Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair (3rd 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   speedy keep. per WP:SK - Discussions regarding merging/redirection can take place in the appropriate discussion forum. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 20:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

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

There is some place for a discussion of the role facial hair plays in American politics, and the (at present somewhat disorganized) essay which serves as introduction has the citations to prove that. The list itself, however, is junk, from which I've already excised several questionable entries. Everything interesting in it is reported in a single sentence in the intro, and the text makes clear that being president and having (or lacking) whiskers is a (largely originally researched) footnote to the real topic. I would welcome suggestion of a merge target or a new name for the article, but the list has to go. Mangoe (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  15:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  15:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: It's interesting and informative. Czolgolz (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per the extensive evidence of notability presented at Articles for deletion/List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair. The "keep" result in that AfD was manifestly correct and no substantial reason is presented to revisit it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: Afd doesn't exist to resolve problems in articles, it exists to decide if a topic is notable and eligible for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Even if this topic seems silly, a quick Google search shows that the topic of facial hair in US politics is clearly notable, thus needs to be kept. If there are problems with the article, they should be fixed. Since the topic of facial hair in US politics seems to be the focal point, more than the list itself, I might suggestion moving it to Facial hair in US politics or something similar. Maybe even Facial hair ceiling (see this), if that term is often used. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sourcing seems pretty thorough. The table did look a little sad so I scrapped it and made a new one with images, sorting, some additional information, etc. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 17:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The nominator was present at the last discussion when his views were not supported by the general consensus. In this nomination, there are suggestions of merger or renaming but these would neither require nor benefit from deletion.  See WP:SK, "proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging". Andrew (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep: The article may have decayed over time and needed re-improvement, which has been done, but as I said in the 1st AFD four years ago, Articles for deletion/List of United states presidents with facial hair during their tenure, this is without question a notable topic. I cannot believe this would be nominated again!--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  18:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - a list supporting a topic deemed notable by the prevalence of reliable sources. Easy keep. Ivanvector (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2014 (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.