Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United states presidents with facial hair during their tenure


 * 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. 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)

List of United states presidents with facial hair during their tenure

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The subject of the list combines two subjects which have only a trivial relation. The fact that some presidents had facial hair during their presidency has no influence on anything, and isn't discussed seriously in any source/ The only sources given are an unreliable website, and one "witty" book. If anyone would have studied whether presidents with facial hair would have been more likely to start a war, seduce an intern, or otherwise do anything relevant and notable, the subject might have been notable. As it stands, it is a trivial item collected by one author in a book. Fram (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a topic of some interest. I have heard it discussed a few times over the years. Wolfview (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:IKNOWIT and WP:INTERESTING are not valid reasons. LibStar (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - incredibly specific, unencyclopedic list.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 19:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - even if it were an important list, the same information can be got from the pictures at List of Presidents of the United States. Roscelese (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree with Falcon, above. It could easily be Googled should one desire to know the answer.  Unencyclopedic.  Saebvn (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as trivia. Most of the presidents on the list lived when facial hair was common for men of middle age and up, so there's nothing controversial or even interesting to be learned from it. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  00:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete trivial and unencyclopedic— Chris! c / t 03:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree entirely with Falcon that this is "incredibly specific", essentially looking at a group of 43 American men, picking out one characteristic that some of them had, and turning into a list. One could do the same with a list of brown-eyed U.S. Presidents or a list of Presidents who smoked tobacco.   Even expanding it beyond U.S. Presidents to include world leaders who wore beards (Fidel Castro, King Hussein of Jordan, Otto von Bismarck, etc.) I don't see much point to it.  Mandsford 13:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is covered in numerous sources including Media literacy: thinking critically about visual culture, Project President: Bad Hair and Botox on the Road to the White House, Encyclopedia of hair: a cultural history, Predicting Elections from Biographical Information About Candidates, The American Presidency, etc. The claims above that the matter is trivial, not encyclopaedic, notable and the like are therefore counterfactual.   If we wish to generalise the article to cover other countries, then sources such as The sociology of philosophical knowledge will provide even more good material. Our editing policy mandates that we should build upon contributions in this way, rather than deleting them.  Colonel Warden (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * CommentI don't see how those references invalidate the above arguments. If having facial hair was relevant to an individual president, then it should be added to that president's article. I'd consider changing my vote if sources could be found that indicated for every listed President the historical relevance it had. Otherwise, I still think this is unencyclopedic.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 22:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your personal opinion of the topic is irrelevant per WP:UNENCYC. The references supplied demonstrate that independent, professional authors consider the matter worthy of note and that they have found publishers for this material.  Per WP:N, this demonstrates the notability of the topic and the rest is then a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Although the references indicate that a good article could be written about the impact of Abraham Lincoln upon 19th century grooming, or even about the so-called Golden Age of Facial Hair, none of them support having a stand-alone list of which presidents wore a beard, mustache, "friendly mutton chops", sideburns, etc. A quick google search shows that there have been many published, reliable and verifiable sources about presidential trivia, some of which no doubt include a list like this, but one of the primary guidelines for writing is in WP:TRIVIA: "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information."  Whether something is or isn't encyclopedic is, of course, a matter of opinion.  Whether something is "suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" that is free and that anyone can edit is a relevant question under WP:IINFO.  Mandsford 14:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand the point of WP:TRIVIA, which is that we should not have sections in articles which contain miscellania - unrelated factoids which did not fit into other sections. The point you confuse this with is that made by WP:IDL, which is an argument to avoid.  This information about Presidents is not trivial in any sense because the information is tightly focussed and the details are notable.  Colonel Warden (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I second that. Less alphabet-soup would help - it would be better to discuss this article on its merits, while applying close readings of policies and guidelines if needed, than to quote abbreviations without making it clear how this article is an instance of them. TheGrappler (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. As a general rule I don't think that pointing out policy gets us anywhere. Zell Faze (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Warden's definition of "trivial" is clearly different than most editor's. This article is equally trivial as List of US presidents who wore boxer briefs during their tenure.    