Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump's hair

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 redirect to Donald Trump#Hair. In the light of our policies and guidelines, the core issue here is whether Donald Trump's hair is notable enough to be covered in a separate article or whether, despite media coverage, it is so trivial an aspect of the topic of Donald Trump that it should be covered as part of an existing article, if at all.

I'm discounting opinions that do not touch on this issue, such as those that are just a vote or "per X". I'm also discounting the relatively few "it's an attack page" / "it's a BLP violation" opinions because they do not rebut the counterargument that these problems can be remedied through editing, as well as mere assertions such as "it's [not] notable". On that basis, a rough manual headcount gives us 29 "delete", 14 "merge", 13 "keep" and 6 "redirect" opinions (counting double the opinions of the form "X or X").

Because the question described at the outset is one of editorial judgment, and there are valid policy-based arguments on both sides, I can't assign any particular weight to either side's views. But I can determine that, at 49 to 14, there is clear consensus to not have a separate article about this topic. However, there is a significant minority - among the 49 who don't want to keep the article - that wants to either merge some content or create a redirect. Taking into account the substantial number of "keep" opinions as well, I can't determine that there is consensus to just delete the article.

Under these circumstances, I think that a redirect is the result that best reflects this discussion: It implements the consensus that we don't want a separate article, while allowing for subsequent consensus to develop about whether (if any) material should be merged from the history.  Sandstein  09:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump's hair

Donald Trump's hair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I feel like this has been deleted before, but I can't remember under what title. Is there significant coverage of his ridiculous 'do? Yes. Is it unencyclopedic and not independent of the rest of his body? Yes. (Unless it's a wig, in which case I guess it's sorta independent?) pbp 19:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There clearly was a reason given for deletion. It's fine to disagree with it, but there was a reason. AlexEng(TALK) 00:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I read this as a strong argument for keeping ("significant coverage ... Yes.") and no valid reason given or deletion. --SI 15:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See Adolf Hitler's possible monorchism, which also may or may not be real. Emily Goldstein (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
People have talked about his hair independent of anything else about him for years, and probably will for centuries. Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We are still talking about George Washington's false teeth.Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why, like George Washington's teeth, it is meritorious for mention in his main article. The hair is not notable apart from the person it is on. If Trump weren't a celebrity/politician, it wouldn't be independently notable. But who knows, I could be 'wrong!' TonyBallioni (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this reasoning. If he weren't notable himself, then his hair would not be notable either. AlexEng(TALK) 22:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right after all.Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have to admit I disagree with pbp on a lot. However here I agree with him. Donald Trump's hair is worth mentioning, but in a larger article. The article on Donald Trump may at some point require splitting, but his hair is not notable enough on its own to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There may have been a point where Trump was most known for his hair, but even then he was notable as an audacious realestate developer with a penchant for self agrandizement. I think the George Washington's teeth precedent says it all. If we do not have a seperate article on Washington's teeth, there is no reason to have a seperate article on Trump's hair.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object. However if there was an article on Washington's teeth I would vote to keep that too. Both topics (Washington's teeth and Trump's hair) are more notable than many others that have their own articles here.Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST Jack, How about the "Adolf Hitler's possible monorchism" precedent which I linked to above? Emily Goldstein (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the difference there is that Hitler's testicles aren't notable in themselves, but the theories and nuttiness surrounding them are. To my knowledge, there are no theories surrounding Trump's hair that would be notable in itself. I wasn't using the Washington teeth link as other stuff doesn't exist, but to show that it is very much possible to have famous body parts covered sufficiently in an article. My general philosophy is that if you can validly cover something that is not-independent in the article that it is dependent on, don't create a new article. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • OMG. "It's referenced". JPL, there has never been a time when he was most known for his hair. Please delete this ridiculousness ASAP. Drmies (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a time when he wasn't known for a dumpster fire of a presidential campaign, and the "independent coverage" of his scalp was higher up on the list of things he was known for. But it never was the only thing he was known for. pbp 00:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say he was ever most known overall for his hair, just that he was most known in some circles for his hair. That might be an exageration, but it is a reflection of how some social conservatives have views Trump since long before his first entry into presidential politics leading up to the 2000 presidential election. In the late 1990s circles I moved in on the extremely rare occasion that Trump was mentioned it was to insult his hair, maybe followed by disparaging comments about a guy who would use eminent domain to try and expand his casino.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Donald Trump. Artw (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Donald Trump. His hair has been discussed a lot, but I can't imagine it's worthy of a standalone article in this encyclopedia. Funcrunch (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It clearly passes passes the general notability guideline. With all this coverage it's possible to make this into a "good" article. And it's objectively more notable than Hillary Rodham senior thesis. If we get rid of this we'll have to get rid of that too. Or is Wikipedia biased against Trump?
