Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair (4th 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.

First of all, the canvassing of editors from other AFDs was problematic and probably should have lead to sanctions against the editor in question if they hadn't been blocked as a sockmaster in the mean time. I do want to remind all participants though that notifying editors from previous AFDs is generally only accepted when they were about the same article.

That said, on to this discussion: Numerically speaking, the count is tied at 21 to 21 (discounting sock !votes). Unfortunately, many (experienced) editors tried to justify their !vote without a strong policy-backed rationale:
 * Delete !voters: WP:TRIVIAL, WP:WEDONTNEEDIT, "men just have beards", WP:LISTCRUFT, "it's stupid", "consensus can change" (yes, it can but you have to argue why it should, not just state it), WP:ITSNOTUSEFUL, "common sense" (?), WP:WAX, "America-centrism" (which is not a reason to delete America-specific articles but to create non-America-specific articles)
 * Keep !voters: "was kept previously", WP:ILIKEIT, WP:WELLWRITTEN, "Nom does not convince me", "not again",

The key - and only relevant - question that had to be discussed here was: Is this a notable topic for a stand-alone list per WP:LISTN. In this regard, it took a few days before the first !voter (Cunard) provided significant amount of sources to argue in favor of notability. Once sources were provided and the discussion focused more on notability and less on whether this is a trivial topic for inclusion, the consensus shifted notably towards agreeing that facial hair in American politics is a notable encyclopeic topic that received significant coverage in a lot of reliable sources. Only few people argued for deletion afterwards and none of those argued based on the lack of notability of the topic. The only policy-based !vote at this point was a link to WP:INDISCRIMINATE without an explanation about why this policy applies to this list.

In the end, this discussion did not noticeably add new information compared to the four previous discussions and as such a new nomination will have to demonstrate that the topic is non-notable to not be considered disruptive. This discussion has shown that people on both sides are not opposed to creating a more inclusive page that deals with facial hair and its impact on American politics in general and creating such a page and then merging this list to it seems a possible way forward that should be discussed in earnest.

Regards SoWhy 16:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair
AfDs for this article: 


 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is a trivia and there is no need of a separate list. See deletion of List of Prime Ministers of Canada with facial hair at Articles for deletion/List of Prime Ministers of Canada with facial hair. Kraose (talk) 06:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 11:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 11:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 11:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lepricavark (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

gidonb (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC) Courtesy ping to those who recently participated in AfD:"List of Prime Ministers of Canada with facial hair" DexterPointy (talk) 12:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Striking comment. User was blocked for sockpuppetry. See Sockpuppet investigations/DexterPointy. Cunard (talk) 08:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:LISTN. List of trivia, not telling us anything important or valuable. Accesscrawl (talk) 06:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per User: Accesscrawl. Vorbee (talk) 07:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination failed to list or address the previous nominations. Their results were:
 * 2010 = Keep
 * 2013 = Keep
 * 2014 = Speedy Keep
 * 2016 = Keep
 * Our deletion policy is that it "can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." As the nomination presents no policy-based argument and doesn't say anything that hasn't been said and refuted repeatedly before, it should be dismissed and a moratorium on further frivolous nominations established. Andrew D. (talk) 10:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Consensus can change, and arguably has changed. Most recent AfD result was "Delete", on 31.Jul.2018, for "List of Prime Ministers of Canada with facial hair". -- DexterPointy (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The principle that repeated renomination can be disruptive only applies to cases like somebody who doesn't like the consensus renominating it for another discussion minutes or days after the initial closure. It does not apply if it's been years since the last time the article was considered at AFD. Bearcat (talk) 13:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - Arbitrary unencyclopedic topic, supported only by pseudo-science and fan/fringe fetish. -- DexterPointy (talk) 11:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Struck content above per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America1000 00:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep this is a particularly useful, interesting, well–written, and well–sourced article. Somebody explain how deleting this would help our readers. Lepricavark (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I like this article too but that is not a policy-based argument. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Speaking of policy, that essay to which you linked isn't a policy and carries no weight with me. Lepricavark (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have the same opinion when somebody says something is useful but then doesn't explain how it is useful. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 09:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * How exactly is this useful? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 03:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Consensus can change, so the fact that this was kept in the past is not binding. As I've said in the past, nearly every adult man is capable of both growing facial hair and shaving it off, so the question of having a beard or not having a beard is not a defining characteristic of a man — two of the presidents present in the list, for example, do not have beards in the actual portraits being used to illustrate their list entries, which is proof in and of itself that beardedness can change (and that it can even change during a president's term, making him simultaneously a president with a beard and a president without a beard.) Further, most of the sources present here are passing references to beardedness in sources about other things, not direct analysis of beardedness as a political thing. This simply amounts to trivia, not genuinely encyclopedic content about a notable concept — the question that actually needs to be answered here is not "how deleting this would help our readers", but how keeping it would help our readers learn anything important or encyclopedic. Bear(d)cat (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:DEFINING is about categories, not lists. Nobody is suggesting the creation of Category:Presidents of the United States with facial hair. There is no requirement that lists must be about defining characteristics. If there was then a load of clearly encyclopedic lists would have to be deleted.  Hut 8.5  10:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, there's not a single "clearly" encylopedic list that would need to be deleted on that basis — there are certainly several unencyclopedic lists that clearly should be deleted on that basis, but not a single solitary genuinely encyclopedic list would ever be lost by the application of that standard. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, let's see how that works out. Appearing on a banknote is hardly a defining characteristic of a person, so we'll have to get rid of List of people on United States banknotes. Not having armed forces isn't a defining characteristic of a country, so we'll have to lose List of countries without armed forces. Similarly for Cardinal electors for the papal conclave, March 1605 and List of cricketers called for throwing in top-class cricket matches in Australia and many others. That's four featured lists your standard considers unencyclopedic, and there are plenty of others. If you actually read WP:DEFINING you'll find that it says In cases where a particular attribute about a topic is verifiable and notable but not defining, or where doubt exists, creation of a list article is often the preferred alternative. So yes lists can be about nondefining characteristics and that is in fact one of the main reasons for having them in the first place. This standard has no validity whatsoever here.  