Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous bearded people


 * 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 delete. Since there a fair number of 'keep' votes (though still a definite minority), I took arguments into consideration, and it seems to me that to use a source as verification for something that is barely brushed on in the source is stretching WP:V further than it is meant to be stretched. Wikipedia policies are always to be understood in spirit and not in letter. Chick Bowen 03:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

List of famous bearded people

 * — (View AfD)

Whether or not someone has a beard is not a defining characteristic. There was an AfD for a related topic at Articles for deletion/List of bearded people, but it's debated whether or not this is close enough to constitute a repost of deleted material. -Amarkov blahedits 05:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your post. I revised the lead paragraph and removed the text you reference above.  Membership entry on the list requires that the entry be famous because the entry is associated with a notable beard by a reliable published source as defined by Wikipedia Lists guidlines References for list Items.  What Wikipedia is not item 1.1.7.1 expressly permits a list if the entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic.--Jreferee 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You can't link to WP:LIST from the article space (see WP:ASR). Any other ideas on how to regulate what is included? --Spangineerws  (háblame)  01:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and previous AFD. A list of all of two people isn't too much of a loss, anyway.   Snurks T C 05:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per reasonable argument made by User:Jreferee on my talkpage.  Snurks T C 01:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * After only eight hours in existence, the list included 40+ entries and each entry is identified as a famous bearded person by a reliable published source. The previous AFD is not relevant since the present article not a repost of deleted material. -- Jreferee 12:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would possibly support a "List of famous beards," but this is slightly different. Perhaps a move?   Snurks T C 22:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You appear to be basing your understanding of membership entry in the list on the name of the article. I revised the lead paragraph.  Membership entry on the list requires that the entry be famous because the entry is associated with a notable beard by a reliable published source as defined by Wikipedia Lists guidlines References for list Items.  I believe the article meets your famous beards list membership requirement.--Jreferee 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Articles such as List of famous people wearing a moustache and List of bald people are kept unquestionably, and I don't see any reason to maintain a double standard. If you want to debate the notability of all of those articles, that's fine. But as long as the precedent is to keep lists of people with any defining physical characteristic, you can't just decide on a whim to delete a perfectly viable article. --DLand TALK 05:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * When precedent goes in both ways, you can't really cite it well and expect much to happen. -Amarkov blahedits 05:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and strongly consider AfDing the other similar lists mentioned by DLand. Where will this end? Famous people with blond hair etc. Famous people with a limp? Famous short people? These categories are surely completely unencyclopedic... WJBscribe 05:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Your statement that the article is unencyclopedic is not explained sufficiently per Discussion to allow others to challenge or support facts, suggest compromises or identify alternative courses of action that might not yet have been considered.--Jreferee 12:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. My comment is backed up by examples. But I will happily clarify. My problem with this list is that choosing the criteria beards to classify people is arbitrary and absurd. One could classify people by all sorts of physical characteristics but what would be the point? The fact that they had beards did not make them better or worse politicians, singers etc. It was just a choice of personal grooming. Having a beard is simply not a remarkable thing and as such there is no reason to list those who have had one. WJBscribe 12:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The criteria for inclusion, the entries, and the references cited make clear that merely having a beard and being famous are not sufficient by themselves to be included in the list.--Jreferee 13:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I see your point but I'm not sure the fact that a commentator has once remarked on someone's beard is significant. To take an example: you list Richard Branson. He is famous because he founded Virgin and is a multi-millionaire. he is not famous in any way because of his beard and would be no less famous were he to never have sported a beard. Someone who has a beard may be identified by it- as may someone with hair of a distinctive colour or style, but it is not an essential element of their fame. As such I do not see how it can be notable in this form. WJBscribe 23:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. However, it still is not clear as to which Wikipedia policy you are referring.  Guide_to_deletion requires a well-argued, fact-based case based upon Wikipedia policy.  In particular, Wikipedia Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions identifies "the article is unencyclopedic" as a non Wikipedia policy argument.  Without identifying an item within a particular Wikipedia policy, your reasoning is not explained and it is not possible to determine whether your concerns have been addressed.  In regards to your comments, the fact that a commentator has once particularly remarked on someone's beard being notable is Wikipedia significant per Wikipedia policy and guidelines.  