Some sources over the years:
here is a list of article links
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
2004-Fire the signature comb-over, stylists say (USA Today, Donald Trump: rich man, poor hair (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette), The infinite mystery of Donald Trump's hair (LA Times), Trump Hair vs. The Mullet (Chicago Tribune)
2006-Donald Trump Jr.: The Man, the Myth, the Hairstyle (Gawker)
2007-Trump vs. McMahon in hair battle at Wrestlemania in Detroit (USA Today) Trump's hair on the line in WWE wager (USA Today) Do Not Judge Trump Until You've Walked A Mile In His Hair (Deadspin) Trump Wins at Wrestlemania, Keeps His Hair (People) Donald's granddaughter pulls a Trump card with copycat hairstyle (London Evening Standard)
2008-Donald Trump's bad hair day (The Telegraph), Donald Trump’s Hair Conceals More Than Just His Bald Spot (NY Mag), Donald Trump tells Sunday Telegraph that he uses hair spray, not gel (NY Daily News), Letterman: Is Donald Trump's Hair Really a Chihuahua In Disguise? (Vanity Fair)
2010-How I cracked the secret of Donald Trump's hair (The Telegraph), The GIF Hunter: Donald Trump's Hair Blows Up (Complex)
2011-The Secret to Donald Trump’s Hair (Time), Donald Trump Lets His Hair Down (Rolling Stone), Donald Trump: Forget the Economy, How Does He Do His Hair? (ABC News), Now We Know: Donald Trump's Hair Care Secrets (NPR), Barbara Walters: Donald Trump Wears A Hairpiece (Business Insider)
2012-Donald Trump: ‘I Don’t’ Wear A Hair Piece (Access Hollywood), Donald Trump: 'It is my hair and it's an amazing thing' (The Guardian), Mark Cuban Dares Donald Trump To Shave His Head For $1 Million (Forbes)
2013-Donald Trump Hair Mystery Over? 'Celebrity Apprentice' Star Defends His Hair On Twitter (PHOTOS) (Huffington Post Canada), Donald Trump's hair photographed crawling in Amazon WITH VIDEO (The Oakland Press), ‘Donald Trump Caterpillar’: Flannel Moth Larva Looks Like Real Estate Mogul’s Hair (PHOTO) (Huffington Post)
2014-Donald Trump: “It’s Actually My Hair” And I May Still Run For President (Time), Trump's hair is real! Billionaire reveals Ice Bucket Challenge video (AOL), Never Touch Anything That Looks Like Donald Trump’s Hair (Wired), Donald Trump’s hair the ‘mane’ event at keynote speech (New York Post)
2015-Donald Trump Says His Hair Is Real Yet Again (The Gospel Herald), Sometimes Evolution Looks Like Donald Trump's Hair And That's Okay (Gizmodo), Donald Trump's hair: Defended and explained in his own words (Today), Meet the woman who confirmed Trump's hair is no toupee (CNN), An Illustrated History of Donald Trump's Hair. (Vanity Fair), The Real Truth about Donald Trump’s Hair (Men's Health), A hair surgeon explains what's going on with Trump's hair (Business Insider)
2016-Hairdressers reveal the secrets of Donald Trump's hair (NY Post), Donald Trump’s hairdresser says he is very protective of his hair (The Independent), You can now blast a trumpet on Donald Trump's hair (NY Daily News), Is an invasive and dangerous surgery the reason behind Donald Trump’s odd hairdo? (News.com.au), Donald Trump’s Hair Evolution Is Almost As Scary As His Politics (Huffington Post), The truth about Donald Trump's hair: Former hairdresser reveals the lacquer, home cuts... and if it's real (Mirror Online), Donald Trump lets Jimmy Fallon mess up his hair, because why not (Washington Post).