Hut 8.5  18:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per Bearcat. I continue to believe, as I stated in the 2016 discussion, that the content be rewritten as "Facial Hair in Politics" (to be broad) or "Facial Hair in American Politics" (to be specific), since the article contains "reliable sourced content about the political implications of facial hair." I continue to believe that the list itself approaches WP:OR. --Enos733 (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per above discussion, this is non-encyclopedic trivia. And as Enos733 said, the list does appear to be original research. Tillerh11 (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom and not by the hairs on my chiny-chin-chin.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Although I'm pretty sure that something like the History of facial hair in American politics could be an encyclopedic page (and not in list form), the page as it exists is an exercise in unencyclopedic trivia, because facial hair is neither defining nor informative in distinguishing one US President from another. Would we also have lists of bald Presidents, or of those with blue eyes? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As a follow-up, I see quite a few editors arguing for keeping based on sourcing that passes GNG. Given the existence also of WP:NOT, I think it's relevant that GNG means that we may keep a page rather than that we must. And I share the concern over the giant-economy-size pings, so I also want to underline that consensus can change, so the past AfD results are not binding here. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I just looked at List of Presidents of the United States, and it includes images of each President. Thus, it's a simple matter for an interested reader to look there and readily see which ones have had facial hair. What additional value a reader would derive from the list page discussed here seems negligible to me. A non-list page about facial hair in US politics does seem useful to me, but that's not the page nominated here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bearcat and Tryptofish. Vanamonde (talk) 07:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Pinging Articles for deletion/List of United states presidents with facial hair during their tenure participants:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and . Cunard (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Pinging Articles for deletion/List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair participants:, , , , and . Cunard (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Pinging Articles for deletion/List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair (2nd nomination) participants:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and . Cunard (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Pinging Articles for deletion/List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair (3rd nomination) participants:, , and . Cunard (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there any good reason why you didn't also ping participants from below two AfDs ? : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_New_Zealand_with_facial_hair : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_Australia_with_facial_hair -- DexterPointy (talk) 08:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Struck content above per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America1000 00:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * has a valid point there. You've pinged the participants of the AfD where the results was keep consecutively 3 times. Please see WP:CANVASSING Accesscrawl (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * DexterPointy does not have a valid point. Cunard pinged people who participated in past discussions of this article, not past discussions of all conceivable related articles. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 17:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I agree that my pings of editors who participated in the previous AfDs do not violate WP:CANVASSING. Cunard (talk) 03:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Back in 2016 I see I wrote "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". This nomination is even less satisfactory. Thincat (talk) 08:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The topic of presidents' facial hair is discussed in independent reliable sources for the group as a whole. and, so far as I can see from the preview, here. This list is not merely an amalgamation of individual factoids. How someone who says "Fails WP:LISTN. List of trivia, not telling us anything important or valuable." can feel well placed to criticise someone else for infringing WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is a mystery to me. There is little doubt that the personal appearance of candidates does affect how people vote so my own view is that the mater is not trivial. However, I agree with Hut (below) that it would likely be better if this were presented on WP as a normal article rather than a list. Thincat (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep this topic has been discussed sufficiently in sources to meet WP:GNG requirements. feminist (talk) 09:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep there are plenty of sources which discuss the topic of facial hair of US presidents, including things like changes in facial hair over time. This means it's an encyclopedic, notable categorisation. I can see it working as an article instead of a list, but that's not an argument for deleting it.  Hut 8.5  10:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete – "not even a close shave. This is at the negligible end of trivial." (This is what I put last time, of which I have no recollection. Thanks for the ping.) Oculi (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per . Every man has facial hair; sometimes the fashion is to grow a beard, sideburns or other facial adornment, sometimes it is to shave it off. Growing facial hair (or not) is not a defining characteristic of a man and the list is as trivial and useless as "American Presidents who wore flared trousers" or "American presidents who wore a beehive". The subject may be worthy of an article (why so few presidents did, how beards are perceived by voters, how attitudes have changed etc.) and the overview at the start of the list could be incorporated into that, but the list format ("beard colour" - really?) is the wrong approach, not least because the subject need not be limited to US presidents alone. Dorsetonian (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I am trying to be consistent with my 2016 opinion. It's not just a trivia. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Hut has the correct answer to the mystery: since this matter has been addressed multiple times in published sources of presumed reliability (see footnotes), it is a notable topic under our inclusion rules — whether or not we think this topic is inane trivia, as I personally do. Carrite (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per every other article that has every existed on national leaders with facial hair. WP:LISTCRUFT. Useless, unencyclopedic trivia. Ajf773 (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - There's a lot of coverage of this topic, coverage treating them as a group, and a clear inclusion criteria -- hence it's meets WP:LISTN and WP:SAL. That's why we've come to that conclusion three times already. Lots of impassioned WP:DONTLIKEIT going on here. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Since this is covered in RS, and is useful to readers. An argument that perhaps the scope should be expanded slightly to  History of facial hair in American politics is reasonable and valid for RM, but not a good reason for deletion.--Pharos (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for picking up on what I said about a "History of..." page. However, what I was talking about was not a slight expansion and move. Rather, I was talking about something that would essentially be an entirely different page. And, how exactly is it useful to readers? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - per my 2016 !vote. Beards are and especially were a much discussed (in RSs) aspect of presidential fashion. Smmurphy(Talk) 15:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep – given the interest that has been in the topic (as in WP:RS) and the importance of the position, this article is justified. gidonb (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I found time to complete the pinging myself. Pinging participants from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_New_Zealand_with_facial_hair : Pinging participants from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_Australia_with_facial_hair :  -- DexterPointy (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Now you're actually canvassing. You have dug up a tangential list because it resulted in deletion in response to someone pinging people who have previously discussed this list. One is standard operating procedure for AfD. The other is, well, obvious canvassing. