Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair (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 keep. Consensus remains strong that this list's specific topic is supported by sources and not indiscriminate or trivial. postdlf (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

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

This is a trivial list, and the sources will not overcome the fact this is not an encyclopedic list that can withstand scrutiny in the creation of an encyclopedia that has worldwide applications. There is no good reason to have this list and not have an equivalent list for the leaders of many other countries. This is especially true since all US presidents who were not clean shaven served at a time when the United States was not even considered one of the major powers. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Richard Nixon is an example of why this list is unworkably flawed. Nixon would shave his face twice a day because his facial hair grew so fast. So at times during his presidency, those times in the early morning and just before his 2nd shave of the day, he had noticeable amounts of facial hair.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I know a lot of people find this fascinating. It's an example of how styles change over the years. Czolgolz (talk) 03:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  04:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The fact there is no such list for other countries does not make this one candidate for deletion. Lets create those lists instead of removing the one we have. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 05:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – There are similar lists for other countries. See List of Prime Ministers of Australia with facial hair and List of Prime Ministers of New Zealand with facial hair. North America1000 06:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Even if this doesn't pass the nominator's scrutiny it passes mine. I have a nagging feeling that I might be persuaded by a well-considered nomination but this one falls far short. Thincat (talk) 08:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Scientists have studied facial hair's effect on elections. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That is an argument for Facial hair and elections not for this list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Delete. Somebody create Effect of facial hair on elections instead. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NOTAGAIN. The topic is notable – see A Beard is Born, for example.  Andrew D. (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - distracting unencyclopedic listcruft. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - The arguments from all the previous AfDs still hold. This is a notable topic, even if silly, as it has been discussed at length by multiple sources.  No new novel arguments against its existence have been provided.  Passes our notability standards.  Absolutely keep. Fieari (talk) 05:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Over 100 years of RS sources and you want it deleted?? Meets the GNG and then some...   Th e S te ve   09:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Yeah it's got some sources, but it's trivial and provides little value. There's no great "analysis" to come from this. "Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: I think this is kind of silly, but so is List of winged unicorns.  It's survived 3 previous AfDs, time to drop the stick.  Montanabw (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Not encyclopedic and irrelevant topic and content. In best case is a potentially subject for a ”Did You Know” article somewhere outside Wikipedia, on some blog. --XXN, 08:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Though I'm sort of surprised such an odd list exists, it seems to meet notability. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- the topic of "Presidents of the United States with facial hair" has not been a topic of independent inquiry by reliable sources. This appears to be OR and "listcruft". K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * References 10, 21 and 22 say otherwise. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Looking at the references (10, 21, and 22), I am not sure they support the notability of this list (Presidents of the United States with facial hair). Instead, the scholarly references are: Reference 10 - studies whether facial hair is a voting cue for all politicians, not just presidential candidates; Reference 21 - a study which tries to predict elections solely on biographical details of presidential candidates (including facial hair as one of 59 variables); Reference 22 - a newspaper article about research of how facial hair might impact presidential elections. The sources in references 10 and 22 point to additional research of how people perceive people with facial hair, and there could be a good article about facial hair in politics generally, (as the introduction to the existing article suggests). If I were to make a recommendation it would be to rename the article and focus it on facial hair in American politics or something similar. - Enos733 (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm convinced. Changed lvote. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. The multitude of reliable sources that report about particular presidents' facial hair and how it may have impacted their image  demonstrate the lasting notability of the topic. I understand, but ultimately do not agree with, the argument above that only an article about the more general subject is appropriate; there is no basis to omit reliable popular media in analyzing notability.  (The article is replete with sources but here are a few more examples: )  And I strongly disagree with the "delete" arguments predicated on simply calling this list "trivia" or some other belittling term, which stated in such terms strike me as a variant of IDONTLIKEIT. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, collection of indiscriminate information and moreover nonsensical; all men (i.e., all U.S. presidents so far) grow facial hair. Not a notable topic per references in article, as analyzed per Enos733 above, who seems to be the only person to have actually examined the sources. This is the kind of bullshit that gives Wikipedia a bad name. As mentioned above, an article about beards in politics generally might have a better chance at survival.  Sandstein   13:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:LISTN as a group that has been discussed in-depth by reliable sources. SST  flyer  09:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep facial hair amongst US presidents, or lack of it, has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources - I found very quickly. I don't see this as trivia if it's getting this kind of coverage. The fact that we don't have equivalent lists for other countries is not an argument for deletion.  Hut 8.5  21:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's plenty of sources.  The arguments that there's no good inclusion criteria are silly.  This is clearly about presidents who intentionally maintained a beard and/or mustache.  Picking nits about Nixon's Five O'Clock Shadow is meaningless.  -- RoySmith (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Digging somewhat deeper into the sources cited in the article, I see:
 * Chicago Tribune
 * New York Times
 * Boston Globe
 * Los Angeles Times
 * I did not examine every source cited, but these four are all to major US newspapers. So, I think we can put to bed the lack of WP:RS argument.  -- RoySmith (talk) 12:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The newspaper sources are about presidential and vice presidential candidates, not the presidents themselves. Again, I suggest that the content remain and that the article be renamed in such a way to reflect that the reliable sourced content are about the political implications of facial hair, not the list of Presidents who sported facial hair. The Slate article mentioned by  Hut 8.5   is titled "Beards in Politics," and again focuses on presidential and vice presidential candidates AND talks about modern US politicians with facial hair. To me, the "list" approaches WP:OR, but the content is good, encyclopedic content. - Enos733 (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Based on the sources, this seems to be a valid topic. If there's a better way to present this (either in article vs. list form, or under a better title), I have no objection to either of those.  -- RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, as relevant as height and plenty of reliable sources discussing its relevance in elections, though in need of a much needed rewrite to match that article's comprehensiveness.--Shivertimbers433 (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Serious and not serious reasons exist, and I think this is a notable list of fashion trends. Smmurphy(Talk) 15:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, per my comment at Articles for deletion/List of Prime Ministers of Australia with facial hair, this is a quirky topic but there are reliable sources that examine it. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:36, 2 October 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.