In particular, What Wikipedia is not item 1.1.7.1 expressly permits a list if the entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic.  Further, Wikipedia list guideline reference for list items states that articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.  I revised the lead paragraph and the article meets all Wikipedia policy and guidelines.  Regarding Richard Branson, the reputable source, the Daily Mail, identified that Branson is one of England's most famous beard-wearers in the context of Branson firing employees for wearing beards.  The widely known event characterized and published by a Wikipedia reputable source brought notoriety to famous person Branson's beard, which is why Branson is on the list.  Regarding your concerns about "Where will this end? Famous people with blond hair etc. Famous people with a limp? Famous short people?," List of famous bearded people may serve as a precedent by which all other lists of a similar vain may be judge.  If those hypothetical articles maintain the high bar membership entry of List of famous bearded people, then they should be allowed.  If not, they may be deleted, citing List of famous bearded people as a standard to which they need to achieve.  Deleting List of famous bearded people will not discourage creation of the articles you mention, it will only povide one less basis for you to delete non Wikipedia policy lists.--Jreferee 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is stupid. --Ineffable3000 05:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning is not explained sufficiently per Discussion to allow others to challenge or support facts, suggest compromises or identify alternative courses of action that might not yet have been considered.--Jreferee 12:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)  Further, Guide_to_deletion requires that you "Always explain your reasoning" and to "Make your case clearly."  You have not done either.--Jreferee 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - what about folks who grew a beard and then shaved it? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 05:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The lead paragraph of the article coupled with the entries provided is clear on what is and is not included.--Jreferee 12:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Further, I revised the lead paragraph.  Membership entry on the list requires that the entry be famous because the entry is associated with a notable beard by a reliable published source as defined by Wikipedia Lists guidlines References for list Items.  Thus, the inclusion in the list is not dependant upon what the famous person does with the beard after it is remarked upon by the reliable published source.--Jreferee 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - unmaintainable, arbitary, useless, indiscriminate listcruft. MER-C 07:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The article is maintained and maintainable and non-arbitrary. None of the seven indiscriminate listcruft items are applicable nor have you identified any which are.-- Jreferee 12:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's arbitary, useless and unmaintainable because a celebrity can have a beard one day and shave it off the next. As for WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, unlike this list. MER-C 13:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. What Wikipedia is not item 1.1.7.1 expressly permits a list if the entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic.  I revised the lead paragraph.  Membership entry on the list requires that the entry be famous because the entry is associated with a notable beard by a reliable published source as defined by Wikipedia Lists guidlines References for list Items.  Thus, the inclusion in the list is not dependant upon what the famous person does with the beard after it is remarked upon by the reliable published source. -- Jreferee 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, non-encylopaedic. -- Ghirla -трёп-  09:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Your statement that the article is non-encyclopedic is not explained sufficiently per Discussion to allow others to challenge or support facts, suggest compromises or identify alternative courses of action that might not yet have been considered.--Jreferee 12:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)  It still is not clear as to which Wikipedia policy you are referring.  Guide_to_deletion requires a well-argued, fact-based case based upon Wikipedia policy.  In particular, Wikipedia Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions identifies "the article is non-encylopaedic" as a non Wikipedia policy argument.  Without identifying an item within a particular Wikipedia policy, your reasoning is not explained and it is not possible to determine whether your concerns have been addressed.-- Jreferee 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. As revised 09:57, 5 December 2006, - only 8 hours after the article was first posted mind you - the article is maintained and maintainable and non-arbitrary as evidence by the criteria for inclusion, the entries, and the references cited.  Over separate forty worldwide news agencies expressly treated a beard as a defining characteristic of over forty famous people.  All decisions prior to this post were made before the new 40+ footnoted entries to the article. -- Jreferee 12:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)  Further, my revisions of the article have addressed all concerns through this post.--Jreferee 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I am confused. Why do references 1,2,18,21,27,36,41&44 all link to the same blog entry which reads: "Loosen the Chin Straps - New York Times: "Floyd's Barber Shop, a hipster outlet in Denver's edgy Capitol Hill neighborhood, Justine Gallagher, a stylist, said she would clean up Plummer's beard around the edges 'so he doesn't look like a recluse who just came down from the mountains."? Are the other references of a similar nature? WJBscribe 12:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Your comment belongs on the article talk page. I linked to the abstract of the article because a link to the full article requires a member ID and password.