Snotty Wong   gossip 17:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the problem here is that people are defining it as "trivial" based on "I find it banal and uninteresting" coupled with "I do not think this is important, in the grand scheme of things". But many things are subjectively banal, boring and not particularly important - but not necessarily unencyclopedic. Source-work is the issue, not subjective opinion. Your contention about boxer briefs is absurd - other writers haven't written about the boxer briefs, so we have nothing to summarize or cite. The reason we don't have an article on List of US presidents who wore boxer briefs during their tenure is not because it is subjectively banal, boring and not particularly important; it's because there are no sources no cite or summarize. TheGrappler (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Clear keep - I'm confused at all the deletion arguments here, this list shouldn't be contentious in its own right since (a) the criteria for entry are clear and the number of entries finite, (b) the idea of facial hair on presidents is itself notable - not just that it's noteworthy on the articles of individual presidents whether or not they have facial hair, but that a standalone article can be justified, (c) per WP:CLT this is far better dealt with as a list than a category or navigational template since it isn't sufficiently defining a characteristic (NB this is not the same as non-notable, notability is largely a source issue) for a navbox and requires annotation (e.g. beard? sidebeard?) not possible for a category. This may surprise some folk here, but actually there is scholarly study of hair-styling and appearance! Politicians don't look the way they do at random (although some stuff is beyond choice: witness frequent study of whether being taller makes you disproportionately likely to win elections). Consequently it's not fair to call this stuff genuinely "trivial" - though people are quite welcome to deem it "subjectively banal" or "on the grand scale of history, not particularly important". TheGrappler (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Unimportant aside: I think that this article is partly suffering as a result of a horrendous title! The advantage of this title, I suspect, is that it is so unambiguous, but to be fair "List of United States presidents with facial hair" would have been specific enough for a reasonably intelligent reader to have grasped the idea. TheGrappler (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Are you kidding? A man's facial hair is a statement. Maybe even a reflection of the timeframe. Although I feel the table has some shortcomings, so I have adapted it to suit Wikipedia. Although I feel this is going to be "a close shave". -- JHvW  (talk)   20:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete – not even a close shave. This is at the negligible end of trivial. Occuli (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * On the whole I find this discussion quite interesting, probably for all the wrong reasons. First of all, there seems to be an awful lot of quoting from Wikipedia policies and guidelines. These were made to make Wikipedia more reliable and more consistent. But within WP it is frowned upon to enforce these rules without adding to the content. And let's be clear, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia (it has a policy of no original research, more or less trial by Internet), it frowns on the quotation of books (that cannot be viewed on Internet) but allows a good many things that people with a little sense would find reprehensible. Wikipedia is in principle a repository for facts and trivia that can be found on Internet, making it an interesting but dubious source of knowledge. Now lets look at this list. The contributor who posted the list originally, is now banned. The list was probably started as a joke. The contributor will no doubt be amused that it has already survived one round of voting. But does this list have merits? Yes it does. But the list is too small to be significant. That is why I have added some significant facts (which can be seen in the article). What conclusions can we draw? Well it seems to be a fact that presidents with sideburns are more often depicted on metal currency. If you look at Mount Rushmore it seems that presidents with facial hair seem to be a significant portion of important presidents. If you include sideburns (this is a matter of opinion on hairstyle, but we are not allowed points of view, so we have to rely on sources that can be quoted, and it seems that the sources have definitly got something to say about facial hair) presidents with facial hair seem to be significantly important. We live in a time where our lives seem to be governed by lists and statistics. Lists can help us sort through the scruf (thanks to the contributor who pointed this out to me) and get to the nub of things. Is this list trivial? Probably, but it can be the starting point of something interesting. How much space does it occupy? It has been pointed out that the title itself would make most people refrain from accessing it, how much more do you want from a list? And somebody has said they would change their vote if facial hair was pointed out to be relevant. It probably is, in the context of time. It has been argued that Jack Kennedy won the elections because he was better looking than his opponent. How about facial hair (given the context of time and place)? The contributor who started this list should be applauded and the list kept because it is what Wikipedia is about, starting something, other contributors adding, working together to see if anything is to come out of it. The fact that it has an underlying current of humour does not make it less valuable. There are lessons to be learned from this list, so again I say keep it, if only in the Department of Fun. -- JHvW  (talk)   00:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank god Wikipedia doesn't allow original research, because if it did then people like you would look at the "evidence" and conclude that presidents with facial hair are more "significant" than those with none. Has it ever occurred to you that facial hair on men is pretty common?  