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 22:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - selecting and notifying groups of people known to have previously voted overall to keep the article as was done previously by was obviously going to have a non-neutral effect. I make no suggestion it was done in anything but good faith but you can clearly see the pattern of !votes change before and after that was done. Anyway, I think you are wrong in two of your assertions. Firstly, regarding who should be notified - WP:CANVASS actually states this: notifying  (my emphases) - that is, it is only sometimes appropriate, not always; it doesn't specify when it is appropriate, but this clearly indicates it should be done cautiously. On the other hand, it actively encourages what  has done - it specifically says that notifying  is  - note: not the same article; the same topic. Notifying the editors who have previously discussed lists of prime ministers with facial hair at AfD is as close to choosing the same topic as you could get. Secondly, regarding the outcomes of those discussions - one closed as delete and the other closed as keep, so there was no hint of favouring one side of the argument or the other. Dorsetonian (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. It's standard to ping participants of past AfDs of the same article. It is not standard to notify people of a tangential list. The fact that it was clearly done based on an assumption of bad faith on Cunard's part is all the worse (the same assumption you are making now). I hope the closing admin (and those who were canvassed) will recognize that. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 22:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Rhododendrites stands correct that allowing similar (vs. previous) discussions to be pinged would be opening the process to incredible bias. Which discussions are really similar? How do we spot if all previous discussions have been covered or just a selection thereof? I hope that this is clear from the guidelines. If it isn't – these should be improved. In the meantime, I would like to ask those who have been canvassed not to add opinions. Whatever their position may be! gidonb (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll note that Dorsetonian edited his/her comment after I replied to it (see WP:TPOWN), removing the accusation of canvassing directed at Cunard) . &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 23:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I was copyediting what I wrote when you replied but felt it important to commit the clarification even after there was an edit conflict to make it clear that the "previous" notifications I first referred to were Cunard's and not DexterPointy's. I should perhaps have let it stand and added a second comment, but as you did the same thing yourself straight afterwards, let's not quibble too much. However, both versions of what I wrote clearly stated that I believe Cunard acted in good faith. I did not "remove the accusation of of canvassing directed at Cunard"; it was explicitly not there from the outset. Check the diff. Dorsetonian (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right. My apologies. I misread it. Struck. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 00:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - I don't doubt that it has been your experience that pinging participants of previous AfDs for the same article is "standard" but I hope I have opened your eyes to the fact that WP:CANVASS actually suggests caution is needed. - you are right, carefully selected "related" topics could introduce significant bias. Read on at WP:CANVASS, though, and it says, which covers that, and it appears clear that DextyPointer has adhered to that. Dorsetonian (talk) 23:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No partisan notifications has been espoused by my hand. In fact, the pinging I did was not only indiscriminate between keep/delete-votes, but also served to alleviate the systemic bias, which could be perceived by Cunard's ping-scoping to US-only. Note! I never accused Cunard of anything (my question to Cunard was actually in hope of getting Cunard to do the additional pinging, so that I didn't have to do the work; at worst that makes me lazy, not evil). -- DexterPointy (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Struck content above per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America1000 00:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Aside from this being trivial and stupid, I'm struggling to find the RS treating this topic per se. The closest I can come are [11][24] and [23] from this version. But [11] is about Congressmen, [24] is from 1896, and in [23] facial hair is one of 59 variables considered in a statistical model for predicting presidential elections, but does not discuss individuals or make any substantive comment on presidents with facial hair. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 23:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see how this belongs on Wikipedia. It makes for good trivia but not really informative and doesn't appear to have much cultural impact on whether or not a president has a beard. Also as mentioned before Consensus can change and it has been a few years since it was last reviewed. Gameinfirmary (talk) 03:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - At best this is trivial. Having facial hair is a non-defining characteristic. Right now I have facial hair but shortly it's going to be gone. Regardless of whether or not I have facial hair, I'm the same person. If we're going to have silly articles like this, why not some more, like List of Presidents of the United States with blood or List of Presidents of the United States with toenails. Really, this is more suited to a silly YouTube video. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 03:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Saying it's unimportant, silly, trivial, etc. is an opinion that isn't a basis for deletion. We defer to external sources to determine what's important. There are many sources which talk about presidential facial hair, hence regardless of whether editors think it's useful or silly or "cruft," it's a notable topic and makes for an acceptable list. So many of the delete !votes don't have a basis in the Deletion policy. I think our dozens of lists of Pokemon, wrestlers, Star Wars characters, etc. are entirely useless but these questions aren't up to me -- it's based on what has received coverage. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 04:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that a lot of character articles are useless but they do provide useful, encyclopaedic information about the characters. I note that you did not mention the other parts of my rationale i.e. that having facial hair is not defining or the comparison with, say, List of Presidents of the United States with blood or List of Presidents of the United States with toenails. Why should this article exist when they don't (and shouldn't). GNG isn't the be all and end all that some think it is. Just because a topic meets GNG doesn't mean that it should exist. There are plenty of deleted articles that pass GNG, including a couple of "List of with facial hair", but which were deleted because the existence was contrary to other policies and guidelines. You also need to use a bit of common sense and common sense shows that a list like this should not exist as it serves no useful, encyclopaedic purpose. It's really just a list for list sake. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 04:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * More a response to several !votes, of which yours was the most recent. But indeed I did leave out the rest. There's no requirement that it be a defining characteristic -- that's from our guideline for the categorization system, not articles themselves. As with anything, we defer to external sources to determine what's important. If you don't think the sources are sufficient to show that it's a notable topic, that's fine, but "common sense" in this case is WP:DONTLIKEIT. We have a huge number of things on notable topics that many people call trivial or silly or useless or whatever but which clearly some people don't think so. Hence why there are sources about those topics (and this one). The debate should only be about the extent to which sources show it's notable. This will be my last reply on the matter, though. I'm far from passionate about this article in particular -- it's just a shame to see it go just because some editors decide it's silly on its face so nevermind the relevant guidelines. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 04:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you're replying to a specific editor, it's not a good idea to lump in replies to other editors as well, as it's confusiing. That said, when I said facial hair isn't defining, I wasn't talking about categorisation. I was speaking more generally, as should have been obvious from my original comment when I pointed out that I had facial hair but it was going to be gone soon. Everyone has facial hair, even women. It's really nothing special and certainly not anything to create an article about. I haven't read through all the references at the article but I imagine there's a lot of speculation in them as to what effect facial hair had on their presidency as it's not really something that can be scientifically measured.