--Jreferee 13:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, horribly biased in favour of blitheringly unimportant people from American culture. Even if the baseball players, folk musicians and 'The men of Zilwaukee, Michigan' were removed and replaced by Jesus, Moses, Mohammed, Darwin, Ghengis Khan etc, this list would still be an enormous, unmaintainable, unencyclopedic mess.--Nydas (Talk) 12:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Each entry is identified as a famous bearded person by a reliable published source. The entries are not limited to American.--Jreferee 13:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Sources don't automatically confer notability, particularly if they're a few lines in provincial newspapers. Are we to add every bearded sportsman, mayor or musician who has ever lived?--Nydas (Talk) 13:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I revised the lead paragraph.  Since membership entry on the list requires that the entry be famous because the entry is associated with a notable beard by a reliable published source as defined by Wikipedia Lists guidlines References for list Items, the issue of who may be added to the list is left to what reliable sources say.  This is a valid use of reliable published sources under Wikipedia policy and guidelines.  Not every bearded sportsman, mayor or musician who has ever lived may be added to the list.  In particular, the list includes unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources as per Wikipedia Lists guidlines References for list Items.--Jreferee 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Since every bearded sportsman, musician or mayor of any significance is likely to have been given at least as much media attention as 'The men of Zilwaukee, Michigan', this list could easily run into the thousands. Easily. Probably the hundreds of thousands. Your pedantic method of replying to criticism does not help your case.--Nydas (Talk) 21:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - way too broad a topic. Requires POV judgement to determine who qualifies as "famous". 23skidoo 13:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I revised the lead paragraph. An article not meeting Neutral point of view refers to a Wikipedia editor's point of view.  Since membership entry on the list requires that the entry be famous because the entry is associated with a notable beard by a reliable published source as defined by Wikipedia Lists guidlines References for list Items, the list is not POV.  Regarding the breath of the topic, the list includes unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources as per Wikipedia Lists guidlines References for list Items.--Jreferee 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, so what if one has a beard? It's a very POV thing and possible original research... Ter e nce Ong 13:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I revised the lead paragraph. An article not meeting Neutral point of view refers to a Wikipedia editor's point of view.  Since membership entry on the list requires that the entry be famous because the entry is associated with a notable beard by a reliable published source as defined by Wikipedia Lists guidlines References for list Items, the list is not POV.  Since the material in the article has been published by a reliable source, it does not violate No original research. --Jreferee 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, I don't think it's POV to say who qualifies as famous (not overly POV anyway, as we are kind of in the business of deciding that here at Wikipedia), but its absolutely POV to say that one's whether one's beard is "the dominant aesthetic trait in the bearer, where the beard further increases the celebrity of that famous person" or not. Also, this article is stupid. Recury 14:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I revised the lead paragraph of the list to remove the text you cite. An article not meeting Neutral point of view refers to a Wikipedia editor's point of view.  Since membership entry on the list requires that the entry be famous because the entry is associated with a notable beard by a reliable published source as defined by Wikipedia Lists guidlines References for list Items, the list is not POV.--Jreferee 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Is this article even really helpful? I mean, what's the point in having a page dedicated to famous bearded people, why not just have one dedicated to famous people altogether? =S 85.12.80.128 14:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Unregistered user
 * Thank you for your reply. However, it is not clear as to which Wikipedia policy you are referring. Guide_to_deletion requires a well-argued, fact-based case based upon Wikipedia policy.  Without identifying an item within a particular Wikipedia policy, your reasoning is not explained and it is not possible to determine whether your concerns have been addressed.--Jreferee 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)  Also, the talk page of IP 85.12.80.128 notes that 85.12.80.128 been repeatedly blocked from editing Wikipedia in response to abuse of editing privileges.-- Jreferee 20:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - wikipedia is not a repository for trivia. -- Whpq 17:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. However, it is not clear as to which Wikipedia policy you are referring. Guide_to_deletion requires a well-argued, fact-based case based upon Wikipedia policy.  Without identifying an item within a particular Wikipedia policy, your reasoning is not explained and it is not possible to determine whether your concerns have been addressed.  As stated at  Wikipedia arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, I don't like it, some editors hate trivia, but what constitutes trivia is a subjective opinion and as things stand there's no concrete policy setting down what is and is not trivial, nor is there a policy stating that trivia should be deleted.-- Jreferee 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - what's next, list of famous clean-shaven people? --Dweller 20:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. However, it is not clear as to which Wikipedia policy you are referring. Guide_to_deletion requires a well-argued, fact-based case based upon Wikipedia policy.  