There's too many for me to list them all but is it enough to warrant an article or will this forever be unencyclopedic? Emily Goldstein (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It no doubt is worthy of some mention, but I think the main article is the best place for that. Also, Wikipedia shouldn't create spinoffs that attempt to put a positive or negative spin on a subject already covered in a previous article as per WP:CONTENTFORK. So it being a "good" article about Trump isn't a good reason. EDIT: Unless what you were saying is making the article meet the "good article" criteria, in which case disregard my previous comments. JasperTECH (talk) 00:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to put on my philosophy hat and ask if Donald Trump's hair is ontologically distinct from Trump? In plain language: are article's about Trump's hair just articles about Trump or are they something different? My answer: they are articles about a feature of Trump but they are indeed simply articles about him. I completely agree it is definitely something that should be included in the article on him, but I don't see it as being a distinct article. I also agree with JasperTech about the content fork concerns here. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, that is a very goodlooking hat you're wearing. I wonder if Emily Goldstein pondered this; I would guess not. And no, I'm not biased against Trump, but I might cop to being a crusader against Trump's hair, since he's got a lot more of it than I do. Can we stop wasting our time now? Drmies (talk) 01:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: Emily, mine can never be as big as yours, but certainly I could, with the help of [1], [2], [3], write a nice little article on Donald Trump's penis. There's even "A History of Donald Trumpo's Penis"! Drmies (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Emily Goldstein, the hair is no doubt noteworthy. The question, as far as I'm concerned, is: is the hair's noteworthiness independent of the noteworthiness of Donald Trump? And the answer is an emphatic "no." Even at the time of the earliest article you have posted, Donald Trump was already noteworthy for his participation in The Apprentice. Even if Donald Trump had no noteworthiness aside from his unique hair, I would arguably still put information about his hair in an article titled Donald Trump. There's little reason to demand that his hair get a separate article. AlexEng(TALK) 01:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sources from 2004 through 2011 are primarily about his hair, with the exception of: the one news report from 2006 (although it does mention that Donald is "perhaps best, or most endearingly, known for his hair"); the 2007 news reports, which give a little more info on the wrestling event rather than the hair itself; and two reports in 2011, in which the hair is not the main focus. One source from 2012 focuses primarily on the hair, as well as a couple sources from 2013, and one or two from 2014. Most of the sources from 2015 look pretty good. Same for 2016 (including one source saying that he is "almost as well known for his hairstyle as he is for his outlandish views.").  AJFU  06:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously reading that literally? Drmies (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking me if I consider that last quote to be a serious and literal statement? That is what The Independent wrote. I have no idea if what they wrote was meant to be a joke, but that was not the way I viewed it. I posted the quote to serve as an example of news organizations that consider his hair to be a big deal.  AJFU  00:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While there is coverage, the subject is trivial at best. Meatsgains (talk) 02:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are plenty of sources listed above that primarily discuss the hair, thus establishing notability. The hair has even inspired an interactive website and an Internet trend called Trump Your Cat. The article already seems fairly detailed, with potential for expansion. Merging to Donald's main page seems unnecessary, especially considering the large length of that page, which currently has over 700 references and will continue to grow. The size of the main Trump page is apparent every time I have gone to the article, as it takes a while to fully load. The main page's large size was brought up multiple times in the deletion discussion for List of books by or about Donald Trump, a page that was split off from the main Trump page to cut it down in size. That was back in August, when the main page was around 290,000 bytes in size, and it had been tagged for being too large. It is now 340,000 bytes. And the hair article is twice as long as that list of books, which had to be spun off into its own page. I don't think we should unnecessarily merge stuff into the main page (which is already huge) when the subject (in this case, the hair) can be adequately explained in its own article.  