 * "common sense" in this case is WP:DONTLIKEIT - That's really a cop out and completely wrong. It's not that I don't like the article. As I said, and have tried to explain, it really doesn't have any encyclopaedic value and really falls under trivia. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 09:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Question: Was this page linked from some other website recently? It looks like there's a spike in pageviews a couple days before the AfD. Just curious. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 04:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Rename Effect on voters of the appearance of American presidential candidates and merge Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States there too. Also, mention Kennedy Nixon debates. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Keep (see below): Thank you, Cunard, for the ping. Although I !voted to delete this article years ago, I think that the repeated nominations weigh heavily against this AfD. There's value to the article, even if it is marginal, and I don't think bringing it here time and again is reasonable. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 06:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That it has been nominated so many times only indicates that there are many people who don't think the article belongs in an encyclopaedia. Voting keep just because it has been nominated so many times is really not a convincing reason to keep it. I for one am at a loss as to understand how this article has value? Knowing what we know from this article, what would the effect of Donald Trump growing a beard be? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 09:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not much WWGB (talk) 13:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh my god! It's a completely different person. Let's write an article about it. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You're not only committing the logical fallacy of past practice, but also ignoring the deletions of the 3 similar lists (3: Canada, Australia, New Zealand), which all happened much more recently than your delete-vote in 2010. -- DexterPointy (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Struck content above per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America1000 00:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not only do I not appeal to tradition, I'm an iconoclast -- I prefer to break with tradition when possible, all else equal. But I'm not in favor of this quadruple/quintuple jeopardy, especially considering the considerable improvements to the article since its original AfD. I'm changing my !vote to keep. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete non notable intersection of charaacteristics. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Do we have to go through this every year? Czolgolz (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The last time this was nominated was three years ago. As others have mentioned, consensus can change and then, for those of us who missed the other discussions, this gives us the opportunity to voice our opinion for the first time. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

<ul><li>Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources. The subject passes Notability, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "Presidents of the United States with facial hair" has been treated as a "a group or set by independent reliable sources". Book sources <ol> <li> The book notes: "Presidents Known for Having Facial Hair Many men have tried facial hair at some point in their lives; some have found they preferred the look, others did not. The following Presidents' best-known images include facial hair of some type. Abraham Lincoln (1861–65) is the only President to have worn a beard with no mustache. Ulysses S. Grant (1869–77), Rutherford B. Hayes (1877–81), James A. Garfield (1881), and Benjamin Harrison (1889–91) all had a full beard and mustache.  Chester A. Arthur (1881–85), Grover Cleveland (1885–89, 1893–97), Theodore Roosevelt (1901–09), and William H. Taft (1900–13) all had mustaches but no beards.  Were Presidents fashion trendsetters, or merely trend followers when it came to their facial hair? All of the mustache/beard combinations appeared during one quarter of a century, and all of those with facial hair of any sort were in office during a 52-year span."</li> <li> The book notes: "And then there was the small matter of Cleveland's big moustache. The president undoubtedly insisted it be preserved. Even if he bore no visible scars after the operation, the sudden disappearance of his bushy 'stache would arouse intense curiosity. Indeed, at the time, a clean-shaven president was almost unimaginable. There hadn't been one since Andrew Johnson left office in 1869, nearly twenty-five years earlier. Except for some outlandish sideburns, such as those worn by John Quincy Adams and Martin Van Buren, no president sported facial hair until Abraham Lincoln, who, after his election in 1860, grew a beard at the suggestion of an eleven-year-old girl. Thereafter, excepting Johnson and McKinley, every president for the next fifty-two years was bewhiskered: Grant (beard), Hayes (beard), Garfield (beard), Arthur (moustache-meets-sideburns, a style known as the Franz Josef), Cleveland, Harrison (beard), Roosevelt (moustache), and Taft (moustache). Although he grew a beard after his stroke, Wilson never appeared in public with it. How did facial hair because de rigeur for presidents? In part, the style was borrowed from British aristocrats who, by 1850, regarded shaving as 'a most peculiar activity.' Beards had come to be regarded as healthy. They were thought to prevent bronchitis, as well as diseases of the throat. Also, during the Civil War, most soldiers had neither the time nor the inclination to shave, and after the war they simply kept their whiskers. By 1870, facial hair had become all the rage. Even Uncle Sam, previously clean shaven, had sprouted a goatee. In a photograph of the Harvard Class of 1870, each and every graduate is sporting a beard, moustache, or some variant. Yale's yearbook even broke down the class by facial hair: ...  Yet, seemingly as quickly as it had become fashionable, facial hair fell out of favor. Since Taft left office in 1913, no president has had any facial hair, and only two major presidential candidates, Republicans Charles Hughes (1916) and Thomas Dewey (1944, 1948), have had any. (Hughes reportedly grew his beard to 'save trips to the barber.' Dewey wore a pencil-thin moustache that made him look, in the memorable words of one socialite, 'like the bridegroom on the wedding cake.' Although he was frequently advised to get rid of his 'stache, Dewey refused because he said his wife liked it.')"</li> <li> The book notes: "Not surprisingly, American presidents followed the fashion of the day despite its being set abroad. Even Uncle Sam had whiskers added to his clean-shaven face in about 1855. In 1860, apparently at the request of a young girl named Grace Bedell, Abraham Lincoln was convinced that his chances in the upcoming presidential election would be enhanced by his wearing a distinguished beard. He promptly did so and won. ... ... Mutton chops, long dundrearies, and other 'burn variants, as well as fine moustaches, are clearly visible in photographs of men from the north and the south. From that moment on (though a brief moment it was), with the notable exception of Andrew Jackson, all presidents until Benjamin Harrison wore beards. In comparing presidential growths, Ulysses S. Grant had the hairiest cabinet, Rutherford B. Hayes sported the longest beard, and Chester A. Arthur the bushiest whiskers. Later on, Grover Cleveland, Theodore Roosevelt, and William Taft all wore full, authoritative moustaches. Alas, since Taft all U.S. presidents have goven the clean shaven-route. In Canada, many Canadian leaders followed the trends laid down by their American and British cohorots, including 19th-century prime minister Alexander Mackenzie."