Perhaps it was even more common back in the times of the presidents who are depicted on Mt. Rushmore?  You can't look at Mount Rushmore and conclude that men with facial hair have a 50% chance of becoming the president of the United States.  I don't want to be insulting or uncivil, but I don't think I've ever seen a more moronic conclusion, or one that violates WP:OR more egregiously.  I've removed that content from the article.    Snotty Wong   chat 23:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Interesting that you know difficult words like egregiously but are not familiar with the concepts of irony and sarcasm. -- JHvW  (talk)   00:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that your !vote above and your addition of the Mt. Rushmore picture to the article were an attempt at irony and/or sarcastic humor? Please confirm, so that we can discount your keep !vote above, have you blocked for intentional vandalism and violations of WP:POINT, and have you topic banned from making any further attempts to be humorous.    Snotty Wong   gossip 17:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Do you know the difference between facetious and faecesious? -- JHvW  (talk)   19:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: The anti-bearders are ruining wikipedia. As for the delete suggestion, "It could easily be Googled should one desire to know the answer", the same could be said of much content here on wikipedia.--Milowent • talkblp-r  23:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And do you have any actual reason for your keep opinion? Fram (talk) 06:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Its a notable subject. Its not something many wikipedia editors may have a personal memory of now, but this was a big topic of public discussion in the late 19th century and even until 10 years ago, it all flows from Lincoln's success with a beard in 1860. See: (Knight-Ridder syndicate story, 1996, "Facial hair unacceptable for presidential politics"), (Dallas Morning News, 2000 story, "Presidential hair a no no?"),  (1996 USA Today story, "Best presidential criterion: Hair"),  (1984, Miami Herald, discussion of last presidents with facial hair),  (1991 Richmond Times, "VICTORY IS UNDER THE CANDIDATE'S NOSE"),  (2004, Business Wire, "America Looks for a Clean-Shaven Face in the Presidential Race"),, (1969 Hartford Courant, "Five Bearded Presidents In The Courant Portfolio"),  (1986 AP syndicated article on presidential beards),  (1948 AP article discussing list of bearded presidents and Dewey),  (1944 NY Times article, "Saga of the mustache"),   (book section),  (book discussion).  This is a perfect example of a topic article that sounds crazy at first glance, and someone will nominate for deletion, but an editor with knowledge of the subject can explain why its actually important.  I hope I have done so, and you can consider withdrawing the nomination.  If so, I will expand the "list" with a discussion of why presidential beards have been a notable subject.--Milowent • talkblp-r  12:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of your links are about presidential candidates, not (or only tangentially) about presidents during their tenure, which this list is about. If a list is as narrowly described as this one, the sources should also be as narrow, and not about something related but different (like all the Dewey references in them). Fram (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are misdescribing the import of the articles, which demonstrate that being a president (and obviously a candidate prior to that) with facial hair has been a notable subject in American history. This kind of deletion discussion is why experts get driven off the project.--Milowent • talkblp-r  12:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, non-encyclopedic list of trivial information, although men with beards are better looking and smarter than the clean shaven. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Do you not mean Keep? If given the choice between two equal candidates (on program) would you not prefer to vote for the one that is (and I quote) better looking and smarter than the clean shaven? -- JHvW  (talk)   15:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, I said delete and meant it. Given what I know about history of elections, given a choice, I'd most likely vote for the taller of the two, IIRC, that's the most significant factor statistically (but it's been a looong time since I've looked at the issue). My thinking is that this list is trivial information. Now, if you took all of these sources and wrote an article about facial hair and how it has been viewed relative to US elections, you'd have something I could get my handsome hairy self to endorse. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making this point. It is a point I have tried to make earlier but it has made some of the participants in this discussion very angry. As I am not eligible to vote in the United States elections I do not consider it a priority to do a significant analysis of facial hair on incumbent presidents. But I am sure that it looks good on you as you seem proud of it (and probably rightly so). -- JHvW  (talk)   19:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, 5 minutes after I posted this remark, someone posted the statistic I believe you were referring to. -- JHvW  (talk)   20:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia-writing project, not a kindergarten. Even if "US presidents and facial hair" were a valid, notable topic – and so far I have seen no convincing argument for that either in the list itself or in this discussion –, even then there would be no need for such a stand-alone list any more than for List of mushrooms that turn red if you cut them or List of cities that contain the letter Y or List of notable persons who are believed to have lived at the same time as Socrates. Hans Adler 12:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see straw man. You offer no evidence to suggest that these other topics are as notable as the matter of presidential hair and so the comparison lacks any logical meaning. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not my fault if you can't see the common principle: They are all formed from random combinations of topics that are themselves notable, they are all bound to have been discussed in this very combination in one source or another (in specific contexts), and they all don't make any sense at all for stand-alone articles. Formally: The list is about a random intersection of features. An article about facial hair of US presidents would not be notable either because of the random intersection of no less than three topics (facial hair + head of state/government + US; even two topics would be bad enough). The sources that have been presented do not represent significant coverage any more than the sources that do exist without any doubt on the following topics justify sex life of Bill Clinton or war crime accusations against George W. Bush. If you want to discuss facial hair of US presidents find a context where it fits, don't just invent a silly article title for such a bit of trivia. Hans Adler 17:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia contains plenty of material about Clinton+sex and Bush+war including Clinton sex scandal and Efforts to impeach George W. Bush. There's nothing random about these topics: they excite interest; professional authors write about them; and so they are notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The articles that exist make sense, the articles I mentioned don't. That was the point of my argument. You seem to believe that whenever someone wants to add a tidbit to Wikipedia they are entitled to do this under the first topic that comes to their mind, however far-fetched and unencyclopedic it is – and that consequently deletion discussions are always about the content of articles. They are not. They are basically about article titles. Some newspapers probably have written about facts from Bill Clinton's sex life that are not or only tangentially related to the Lewinsky affair. Within reason they can be mentioned in Clinton sex scandal. But you can't write an article that attempts to list everybody Bill Clinton ever had sex with, and other details of that nature. Similarly, the war crime accusations against Bush came close to being notable, but didn't quite make it. Consequently they didn't get their own article. So they are merely mentioned in efforts to impeach George W. Bush and any similar articles. (Or should be; I haven't verified they are present.)
 * If you insist on adding a tidbit to Wikipedia it's your job to find an article where it fits, and if none exists to come up with a new article about an encyclopedic, GNG-passing topic. If you can't think of a suitable topic, ask someone else for help. But it's not OK to come up with some nonsense title for an article and then insist that that's a reasonable topic when it quite obviously isn't. When the best source for a topic unrelated to media literacy is an "activity" in a book on media literacy, and everything else is specific examples, then there is obviously something wrong.
 * In short: If your first impulse is to create a stupid, narrow article, resist it and think of a suitable generalisation that is notable. Then write an article about that and put your pet information there. Hans Adler 00:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your position thus seems to be that this material would be best presented as part of a larger article on a wider topic. That is a reasonable option but it is irrelevant to the question of deletion.  Per our editing policy, we would enlarge upon the topic by renaming the article to increase its scope and/or merge it into a larger article(s) such as President of the United States or Facial hair.  Such actions would use ordinary editing functions, not the delete function.  Our licensing terms require that we keep the history of the original contributions when we rework them. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood me. The topic is not notable. It fails WP:GNG. There is no need for even a complete encyclopedia to discuss this topic. However, we are discussing many topics that are not notable simply because it makes sense for filling in details, or enhancing the reader's understanding, in an article on a somewhat related notable topic. I was giving you and other editors who are prone to writing about non-notable topics advice on how to sneak them into Wikipedia with a lower risk that your work is deleted and a significantly lower risk of polarised discussions such as this one. But this advice does not affect my argument why this article must be deleted. Hans Adler 00:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that word means what you think it means. I suggest reading WP:Notability again. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - No indication that this is a serious topic worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia so fails WP:GNG. Codf1977 (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG does not use the word serious nor does it suggest in any way that topics have to be po-faced. But are you suggesting that these presidents were not serious - that they grew their hair as a joke or what?  Please explain how this is not a serious topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I am saying no such thing, I am saying that no one is taking seriously the subject of presidents with facial hair, none of the links you posted above shows that the subject has been covered significantly by others more in passing when discussing hair in general. Codf1977 (talk) 14:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your observation seems quite counterfactual. The first source that I presented above has a section heading of The Hairy President and discusses this topic at length.  This is not a passing reference and we have many other sources of a similar detailed kind.  