AJFU  06:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either Keep, or Merge to a non-trivial section in the main Trump article, under either "Hair" or "Vanity". This is certainly notable enough to cover in a non-trivial way. In any normal context, coverage like this would be ridiculous. This is not a normal context. -- The Anome (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - coverage is trivial. Neutralitytalk 15:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would support splitting the Donald Trump article into maybe three sections, one for until the start of The Aprentice, one focused on the time he was mainly notable as the star of The Apprentice and another primarily focused on his political aspirations. However a seperate article on just his hair does not seem merited.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, or to start with, the entire business career section could be put into an article titled "Donald Trump's business ventures," with the info in the main article being condensed considerably. JasperTECH (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. The hair seems mentioned in archive 1, 8, 7..— Preceding unsigned comment added by Markbassett (talk • contribs)
I confess I have not read the article, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were in bad shape, like many new articles. I added one bit about the color and I was surprised that this wasn't already discussed. But just as to notability don't you think that this is a big deal with Trump. I wouldn't be surprised to see an article on "Hillary Clinton's Pantsuits" and it would be roughly the same. You do have a point but doesn't it unambiguously meet GNG? SPECIFICO talk 22:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From the number of sources you might think so, but the argument above about the hair being him is valid--besides, much of the sourcing is tongue in cheek. That his hair is an important part of what he is known for is silly; much of that sourcing is tongue in cheek and gossipy. (And frequently meant to be insulting.) If we take all of that at face value, we can write up his penis as well--and one might as well say Barack Obama's ears are notable. Everybody knows his ears... Drmies (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Food for thought. But though they are conspicuous, we rarely discuss Obama's ears, and to date we only have Trump's own (primary-source) debate boast about his penis. SPECIFICO talk 00:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, many people are saying... Drmies (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (abridged) – And please lose the hair gallery! WP:NOT a blog. — JFG talk 00:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteand/or merge. I'm going to resist the temptation to bash my head against a wall screaming "JUST MAKE THIS GODDAMNED ELECTION END ALREADY!", and try to address this honestly — but while discussion of Donald Trump's hair is perfectly appropriate in his main article, it absolutely does not need its own standalone article as a separate topic from him any more than "Hillary Clinton's cankles" (also a thing about her body that gets discussed) would. Bearcat (talk) 00:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There is plenty of coverage for this to be a standalone article. Even if Trump's hair were not independently notable from Trump (as TonyBallioni has stated above), the massive coverage still makes it notable enough for it sown article. It's similar to the Political positions of Donald Trump article. It may not be independently notable, but there is enough coverage to warrant its own article. This article should clearly be kept. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just when I thought American politics couldn't go lower, here we are giving equal weight to a candidate's hair and his political positions. Wikipedia is pretty entertaining! — JFG talk 04:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They both have received a lot of coverage, and in that regard they are similar (but obviously not in the same way). --1990'sguy (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help but notice that while you complain about the AfD process, you haven't provided a reason for why it should be deleted, as required by WP:DISCUSSAFD. Also, I wouldn't say that consensus is unobtainable. It seems to me that the discussion is leaning towards the delete/merge side. JasperTECH (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment None of Donald Trump's notability comes from his hair. His career as businessman, entertainer and politician would have the same trajectory if his hair were different. The "Never Trump, Never Clinton" crowd would just as much refuse to ever consider voting for him if he were totally bald or if he had a subdued hair style. The same is true for those who embrace his postions on immigration, economic policy, or who laud his style, or who trust him more than other candidates. On the subject of Obama's ears We have this [4] from New York Magazine, A cbs news article on Obama being bullied for his ears, and lots more. Much is humorous or at least meant to be so. The same is true of much of the coverage of Trump's hair. This is not Saturday night live. We do not need to have free standing articles on even large scale and sustained jokes. We can, and maybe even should, give coverage to Trump's hair in the article on him. However there is no reason to have a seperate article devoted just to his hair.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There was a section for his hairstyle at the Donald Trump page, but after some discussion, it was removed in February by an editor who mentioned the idea of the hair getting its own article.  