</li> <li> The book notes on page 163: "Before Lincoln, facial hair had been restricted mostly to the over-grown muttonchops of J. Q. Adams, Zachary Taylor, and Martin Van Buren. Lincoln changed all that, ushering American into the 'Golden Age of Facial Hair.' From Lincoln to William Howard Taft, a span of twelve presidents, only Andrew Johnson and William McKinley were clean-shaven." The book notes on page 167: "Three beards (Rutherbord B. Hayes, James Garfield, Benjamin Harrison), three mustaches (Grover Cleveland, TR, William Howard Taft), and one giant sideburns (Chester Arthur) later, the 'Age of the Bankers' began. Woodrow Wilson's election victory in 1912 spelled the end of presidential facial hair; not a single president since has sported a mustache or beard. Part of the transition from hirsute presidents to clean-shaven ones can be explained by changes in technology and fashion. In 1895, the disposable razor blade was invented; in 1901, it was mass-produced; by 1906, hundreds of thousands were bought annually. When the United States entered World War I, the military ordered 3.5 million razors and thirty-six million blades for soldiers."</li> <li> The book notes: "The presence of some facial hair progresses upward from the beginning of the period, 1840, through the end of the period under study, 1972. American presidents exhibit a similar cycle in facial hair. Not one of the first 15 presidents has either a beard or a mustache. Ten of the next 12 presidents, from Abraham Lincoln through William Howard Taft, have a beard or a mustache or both. And no president since then has had facial hair."</li> </ol> 16 newspaper, magazine, and news website sources  <ol> <li> The article notes: "John Quincy Adams was the first president to wear facial hair. He had long, curved sideburns, known as muttonchops. Martin Van Buren wore an exaggerated style of side whiskers that framed most of his face. In the same tradition, Zachary Taylor wore long, straight sideburns. Abraham Lincoln had perhaps the most famous presidential beard, the researchers point out. It differed from the others' because he wore it without a mustache. Ulysses Grant was the first president to sport a full beard, and his successor, Rutherford Hayes, also had a full beard, which was longer and bushier. James Garfield wore a beard that was similar to Grant's. Chester Arthur broke away from the bearded look, favoring long sideburns and a mustache. Grover Cleveland wore a stylish mustache that sloped downward and covered his upper lip. Benjamin Harrison's long, shaggy beard was the last one to be seen among American presidents. Theodore Roosevelt and his successor, William Taft, were the only two chief executives since Harrison to wear facial hair. Roosevelt had a mustache that curved down around the side of his mouth. Taft waxed his mustache to curl upward."</li> <li> The article notes: "During the 19th century, it became acceptable for presidents to sport facial hair. Think Martin Van Buren, the first president with facial hair, and his large mutton-chops. Or Abe Lincoln with his chin curtain. Or Theodore Roosevelt and his big-game-hunting mustache. But after Roosevelt's successor, William Taft, left office in 1912, facial hair was out - at least on the national stage. But local politics doesn't always conform to national political fashions."</li> <li> The article notes: "If you ever wonder when you’ll see another beard in the White House, the best answer you’ll get is in a book. The era of mustachioed statesmen is long gone, according to Dr. Allan Peterkin, Pognologist (beard scholar — yes, that’s a real thing) and author of One Thousand Mustaches: A Cultural History of the Mo. ... Things may change some day, but until they do, take a nostalgic look at presidential facial hair’s golden age." The article discusses John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford Hayes, James Garfield, Chester Arthur, Benjamin Harrison, Grover Cleveland, Teddy Roosevelt, and William Howard Taft.</li> <li> The article notes: "Consider the numbers: Of the 41 men who have served as president, only nine had facial hair. And it may have brought some of them bad luck: two of the four presidents who were assassinated had beards. The last president to have facial hair took office long before stores started selling disposable razors in the check-out line: William Howard Taft (1909-1913), whose bushy mustache curled up at the ends to give him a walruslike visage. ... One of our most distinguished presidents, Abraham Lincoln (1861-65), was the first to sport facial hair in office. His beard-without-mustache became a signature look of sorts. And Honest Abe's facial hair appeared to spark a trend: Eight of the next 11 presidents wore a beard or a mustache, including Teddy Roosevelt (1901-09)." The article further notes: "U.S. presidents who had facial hair while in office: B E A R D S Abraham Lincoln, 1861-65  Ulysses S. Grant, 1869-77  Rutherford B. Hayes, 1877-81  James A. Garfield, 1881  Benjamin Harrison, 1889-93  M U S T A C H E S  Chester A. Arthur, 1881-85  Grover Cleveland, 1885-89; 1893-97  Theodore Roosevelt, 1901-09  William Howard Taft, 1909-13"</li> <li> The article notes: "Here’s a fun fact for you: Of the 44 men that have been President since Washington’s 1989 inauguration, only a dozen have ever sported a beard, mustache or other face-follicle configuration while in office. Strange, huh? You’d think that voters would like a guy who could grow a good chin coating. But really, it’s only been twelve guys—there’s even a Wikipedia page to prove it. And so, for your viewing pleasure this President's Day weekend, we’ve put together a worst-to-best breakdown of the few, yet glorious, facial hair styles in two hundred-some-odd years of American presidential history." The article lists Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, Benjamin Harrison, Rutherford B. Hayes, William Howard Taft, James A. Garfield, Abraham Lincoln, Grover Cleveland, Chester A. Arthur, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, and Zachary Taylor.</li> <li>The article notes: "The last time facial hair graced the face of a US president was March 4, 1913. This was the day William Howard Taft and his voluminous mustache were replaced by the clean-shaven Woodrow Wilson in the nation’s highest office. ... Taft was the end of a run of great facial hirsuteness in our nation’s highest office. Abraham Lincoln started the trend in 1861, when he entered office as the first president with a beard or mustache—only sideburns had previously appeared in the White House. From 1861 to 1913, nine of eleven US presidents had facial hair. The following table shows which US presidents had sideburns, beards, and mustaches. If you don’t think sideburns count as facial hair, tell that to John Quincy Adams’ mutton chops."