Colonel Warden (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I stand by my !vote, that ref not withstanding, the subject lacks significant coverage. Codf1977 (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I can't blame wikipedia editors for not being alive in the 1860s-1930s but I guess no one remembers Grace Bedell, who was fairly famous in her day for convincing Lincoln to grow his beard (when she was 11 years old). Whether presidents had beards or not was considered a significant and notable topic for discussion for a long time in American history, its just out of lack of knowledge that one would simply conclude the topic is not notable.--Milowent • talkblp-r  15:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Those trying to delete this seem to be arguing that the article shouldn't exist because they don't like it, and personally don't think its worthy of being in Wikipedia. Not how things work.  There are plenty of sources talking about the facial hair of presidents.   D r e a m Focus  14:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You obviously don't understand the meaning of "significant coverage" in WP:GNG. There are also plenty of car accidents of tennis players, see . That doesn't mean it's a notable topic. Hans Adler 21:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG defines what is meant by "significant coverage": It "means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source.". Sources which address the subject in detail and as more than a trivial mention have been cited.  Q.E.D.  Colonel Warden (talk) 07:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unencyclopedic trivia. Having facial hair is not really a defining or notable characteristic of a president, and while it may be interesting that presidential facial hair has largely disappeared in the 20th & 21st centuries, that can be said of upper-class rich men in general. Tarc (talk) 15:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it used to be considered a very notable characteristic. E.g., as I added to the article, political commentators have actually claimed that Thomas Dewey lost in 1944 and 1948, in part, because of his facial hair.  I also added a link to a recent research paper that discusses presidential facial hair and has the hypothesis that "after women got the right to vote facial hair became a political liability for men."--Milowent • talkblp-r  16:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * i.e. trivia. Tarc (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps to you, Professor Tarc, but the hundreds of articles on presidential facial hair that are easily found (some of which I have now added to the article) make it notable. There's no question that there's an element of humor in much of the commentary on the issue, but the fact is that whether a president or presidential candidate has had facial hair has been the subject of huge amounts of press for the better part of 150 years.  Just because it hasn't been a big deal for the last 20 years doesn't mean its not notable, it just explains why it was nominated for deletion, i.e., ignorance of the history.--Milowent • talkblp-r  17:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please keep your incorrect statements about the reason for the nomination to yourself. Nearly everything you have listed, discussed, given as example, ... is about facial hair during elections, while this list is about facial hair during their tenure. Feel free to create an article about the topic you are defending here as a self declared expert, but please don't mix things related to but separate from this article with the actual subject of it. Fram (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Nearly everything you have listed, discussed, given as example, ... is about facial hair during elections, while this list is about facial hair during their tenure." LOL, are you kidding me?  Your nom sucks, but you're cool, its all good.--Milowent • talkblp-r  21:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep the topic has received indpedent coverage regardless whether it is considered "trivia" or not. Either we abide by policy or let emotions run their course. Sandman888 (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per TheGrappler's rationale (and in addendum to one of his comments, see Heights of Presidents of the United States and presidential candidates). -- Quiddity (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. I have bookmarked that page so that I will notice when the inevitable fourth AfD of that other abomination comes. As I said before, the way to deal with such trivia is not to build for every bit of them a separate pseudo-article; the trick consists in finding an encyclopedic topic in which it can be covered. The present list and that other thing together could be the core for an article that discusses all studies that have been made of the various traits and features of US presidents through the centuries. Hans Adler 20:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And if you were to make such an article ("... that discusses all studies that... "), it would be split into parts due to WP:SIZE... and we'd end up right where we started. Thank you for your WP:IDONTLIKEIT sarcasm about the "abomination", but not really, because WP:SARCASM is amazingly ineffective around here. Have you noticed? :) -- Quiddity (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to develop that other page to such dimensions that it must be split, then do it, don't just talk about it. That was implicit in my point. Subpages of articles about a notable topic are automatically seen in a much more favourable light than bizarre articles that come out of nowhere. (I am not sure that would be enough in this case, since the topic is so unencyclopedic that it only belongs in an encyclopedia as an example for something, and you seem to have in mind a complete exhaustion of the example space.) As a simplified example, in an aspiring encyclopedia that so far consists of 5 articles, say – house, mountain, flower, ship, writing – resist the urge to create an article list of reasons why one should not pick one's ear with a sharp instrument. Start an article ear instead. If it gets unwieldy, put some material into subarticles, possibly creating proper ear maintenance as one of them. And if that again gets unwieldy, split again and create something like list of dangerous practices related to hearing. Hans Adler 06:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is common that the early drafts of articles are unsatisfactory. Our editing policy explains what is to be done in such cases.  