Without identifying an item within a particular Wikipedia policy, your reasoning is not explained and it is not possible to determine whether your concerns have been addressed.  As stated at  Wikipedia arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, Just a vote, is not an argument.  As Articles for deletion says "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments" and the same applies to all deletion debates.  If the article List of famous clean-shaven people both states that membership entry on list of famous clean-shaven people article requires that the entry be famous because the entry is associated with notable clean-shaveness by a reliable published source as defined by Wikipedia Lists guidlines References for list Items, and the entries in such a list comply with such a high bar requirement, then the list meets Wikipedia policy and guidelines.-- Jreferee 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - If nothing else, this list is useful as an addendum to the Beard article. --Jeff 20:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - has been greatly improved since original nom. If nothing else, it's useful navigationally, as a cross-reference between famous beards and famous beard-wearers, and a way to find "that guy with the beard" when you can't remember their name.  BCoates 21:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, beardedness is utterly irrelevant to anything and is subject to change without notice in any case--do we edit the list every time someone shaves? There are some actors who alternate between beard and no-beard on a nearly-monthly basis.  Do goatees or soul patches count?  It's just silly!  Anyway, any list with the word "famous" in the title needs to be deleted or renamed!  Xtifr tälk 21:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. As cited in the article, numerous reliable published sources, including the United States Congressional Record, found famous bearded people relevant enough to include in their published document.  Since membership entry on the list requires that the entry be famous because the entry is associated with a notable beard by a reliable published source, the inclusion in the list is not dependant upon what the famous person does with the beard after it is remarked upon by the reliable published source.  Whether a famous person's goatee or soul patches counts depends on how the reliable published source treats the topic.  A potential need to change the title of the article is not a sufficient reason to delete the list under Guide to deletion.-- Jreferee 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into the beard article, perhaps as a similarly-titled subsection or to illustrate different beard styles. Otherwise, delete the article as it doesn't meet Wikipedia's list guidelines of being "a valuable information source", helping the development of WP, or aiding in navigation (I doubt anyone would use this as a starting point). Black Falcon 23:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. However, the article meets the Wikipedia List guidelines Information main purpose as a grouped by theme structured list. The article meets the Wikipedia List guidelines  Navigation main purpose as a navigation.  If you look at footnote one of the article, you will see that writer John Branch of the New York Times created a Famous bearded people list as a navigation aid in his January 18, 2006.  A reliable published source creating a Famous bearded people list as a navigation aid supports that others will use this Wikipedia article as a navigation aid.  The article meets the Wikipedia List guidelines  Development main purpose.  A review of the List of famous bearded people shows additional articles that have yet to be written, thereby providing a development purpose for the list.  In addition, User:Serpent's Choice statement below that Abraham Lincoln does not have an article related to his beard is a specific example that supports the Wikipedia List guideline-development purpose of this list in that this list in fact has proven useful for Wikipedia development purpose to show articles that have yet to be written.-- Jreferee 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge I would go with merge.  It has no place on its own, though, and citing other ridiculous articles that haven't been deleted yet is not reason to keep this one.--Dmz5 06:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I agree with you that the article should be kept.  The article has a place on its own.  See good reasons to merge a page.  --Jreferee 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as a visual index. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Interesting article with dozens of references. In addition to a list there is an explanatory article. What other article could in principle feature Gabby Hayes and Karl Marx?Edison 00:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay then. Should we have a List of people with feet? Where else are we going to get Paul Dirac and Sacajawea in the same place? -Amarkov blahedits 01:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, having a beard is a marked characteristic, while having feet is unmarked, in a semantic sense. List of notable people with one eye might be a marked list. Edison 16:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * List of people without feet (or some more polite title) would be perfectly OK. Mukadderat 01:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Amarkov, I do understand your concerns. However, deleting one list article that complies with Wikipedia policy and guidelines to stem the creation of other potentially non-Wikipedia policy complying lists of this type will have the opposite effect of your intention.  List of famous bearded people creates a Wikipedia precedent against which all other like articles may be judge.  If the article List of people with feet both states that membership entry on list of people with feet list requires that the entry be famous because the entry is associated with notable feet by a reliable published source as defined by Wikipedia Lists guidlines References for list Items, and the entries in such a list comply with such a high bar requirement, then the list meets Wikipedia policy and guidelines.  