AJFU  15:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wooha. Now we have 7 x Washington's teeth, 4 x Trump's penis, 3 x Hitler's testicle(s?) piled up as agruments. And the finding, that Trump's hair does not exist apart from Trump's body. What a collection. Shortly investigated I would like to add Justin Bieber's hair, Beatle haircut, Rachel haircut, Ivy League (haircut), Tom Peterson haircuts, Pompadour (hairstyle) and the Bill Clinton haircut controversy. While the splitting of the whole article "Donald Trump" into several pieces would definitely improve readability, this should be discussed on the talk page there. But the valid argument that the Trump article already is too long, is an argument for keeping some parts seperately. There are already some subjects outhoused into other articles that do not "exist separately from Mr. Trump", like Donald Trump pseudonyms, List of things named after Donald Trump, Legal affairs of Donald Trump, Stop Trump movement, Donald Trump Supreme Court candidates, Ancestry of Donald Trump and more... --SI 16:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (I've already voted delete.) This seems to be a tough call, especially in what Wikipedia policies or guidelines may or may not apply to it. Unfortunately, I couldn't seem to find any relevant Wikipedia guidelines for articles dealing with humorous subjects like this. However, I think the main arguments so far in favor of deletion are that the subject is trivial, could possibly be a POV fork (since most coverage of his hair is positive), and that Trump's hair is only notable because of everything else he is known for, and should thus be placed in the main article. Some more thoughts I'd like to add is that the number of Google searches or photos posted online aren't a reason for inclusion, even if people are interested in every detail about his life, such as his hair, because of his celebrity status.
The arguments in favor of keeping it seem to be that it has a lot of reliable sources and news coverage (though I don't think it has much independent coverage), is a notable topic about Trump, and that it makes sense for it to have its own article since the main one is too long. I agree that it has reliable sources and is notable, but I think the main article needs to be split anyway, and that the contents here should then be summarized in the main article. JasperTECH (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Human culture?? articles about rock songs, cartoons, etc. etc. but not the hair? Not everybody's hair receives worldwide attention, but for those who've got it, we should cover it. SPECIFICO talk 13:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cover it? With a {{hat}}?- MrX 13:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I created the hair section. JasperTECH (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Donald Trump, notable cultural icon, but this article consists of little more than a bunch of random observations from writers.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the precedent set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's arms. The fact that sources exist does not mean it deserves an article. The follicles in question would not be notable if they were not attached to a notable person (unless perhaps they were to become detached in an unusual manner), and notability is not inherited. This article is a collection of unencyclopedic trivia that fails the WP:FART test. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPEOPLEMAGAZINE. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When will this madness end. Don't merge into Trump as that article is already a behemoth. We need some sort of notability guideline for presidential elections as the media seem to indiscriminately print every tiny detail and too many editors here are no better. AIRcorn (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Anything relevant goes in the article on the person or the campaign. This is a truly ridiculous split. That something has been referred to during an election campaign does not make it independently notable. There are many significant things to discuss about the subject that are suitable for an encyclopedia . Even if this were one of them, it still doesn't need a separate article. I'm reluctant to call anything a new low for WP, because someone might trump it, but .... DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When DGG !votes to delete an article, we should probably listen. On another note, I definitely appreciate your use of "someone might trump it". The WordsmithTalk to me 14:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not everything that gets coverage deserves an article. This is one of those examples. His hair has gotten lots of attention, yes, but it's all trivial. I had never seen WP:FART before, but I think it applies here. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It really is a wonderfully useful essay, isn't it? The WordsmithTalk to me 14:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. After giving this considerable thought, my conclusion is that the subject is undeniably notable. However, despite its facially serious tone, this article is inherently overwhelmingly a vehicle to poke fun at and disparage a living person, and should therefore be deleted immediately per WP:ATTACK and WP:BLP. (I'm not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I nominated the article for speedy deletion. To be clear, I'm not trying to disrupt this very legitimate AfD, but I do believe the article is an attack page so I feel obligated to report it. If the reviewing admin(s) disagree(s) with me, that's fine. (I'm not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DrFleischman: I agree this should be deleted, but speedy delete? Really? I would say the subject of this article is humorous, but not even close to libel. I guess it's up to the admins now.JasperTECH (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RHaworth: speedied it per G10. I also find this questionable, even though I am clearly on the delete side of this. There are clearly users that think it should be kept and I wouldn't have called it an attack page. I think it might be best to restore it and let the AfD play out. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
JasperTech, WP:ATTACK isn't just for false/unverifiable information. It's also for pages that "exist primarily to disparage" their subjects, and the type of humor encapsulated by this page (and by the cited sources) was by and large about laughing at Trump, rather than laughing with him. All in good fun to be sure, but at Donald Trump's expense. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While his hair has had coverage, it's not really notable in itself is it? Also as a side note is it November 10th yet? RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin comment: This AfD was briefly closed following a speedy deletion of the article. Per discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 October 25, the article has been restored and this discussion reopened.  Sandstein  09:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there has certainly been coverage, but at some point the information is too detailed to be useful. And I feel the page is, in effect, an attack page. So per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's arms, general common sense (WP:IAR), and what's good for Wikipedia (having an article like this right before the election is in appropriate), this should be deleted. In the fullness of time, we may find that it is a notable topic, but in the context of the US election, this can be reasonable seen to be a political attack piece. Hobit (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – There are, in fact, two prongs to WP:N: 1. 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 2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. The subject here falls rather neatly under the WP:NOTEVERYTHING category of topics that may have received significant coverage, but are simply inappropriate for an encyclopedia to cover. It is wholly and substantially trivial information. It fails the second prong and should therefore be excluded. Mz7 (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - absolutely no need for a separate article on a tangent topic that can easily be covered in the main article. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Utterly ridiculous. Jimmy Johnson gets more attention for his hair (and has for longer than Trump). This is along the same lines as Michelle Obama's arms and should be treated the same way. Ravensfire (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is an OTHERSTUFFDOESNOTEXIST argument. Discount accordingly. Carrite (talk) 05:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Donald Trump#Hair There is enough independent commentary over time to address some of the material in the main article. While it is trivial we have dumber stuff and we do document items which have been subject to significant RS coverage on public figures. JbhTalk 16:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC) Last edited: 01:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep. First of all, not wanting to influence the upcoming election (or appear to do so) is a totally good WP:IAR reason. The question is, for what outcome? Whether the article is kept or deleted, we will have done a choice either way, which either side could criticize us for.
As is evidenced in the article, there has been coverage of that subject for a long time in numerous venues, beyond any possible claim of WP:ROUTINE. Even if everyone agrees that it should never ever have received it, it has, and it is not our job to decide that a GNG-meeting topic is actually not worth it - or if it is, claim WP:IAR rather than masquerading behind the guidelines.
Donald Trump is already a long article, so merging is an unpractical option. Even if the content was not GNG-worthy, which it is (alas), there would be a case to WP:SIZESPLIT.
All this being said, the article as it stands now has a few features that in my view constitute disparaging humor. If any of those are kept, I would actually prefer deletion (WP:IAR: on that exact subject, better have no article than a somewhat attack-y article).
  1. The photograph captions "Side view, 2015" and the "View from above/behind, 2013" objectifies the human under the hair. Replace by "Donald Trump, 2015/2013".
  2. The "gallery" section is already disputable, but in any case the first two photographs are out of the temporal scope where the references mention the subject, and should be taken out.