It does not advise complete demolition but, instead, recommends that we improve the articles, retaining and reworking the material.  The top-down method that you propose is neither our editing policy nor a reason to delete.  Colonel Warden (talk) 07:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (1) you might like to read the 3 prior Heights of... AfDs, before calling it an abomination. (2) The article you are looking for is Ear pick. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep "It's unencyclopedic trivia" does not a well-reasoned argument make. There are multiple reliable sources that discuss the topic of Presidential facial hair, in general as well as in relation to a specific president.  Definitely a notable topic. ☻☻☻Sithman  VIII !!☻☻☻ 21:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And "OMG it's reliably sourced!" is never an adequate response to concerns of trivia. Sourcing alone does not make a topic notable or article-worthy. Tarc (talk) 01:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete many arguments for keep claim this list WP:ITSUSEFUL, we can verify that Presidents had facial hair but that is not the same as it being notable. what next List of British prime ministers with facial hair during their tenure, List of First ladies with brown hair during their husband's tenure LibStar (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to be uncivil, but did you even read what I said above? ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 00:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've read it and disagree. LibStar (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure many people read it. Some of us happen to think that WP:TRIVIA applies here, we discuss things because we do not always agree. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Many people here clearly haven't read WP:TRIVIA as it is quite irrelevant to this matter. The article in question does not contain a trivia section and, even if it did, it would not be a reason to delete the article as that guideline just advises reorganising the information to present it better. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I disgree that it is irrelevant, since the article is itself a list of trivial information. I am, however, heartened to see that some improvements have been made, and hope that the article will evolve into something more substantial, thanks to your and Milowent's efforts. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You still haven't read WP:TRIVIA, have you? Here's a quote "This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations.".  At AFD, we are not concerned with style, only with deletion, which is the exclusion of information.  Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We disagree, but I see no reason to argue with you about this given how the afd is proceeding. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: contra Slithman, it's unencyclopedic trivia. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The first link you provide is not a policy or guideline but reminds us that personal opinions are irrelevant here. What we require is argument based upon policy and the evidence of independent third-parties.  The second link you provide is WP:TRIVIA which is quite irrelevant, as explained above. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment when someone makes a massive effort to rebutt everything and not improve the article you do wonder. LibStar (talk) 07:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * while y'all have been fapping in here, i did expand the article some and add sources. Yet the fact that books, news stories for 150 years, and research papers discuss the issue seem to be irrelevant to the "trivia" crowd.  Thus, the Colonel does what he can here.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r  12:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Milowent is indeed doing great work on the article and this recent addition from the NYT is especially impressive. I touch my forelock in respect. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've struck my delete !vote, with some actual text and references, I feel it's worth keeping. (Nuujinn strokes beard and nods head) --Nuujinn (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per Col. Warden. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think there is a notable topic in here somewhere, but wouldn't this be better as a prose article rather than a list? The majority of the coverage seems to be about the importance of facial hair in relation to Presidents, candidates and elections, as opposed to Presidents who had facial hair during their tenure. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that this really shouldn't be a list article, it should be something like United States presidents with facial hair, and the list can be kept only as a subsection. The silly gallery can be replaced with portraits of the hirsute chief executives.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r  03:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Reluctant Keep. It seems like a silly list to me, but I'm persuaded by the Keep arguments, in particular Milowent's several sources that make it very clear that the subject meets WP:GNG. TJRC (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Milowent and others. There is a great deal of sourcing here, and it indicates that the subject is notable. Yeah, it's trivial stuff in the broad scheme of life, but it's awfully well-documented trivia. I concur, though, that a prose article would be better than the list. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have moved this to List of United States presidents with facial hair during their tenure. Regardless of its final name, "States" should be capitalized. TJRC (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2010 (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.