:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair
Prior AfD for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unencylopedic topic EnglishEfternamn  *t/c*  00:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Beerest355  Talk 00:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Beerest355  Talk 00:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep for substantially the same reasons as indicated in prior AfD. Yes, in some ways it appears to be a silly topic, but it's a notable one, as indicated by the substantial coverage it has received, as set out in the prior AfD (see Milowent's and Colonel Warden's comments), and apparently has an actual electoral effect. Reasonable minds may disagree on what an "unencylopedic topic" is, but based on the documented coverage and effect, this is not one.  TJRC (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Speedy keep Quoting User:King of Hearts who closed the previous AfD: Col. Warden has provided multiple sources that demonstrate the notability of the topic. For the most part, the "delete" !votes are simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT: merely calling it "unencyclopedic trivia" does not make it so, as long as it is substantiated in reliable sources. No policy/guideline says that topics deemed subjectively by Wikipedians to be trivia are inherently non-notable; WP:TRIVIA refers to "Trivia" sections in articles and does not apply here. I understand that a lot of people are wondering, "What does facial hair have anything to do with a president?" I know I would too. But the simple undisputable fact is that the sources are there. This still applies here, as such, the article should be kept. Beerest355 Talk 00:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A woefully inadequate deletion nomination given the previous AFD. Show us you have at least read the previous discussion and understand why it was closed as "keep"; otherwise you are wasting everyone's time. postdlf (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per above. –Quiddity (talk) 02:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the nominator is perfectly entitled to renominate this, since consensus on whether this subject is appropriate and/or notable can change within two years. For what it's worth, I don't agree with the closer's statement in the previous Afd. Most of Colonel Warden's sources are either definitions or incidental, which only go to prove that it exists not that it's in anyway notable. I was more convinced by Milowent's references which did provide some analysis on the subject. Also, the statement "as long as it is substantiated in reliable sources" clearly goes against the policy for what Wikipedia is not, something which is not superseded by the general notability guideline. There might be a case for a non-encyclopedic cross-categorisation if consensus exists for that. Funny  Pika! 04:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * He's perfectly entitled to renominate it, and I wouldn't have criticized him at all had he posted a rationale along the lines of your comment. Regardless of whether I ultimately agree with your assessment, you clearly looked at the previous discussion and gave it some thought. By contrast, it's very poor practice to renominate something that was kept after a very length discussion with a very lengthy closing rationale, without doing a thing to advance or respond to that discussion. Particularly given that "unencyclopedic topic" is a rather substance-free nomination even if there hadn't already been that prior, substantive AFD... postdlf (talk) 04:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Giving the nom the benefit of the doubt, he may not have realized there was a prior AFD with the article under a different name. I remembered it and added the prior-AFD box; mostly because I knew I would be referring to it in my !vote text.  Of course, there's a notice of the prior AFD on the article's talk page, and presumably the nom reviewed the talk page for discussions before nominating; but it's a one-liner amid other boxes, and not all that conspicuous. TJRC (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * True, I actually find it quite ironic that most of the !votes here just state unencyclopedic topic or per someone else, especially given the closer's statement in the previous Afd. I suppose Afd is just a ballot box rather than a discussion forum these days. Funny  Pika! 19:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - per King of Hearts through Beerest355. ö   Brambleberry   of   RiverClan  14:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - A silly topic indeed, but this easily passes GNG from sources showing in the footnotes. Carrite (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * delete This should have been put out of its misery the first time around. It takes no serious research to see that around 1860 American men started to grow their beards out, and around the turn of the century started to shave again. It is not remarkable that presidents followed the same social pattern. One could possibly write an article about trends in male grooming in the country, which could have a paragraph about how presidential grooming reflected those trends. But this list, as it stands, is just dumb trivia. Mangoe (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's dumb but well-cited and much referenced trivia. –Quiddity (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Even the dimmest reader can look at the list of presidents and figure out which have facial hair; it isn't as though there is a need for a separate list. The only other additional content is a remark about beardedness in the present which is really a comment on American politicians in general. Mangoe (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as more than appropriately sourced. No valid rationale for deletion--as in, one that addresses actual guidelines or policies--has been advanced. Jclemens (talk) 05:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep on the merits. It seems to easily meet our criteria for inclusion. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep No valid reason given to delete it. This is notable because reliable sources cover it, as pointed out in the previous AFD.   D r e a m Focus  14:57, 25 June 2013 (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.