</li> <li> The article notes: "In fact, no president has sported facial hair in more than a century, when William Howard Taft—and his handlebar mustache—left office in 1913. The clean-shaven look for American leaders dates back to the country’s early days. George Washington and the Founding Fathers all had smooth faces, and it wasn’t until 1825 that John Quincy Adams—who had long sideburns—introduced facial hair to the office. Unfortunately, the whiskered trend didn’t stick until Abraham Lincoln revitalized it during his presidency, starting in 1861. From there, it was mustache mania: Of the 12 presidents in office between Lincoln and Taft, all but two wore either a beard or mustache."</li> <li> The article notes: "While President Obama may be unique in his lack of ability to grow facial hair, he's certainly not alone in bringing a clean-shaven face to the White House. Surprisingly few presidents have had facial hair. Out of 44 presidents, only nine of them have grown beards and mustaches. These hairy men include Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, James A. Garfield, Chester A. Arthur, Grover Cleveland, Benjamin Harrison, Theodore Roosevelt and William H. Taft. If you want to split hairs, some presidents have also had prominent sideburns, including George Washington, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren and Zachary Taylor."</li> <li> The article notes: "[Abraham] Lincoln took her advice, of course, and statues in Westfield depict the brief meeting he had with her four months later while en route to his inauguration as our first bearded president. Four of his successors -- Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, James A. Garfield, and Benjamin Harrison -- all had full beards. While Chester Alan Arthur, Grover Cleveland, Theodore Roosevelt, and William Howard Taft all rate honorable mention for sporting mustaches."</li> <li> The article notes: "Not counting Richard Nixon's 5 o'clock shadow arriving at 3 p.m., there hasn't been presidential facial hair since 1913, following the failure of William Howard Taft and his handlebar mustache to win re-election. Taft's predecessor, Teddy Roosevelt, had a mustache. So did Grover Cleveland and Chester A. Arthur, while Benjamin Harrison, James Garfield, Rutherford B. Hayes, Ulysses S. Grant and, of course, Abraham Lincoln had beards. As fate would have it, Lincoln and Garfield were assassinated. But like Taft, Harrison was not re-elected. Hayes chose not to seek a second term. Cleveland lost his re-election bid but returned to the White House four years later, defeating Harrison. Throw in the bushy sideburns of one-termers Martin Van Buren and John Quincy Adams, and it doesn't speak well for a man with aspirations."</li> <li> The article notes: "Abraham Lincoln's beard was more famous, but [associate curator at the Morris Museum] Angela Sergonis' favorite presidential beard belonged to Rutherford B. Hayes. ... Illustrations of 15 presidents with facial hair by artist John Gordon Gauld are also part of the exhibit. Last president to wear facial hair: Howard Taft. Last president with a full beard: Benjamin Harrison. John Quincy Adams, according to Sergonis, sported 'awesome' long sideburns or mutton chops."</li> <li> The article notes: "If you follow the over-two-century-old history of the American presidency closely, you will see that the last US president to sport a moustache was William Howard Taft, a Republican who was in power between 1909 and 1913. None of the 17 presidents who ruled in the next 103 years has had facial hair. With America choosing another clean-shaven man as president, the gap is only going to get wider. And if we take into account the last president to have a beard, history dates even further back into the 19th century. Republican Benjamin Harrison (1889-93) was the man. ... Facial hair symbolised strength and dominance and was in vogue during and after the American Civil War in the mid-19th century. Until the trend of sporting facial hair set in with Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president, John Quincy Adams was the only president to have it in the 1820s."</li> <li> The article notes: "Facial hair might be big among latter-day beardo cults, but you'd be hard-pressed to see a presidential candidate donning even stubble. The last US president to wear facial hair was Ohioan William H. Taft, who had a mustache. Ohio's glorious run of presidents dovetails with the facial-hair era, which began with Abraham Lincoln. There were six Ohio presidents between Lincoln and Taft. Five had facial hair and three had the kind of flowing beards that craft-beer hounds would drool over: Rutherford B. Hayes, James A. Garfield and Benjamin Harrison."</li> <li> The article notes: "There was a time when beards were the political mainstream. Starting with Abraham Lincoln in 1861, beards were popular with presidents for a half-century. But no president since William Howard Taft (1909-1913), with his extravagant handlebar, has padded through the White House garden with visible whiskers (unless you count Richard Nixon’s Flintstone-esque five o’clock shadow)."</li> <li> The article notes: "The last one seen on Pennsylvania Avenue belonged to Benjamin Harrison, an Ohio Republican and president of the United States from 1889 to 1893. He was not our most distinguished chief executive, but he was the last to have a beard. Since then, chins and cheeks with hair have been an unacceptable face for presidential politics. ... And it is not just beards. The last mustache was on President William Howard Taft, in office from 1909 to 1913. No major party candidate for president has had a beard in recent memory. The last mustache was on the face of Thomas Dewey, defeated by Harry Truman in 1948. Some blamed his lip shrubbery for the loss."</li> <li> The article notes: "It remained for the next election to spawn our patron saint of facial hair. Grace Bedell, a savvy 11-year-old adviser to Abraham Lincoln, provided the seminal inspiration: 'All the ladies like whiskers and they would tease their husbands to vote for you and then you would be President.' Even so, Lincoln wisely waited until after the election to sprout his growth. ... The subsequent election of Ulysses Grant ushered in a veritable one-party state. Seven chief executives in a row bore facial hair. And the first smooth-skinner to emerge, William McKinley, was gunned down by an anarchist (read: long-hair), which opened the door to the mustachioed Teddy Roosevelt. Now, unfortunately, the pendulum has swung as far the other way. With the advent of the safety razor and the departure of William Howard Taft, power has come to be projected through an altered symbolism of personal hygiene. Since 1912, the Oval Office has not been gained by anyone bearing so much as mutton chop, goatee or fu man chu. And it's been 40 years since the either party has even nominated a facially hirsute candidate."</li> </ol>

The AfD close for List of United states presidents with facial hair during their tenure

The closing admin in the September 2010 AfD at Articles for deletion/List of United states presidents with facial hair during their tenure wrote: "The result was  keep. 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. The other ridiculous titles provided by the 'delete' !voters are simply examples of WP:WAX and straw man argument; the difference between those and this article is that this article has significant coverage in reliable sources. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 17:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)" I quote this here to emphasize that WP:TRIVIA does not apply to this article and WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:WAX are not policy-based reasons for deletion. Since 2010, even more sources have covered the topic of "Presidents of the United States with facial hair" as a group.

