Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Clinton haircut controversy

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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Clinton haircut controversy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For essentially thee same reasons given for deleting Barack Obama fly swatting incident, Michelle Obama's arms, and TOTUS; flash-in-the-pan "controversies" that flame out before the end of a single cable news cycle. This is straight WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SENSATION in particular. Tarc (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Not sure about this one. The incident seems to have garnered direct coverage in RS, which would seemly pass WP:GNG. Hard to say this is a case of WP:NOTNEWS, since we're talking about something that took place in 1993. Some of the nom's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS examples are good. But that said, this incident seems more substantial than Obama swatting a fly on national TV, and a little less silly than an article about Michelle's arms. NickCT (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It still continues to be discussed in political media on occassion, either as an example of the rocky start of the Clinton administration or as an example of media trivia that could hurt a candidate politically (John Edwards was involved in a similar incident with haircuts and this incident was brought in that context, for instance). IVEHEARDOFIT even though I was too young to follow politics in 1993, it is still common knowledge for the average political junkie, so not just a flash in the pan that was instantly forgotten. That said, the article is pretty thin and maybe the incident could be merged/mention in the relevant article about the Clinton presidency. 101.220.35.159 (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A number of RS's considerably after 1993 cover this either as notable in itself, as notable in demonstrating how inconsequential stories have come to dominate political discourse or as notable humor. See, e.g., [1], [2] and [3]. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge/Delete I'm only really interested in sourcing since 1993 - anything else is standard news fare. There are a few reliable sources who mention it, but it's iffy whether it's really significant coverage. Probably more appropriate to just have a line about it in Public image of Bill Clinton. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator per WP:GNG. I agree that we should only look for sourcing since 1993, but there are three reliable post-1993 sources in the article providing significant coverage. See also here and here for examples of how it continues to be referred to. St Anselm (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~. Merge to Public image of Bill Clinton. It's still regularly being brought up in books, suggesting that WP:PERSISTENCE is satisfied, but basically as a facet of Bill's or the Clintons' public image (I had searched on "Clinton controversies" before my comment earlier). Significance as an example of fluff press can be handled through links from the relevant articles. ~~although like the IP above, I think a merge would be ideal if a suitable target could be found.~~ –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than just the image. It's arguably the birth of the 24-hour news cycle for political figures. Cable news was only a couple years old and the 24 hour news cycle was basically wars, catastrophies and celebrities. Clinton as a populist president broke into the celebrity side and political coverage became like the celebrity paparazzi coverage. It's been that way ever since and image handling has changed with it. Clinton's image was largely driven by the effects of recirculating news cycle stories like this, not the other way around. This particular incident was mentioned in 9 front page articles of the Washington Post over 6 weeks since it happened. This type of coverage and demand for immediate response was unprecedented before for political figures. --DHeyward (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, as the initial merge proposer. It can easily be moved into Presidency of Bill Clinton or Public image of Bill Clinton, and that prevents complete deletion of the page's content from the mainspace. I personally found the content useful and informative, although not worthy of its own article.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 21:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect per reasoning given by Roscelese. The subject is an WP:EVENT, and although it meets WP:GNG as shown by above, it also can arguably meet WP:PERSISTENCE (such as this mention in Time, this in-depth coverage in a book published by Three Rivers Press, and this coverage in a book published by Routledge). That being said it clearly falls within the scope of another article Public image of Bill Clinton, it can be easily merged into that article, with a redirect left to the section it is merged into. This way, since it meets WP:GNG, it can retain its name space, but given more context within the article about Bill Clinton's public image. If that article grows to meet WP:TOOBIG, the article can always be recreated.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The problem I have with merging is that it would currently be undue weight wherever it is merged. Public image of Bill Clinton, for example, has nothing about the White House travel office controversy, which is the more significant controversy. If we're going to merge Bill Clinton haircut controversy there, there is a whole lot more stuff that should be added in as well. In fact, just about everything in Category:Clinton administration controversies. St Anselm (talk) 07:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was a notable event that shaped/changed how Clinton and future presidents used Air Force One due to image concerns. It's not really a sub-topic that can be adequately rolled into an overarching article. It should be the most stable article on WP as it's a 20 year-old event. --DHeyward (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the important point. The article is being nominated in light of incidents in the Obama presidency, but this is a whole lot older. St Anselm (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a whole lot more notable as well. It's still remembered. It didn't die in a news cycle. --DHeyward (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:NOTNEWS. Not sure which Clinton article it should go in, maybe other editors have a better handle on that. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not a news article: one of the sources is a book from fifteen years later, another's a university press-published book from twelve years later, and a third is the reliable Time in an article from seventeen years later. Unlike typical incidents, such as the Obama flyswatting thing, this is proven to have gotten coverage long after the fact, i.e. secondary source coverage. Nyttend (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources indicate notability. Has anyone who used the "NOTNEWS" argument ever been right about anything? Everyking (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Presidency of Bill Clinton (or Public image of Bill Clinton). When I went back and re-read the Presidency of Bill Clinton article I was surprised that the episode wasn't discussed. Even though, with hindsight, this episode and the Travelgate affair were utterly trivial, the Gingrich Republicans used the incidents and the emerging news media incredibly effectively to derail Clinton's first term agenda. Merging this content would improve the other articles. Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This event was a widely-covered lapse-in-judgment moment. "Get a haircut!" was a common crowd heckle at Clinton for years afterword, and particularly funny since he was long-haired "hippy" during the Vietnam era when "Get a haircut!" was something he likely heard back then too. Pax 08:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The story is in books now and still remembered. Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is sufficiently notable, and more so than the examples cited in the nomination. Cf. examples which cross the line, Jimmy Carter rabbit incident and George H. W. Bush vomiting incident. I would suggest the line of notability we've drawn excludes something like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George W. Bush pretzel incident, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama, and Billy Carter pissing on the tarmac Presidency_of_Jimmy_Carter#Personal_and_family_matters_during_presidency, which is more of a BLP-denigration exercise, but includes events which are less of an attack but which had some sort of lasting and remembered consequences.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Public image of Bill Clinton. This is a single event and it is not anywhere near the notability threshold achieved by something like Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy or Read my lips, no new taxes. Stifle (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.