If you delete List of famous bearded people, then you will not have a solid, easy to use precedent against other similarly typed lists.  Thus, deleting List of famous bearded people will work against your goal of stemming the creation of other potentially non-Wikipedia policy complying lists.--Jreferee 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete CSD G4, recreation of deleted material -- RoninBK E TC 01:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. The revisions (might) immunize this from a CSD G4 death, but that notwithstanding, this does not meet the list criteria.  The inclusion conditions are arbitrary despite the advocacy demonstrated above.  Lists of people by physical characteristic are valuable iff the physical characteristic is fundamental to their notability; that is not the case here.  Abraham Lincoln does not have an article because he has a particular style of beard. Serpent&#39;s Choice 14:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. However, the Wikipedia List criteria does not require that the physical characteristic be fundamental to their notability.  If you believe that it does, please provide a link to the an item within the Wikipedia List guideline so that it may be commented upon.  I revised the lead section of the article to meet your concerns.  The inclusion conditions are not arbitrary.  Membership entry on the list further that the entry be famous because the entry is associated with a notable beard by a reliable published source as defined by Wikipedia List guideline references for list Items and supported by What Wikipedia is not item 1.1.7.1.  Regarding Abraham Lincoln's beard, his beard has been the topic of so many difference sources, including at least one book, that the topic could be supported on its own as a Wikipedia article.  Your statement that Abraham Lincoln does not have an article related to his beard supports the Wikipedia List guideline-development purpose of this list in that this list has proven useful for Wikipedia development purpose to show articles that have yet to be written.  A review of the List of famous bearded people shows additional articles that have yet to be written, thereby providing a development purpose for the list.--Jreferee 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * keep/rename. verifiable, distinctive. Must be renamed, though: List of bearded people. Mukadderat 01:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Can't really be renamed as suggested given the AfD on List of bearded people. -WJBscribe (WJB talk) 13:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, per nomination. Dahn 12:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. However, it is not clear as to which Wikipedia policy you are referring. Guide_to_deletion requires a well-argued, fact-based case based upon Wikipedia policy.  Without identifying an item within a particular Wikipedia policy, your reasoning is not explained and it is not possible to determine whether your concerns have been addressed.-- Jreferee 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Spangineerws (háblame)  05:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. However, it is not clear as to which Wikipedia policy you are referring. Guide_to_deletion requires a well-argued, fact-based case based upon Wikipedia policy.  Without identifying an item within a particular Wikipedia policy, your reasoning is not explained and it is not possible to determine whether your concerns have been addressed.  In addition, several people already have showed support for the nominator.  As stated at  Wikipedia arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, Per nominator, per nom is an argument without an argument and will not contribute significantly to the conclusion that is made by the administrator closing the discussing. -- Jreferee 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll try again. 1) A beard is not necessarily a defining characteristic. 2) Any attempt to define "famous" is POV. 3) The list is necessarily incomplete. Most importantly (here's your policy violation): 4) Linking to an internal Wikipedia policy page is blatant disregard for Avoid self-references. --Spangineerws  (háblame)  00:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. A beard is often a defining characteristic of a person's appearance; having a list of people known for their beards is interesting and useful.  Antony-22 22:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the list meets Wikipedia List guidline and all other Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Further, since membership entry on the list requires that the entry be famous because the entry is associated with a notable beard by a reliable published source as defined by Wikipedia Lists guidlines References for list Items, the issue of whether the beard is a defining characteristic is left to what reliable sources say, not on what an editor says. -- Jreferee 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, so long as a very close eye is kept on references for the notability of the beards as an important part of the identities of the persons. If the list begins to transform into an indiscriminate collection of every person on the planet who at some point had a beard, with nothing to back up why it was important, it should be reconsidered for deletion. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 22:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well researched and referenced. Notable enough. Useful article. This nom and the comments above seem a good example of the many bureaucrats on wikipedia who are more obsessed with guidelines than encouraging good research and writing on a reasonable encyclopaedic topic. Anlace 22:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete ridiculous... - crz crztalk 03:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - the dislaimer and the references prove that this is viable. I also like geejo's suggestion for this list Baka man  01:21, 11 December 2006 (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.