General notability guideline

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 03:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Keep. If WP:IDONTLIKEIT were a valid reason to !vote "delete", my !vote would be delete... because I think the concept is silly. But there's no question that the issue of facial hair for U.S. presidents has been the subject of published material in multiple reliable sources and meets WP:GNG. TJRC (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. I said above that I favor deletion, and not on the basis of "I don't like it", but I recognize that it may not be the consensus here. What concerns me is that: (1) treating it in list form fails to match the page content to what is notable, (2) that what does seem to be notable and encyclopedic is the history of how facial hair has been viewed as part of the political process, (3) that simply as a list, we already have images showing facial hair or the lack thereof at List of Presidents of the United States, which means that readers get zero additional information from having this additional list, (4) that when taken only as a list page, the facial hair characteristic is a trivial one, (5) that consequently, it makes much better sense to treat this subject via a regular (non-list) page, and (6) that once doing that, there is no good reason to restrict the topic only to Presidents. So, in the event that the consensus is not to delete, I strongly recommend that the page be moved to something like Facial hair in American politics, with the page subject substantially expanded to include its history for all US political positions over time (not just successful Presidential candidates), and treated in non-list form. I also believe that such an outcome would be consistent with the discussion so far, in that it would be consistent with all the arguments for deletion, and has not been rejected in any of the arguments for keeping. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree 100%. Dorsetonian (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with Tryptofish and to an extent TJRC immediately above. I think this is a notable topic based on the number of reliable sources which discuss it, even if it does seem a bit silly. The list format it takes isn't really discussed by the sources, but it's clearly notable. I don't know what a good move candidate would be, keeping the list inline, but a) this should not be deleted since it passes WP:GNG generally and b) it may be presented better in something other than a list format. SportingFlyer  talk  00:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Often-discussed topic in reliable sources. Well written intro and presented list. Articles about men's facial hair are numerous on Wikipedia, so are presidential topics, it's not a trivial or random thematic combination (Washington Post) to discuss Presidents and beards. The article had 2500 views in a single day, recently prior to the AfD. The article is linked to by the Press see by National Constitution Center in Yahoo! News. --  Green  C  03:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Facial hair of presidents has been covered often in notable sources.--Shivertimbers433 (talk) 05:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - I came here expecting to vote delete, because I personally believe that this subject is trivial and useless. However, after looking at the article, I was quite impressed by the number and quality of sources, and the fact that the main topic of many of these sources is in fact the facial hair of US presidents. These sources would seem to demonstrate the notability of the topic. <span style="font:small-caps 1.2em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#442244;letter-spacing:0.2em;">‑Scottywong <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#447744;">| converse _ 10:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * DELETE
 * Is this a churnalism pop magazine, or is it Wikipedia?
 * If this is Wikipedia, is it the US Wikipedia or the global Wikipeida written in English?
 * I find it extremely disgusting to see American excepionalism running rampant behind a thin veil of sorry wiki excuses for ignoring the purpose of Wikipeida.
 * Pladderballe (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Struck content above per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America1000 00:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Was about to do a WP:DENY revert here, but figured I'd abstain since I've participated in this discussion. This user has 16 edits comprising edit warring with Tyw7 at brownie points, responses to being blocked for it, and this -- presumably found via Tyw7's contribs. If anyone does rv, feel free to remove this message, too. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 20:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, don't do it, anyone. There is actually a valid point about American exceptionalism amid the rest of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ?? That you agree with one of the points does not make it a good faith !vote and does not provide any indication it has any basis in understanding of our policies and guidelines.
 * But I guess I'll respond to the underlying point, which I do not believe is a good point at all. In what way are those of us !voting to keep examples of disgusting American exceptionalism?
 * Systemic bias is something to be aware of and to correct whenever possible -- not by throwing our guidelines out the window, not by deleting those articles on US (or NA or EU) articles, but by improving the coverage of other topics. Ultimately Wikipedia is based on existing publishing infrastructures/industries, and will reflect where those industries are biggest/most active. If, on the other hand, this is not about discrepancies in sourcing but specifically about the prime minister lists that were deleted, I cannot comment too much as I was not part of those AfDs and never even saw the articles, so have not had any cause to analyze the sources. If the sourcing was equivalent, then they should not have been deleted, and your issue is not with participants of this AfD but with that one (or with anyone who held them to a different standard -- but that should be called out specifically, not with broad strokes). That they were deleted doesn't mean those !voting to keep are examples of American exceptionalism -- it just means we see this article and evaluated this article in a way you disagree with. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 21:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't personalize this so much. If it's bad faith, the closing admin will evaluate it accordingly. My reasoning is that facial hair (without the context that is lacking in a list) is a trivial characteristic that should not be given more weight because these were Presidents of the US as opposed to heads of state of a smaller nation, and I personally am not basing that on any other AfDs. (And I certainly do not think that you are disgusting!) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * should not be given more weight because these were Presidents of the US - Could you point to where someone is doing this? You have not directed this at anyone, but someone must be doing this in order to make this something other than a straw man. If it's just a general point of wanting to delete something just because the only instance we have is US-specific, I defer to what I wrote above. If there are more sources about one topic than another, we often have a topic on that topic and not the other, even if they're country-specific. We don't create equivalent articles just to keep things even, but we do try our best to do so by finding sufficient sources (again, if those exist, the other articles shouldn't have been deleted, and we don't delete another article just to keep things even). If more people have written about US Presidents with facial hair than have written about leaders of another country, that's not American exceptionalism except insofar that all of Wikipedia necessarily reflects the biases of people who publish about such things. As with anything, we defer to what reliable sources say to determine what's important and what's trivial rather than what a small subset of Wikipedians says is important or trivial. If people don't think the sources are sufficient to make it notable, that's fine, but I don't think it's appropriate to say it should be deleted because we only have one on US Presidents. Create one on another head of state if sources exist. I'm sure there are aspects of heads of state in many other nations that there would not be sourcing about in the US, even. Ah well, I'm typing more than I wanted to, again. I find this AfD disappointing, but I'm not actually that attached to this article, so lest I fall into a pit of "someone is wrong on the Internet", I will take my leave again. PS: Though I know you were not really implying that I am disgusting, I'm glad for the reassurance, since a relative used just that word about me recently when I brought over some durian for them to try. :) &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 22:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's time to drop this part of the discussion. It's a lot of words following a comment you were thinking of reverting. Peace. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete The decision to have or not have facial hair is trivial, and con be multiple times reversed in life time. This is also as has been said by others the type of list that needlessly adds to the Amerio=centricism of Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete-WTF? Common sense and all....Trivia......Bearcat, Tryptofish et al &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 11:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per Tryptofish. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Odd subject matter, but appears to meet WP:GNG and some !votes appear to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is a bad reason. <b style="color:#090">Semi</b><b style="color:#099">Hypercube</b> ✎ 00:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As has been mentioned above meeting GNG is usually the minimum requirement to keeping an article, not a requirement to keep an article. We also have WP:NOT, which helps us keep everything encyclopedic. Supporting this view not IDON'TLIKEIT. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. At first glance, I as more in line with the keeps thinking there were plenty of sources. However, the more I dug, the more unconvinced I was. Almost all of them really don't contribute to GNG very strongly either not being the direct focus of sources or honestly getting into local newspaper WP:FART territory. I'd agree with Tryptofish and others than one could maybe make a case for a main article on politics and facial hair, but not a list of presidents specifically. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete : A typical Wikipedia list of the haphazard variety, without any encyclopaedic purpose whatsoever. The lengthy citations about presidents with facial hair do not sum up to notability for the article's subject. Multiple articles about a blonde actress or about a bunch of blonde actresses do not amount to notability of the set "blonde actresses." Willing  to reconsider my suggestion if someone posts up a List of Presidents of the United States with Toupees. Or the list of  Naturally Blonde Actresses. -The Gnome (talk) 05:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding WP:NOT: Some editors have cited What Wikipedia is not as a reason for deletion. What Wikipedia is not does not support deletion of this article. I have gone through each section of What Wikipedia is not to explain why it does not support deletion: <ol><li>Wikipedia is not a dictionary – this article is not a dictionary entry. It is a list.</li><li>Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought – this article is not original research because numerous reliable sources have covered the topic and this article is based on those reliable sources.</li><li>Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion – this section says "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing." This article is not a soapboax. This article is not a battleground. This article is not an advertisement.</li><li>Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files – this article is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files.</li><li>Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site – this article is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site.</li><li>Wikipedia is not a directory – this article is not a directory.</li><li>Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal – this article is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal.</li><li>Wikipedia is not a crystal ball – this article is not attempting to predict the future.</li><li>Wikipedia is not a newspaper – this article is not about news events. The sources are over a period of decades.</li><li>Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information – this section says the following are prohibited: "Summary-only descriptions of works", "Lyrics databases", "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics", and "Exhaustive logs of software updates". This article is not a "summary-only description of works". This article is not a "lyrics database". This article is not "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics" because it is not about statistics. This article is not about "Exhaustive logs of software updates". WP:INDISCRIMINATE therefore cannot be used to support deletion of this article.</li><li>Wikipedia is not censored – that Wikipedia is not censored does not support deletion of this article.</li></ol> The lead of the Notability guideline says: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if:<ol><li>It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and</li><li>It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.</li></ol>" This article passes the general notability guideline since multiple book sources as well as newspaper and magazine articles discuss "Presidents of the United States with facial hair" as a set. This article is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. There therefore is no policy-based reason for deletion, so the article should be retained. Regarding Americentrism:  WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a policy-based reason for deletion. If "leaders of [a non-American country] with facial hair" has been discussed as a set, then a list would be permissible under Notability. That such coverage may not exist for other countries' leaders does not mean the United States page now should be deleted.  Regarding reversibility of facial hair throughout one's lifetime The article defines the inclusion criterion as presidents "wore either beards or mustaches during their tenure in office". This is consistent with the sources, which discuss presidents' facial hair during their tenure in office. That facial hair can be reversed is not a policy-based reason for deletion.  Regarding the sources  Some comments have said that the sources do not directly focus on the subject. Many sources I posted have as their main topic facial hair in presidents. Of those that do not, Notability says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Other concerns are that the sources should be discarded because they are local or gossip sources. This is not true for these three book sources for example: <ol><li></li><li></li><li></li></ol> Quotes from these book sources and other sources here.  Regarding creation of a "Facial hair in American politics" article: A "facial hair in American politics" article would comply with Notability because numerous sources have discussed the subject. Such an article would be complementary to this "List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair" article. That another article can be created is not a valid reason for deletion of this one. Content decisions about whether to create a new article so this one can be merged into the new article are not for AfD to decide. I would not object to having a facial hair in American politics section.  Cunard (talk) 08:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ^WP:Fillibuster, in my opinion. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.