TigraanClick here to contact me 17:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Dr. Fleischman's speedy delete !vote above is a well-written summary of my concerns of "disparaging humour". Nonetheless, I believe that the corrections I proposed are enough to bypass those concerns. TigraanClick here to contact me 17:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTADIARY, which says not to go into trivial details on people. His hair is little more than trivia and far from worthy of its own article. Sources talking about something doesn't always make it significant. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One problem: this is not "trivial detail," this is a topic covered substantially not just in a sufficient number of independently published sources, but in a vast number of independently published sources. At that point, it becomes a valid topic in and of itself in accord with GNG. Everything else is a "SEEMSIMPORTANT/DOESNTSEEMIMPORTANT" argument. Carrite (talk) 05:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia's job is to report the facts, and when those facts influence an election, so be it. If we deleted every article that could potentially influence an election, we'd be removing a lot of notable material. That sets us down a slippery slope where Trump demands we delete Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations or Clinton demands we delete Hillary Clinton email controversy because "it could influence the election." And that's not a road we want to go down. There are numerous sources indicating significant independent coverage. It's notable. And if it's notable, we should keep it, even if it influences the election, or we risk going down a very dark path. Nor is WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:ITSSTUPID a reason for deletion when the topic is notable. Smartyllama (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I would agree that we should not care whether our articles influence elections. But our job is not just to "report the facts", but to do so in an encyclopedic manner. Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject (WP:NOTEVERYTHING). This is exactly the kind of topic that was intended to be excluded by WP:NOT—trivial and extremely unimportant to the overall coverage of Donald Trump. Mz7 (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Smartyllama, Wikipedia's job is not to report the facts--we have newspapers for that... Drmies (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We do? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge and redirect to the briefer existing discussion at Donald Trump. As far as I can see this is not an attack article, although there's always the chance that someone might make an inappropriate edit that requires reversion. Trump is not only a political figure and a real estate developer, he has had a long career as a television personality; in these contexts, it is entirely appropriate to include some content about the elements of his public image, certainly including his much-discussed hairstyle. I can't agree that this is inherently unencyclopedic content given the very extensive discussions in numerous reliable sources. Having said this, I don't think a case has been made for an entire separate article about the hair; for now I think there is enough room at the current discussion in the main article, which could be expanded by a few sentences if and as appropriate. Someday someone may see fit to write a more focused article on the Public image of Donald Trump, along the lines of other similar articles in Category:Public image of politicians, and when that happens there will be more room for more content about this and other aspects of his persona, and the edit history will be useful in that regard. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Donald_Trump#Hair. Keep history intact for reference and possible use subject to consensus at Talk:Donald_Trump supporting expansion of coverage at that article. A spinout right now is overly bold, and on the face of it is a massive WP:UNDUE violation, an overweighted coverage of a triviality, especially in coverage of speculation. I think it unlikely that much of the detail in this article will be used, but it is more properly a discussion for the main article talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Donald_Trump#Hair. The existence of this page is a completely undue focus on a single aspect of a living person, and is clearly intended to humiliate and disparage the subject. Even despicable individuals are due WP:BLP protections. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per MrX. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, if speedy delete isn't possible. I'm still strongly of the opinion that this is attack content. Even if we imagine the possibility that it isn't attack content, it's also sub-trivial and completely inappropriate for Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Donald_Trump#Hair. It's already covered in enough detail there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Mirror ... well it's not quite as bad as The Sun, but not far off.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly so, a few UK tabloids favour following fluffy fun. However one strand out of place does not detangle the tress. Recurring recounting, recording, recognition and reputation of this ruff by regularly reliable sources rightly records a rough keep. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge sans trivia and Redirect to Donald Trump. There's significant coverage, but it's all on top of an unreliable source. The subject is Trump. This is part of Trump. Not sure how much more a part of another existing subject something can be. Yes, there are sources about it, and there are sources about literally dozens if not hundreds of other aspects of Donald Trump that don't need to be a stand-alone article. WP:NOPAGE and whatnot. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge. Wikipedia's goal is to be an encyclopedia of information that is reliably sourced, presented neutrally. The media coverage of the article subject seems so tabloid and more concerned about satirical coverage of Donald Trump rather than actual serious coverage, especially considering all of the listed article sources are from 2016, which is definitely due to reaction to Trump's political candidacy. All in all, such reactionary, tabloid-al, satirical information has no place on Wikipedia, especially since (in my opinion) it breaks WP:UNDUE. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 02:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"especially considering all of the listed article sources are from 2016, which is definitely due to reaction to Trump's political candidacy." What are you talking about? I made a list of sources on this page and there is coverafge as early from at least 2004. Most of the sources in the article are from before he announced his 2016 campaign. To me it looks like you never opened the article. Emily Goldstein (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you haven't read my reason too. I've said much more than that. Anyway, will you argue with me that press coverage of the hair from 2004 wasn't tabloid as well? Good effort, but my vote is a solid delete/merge. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 05:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A significant portion of the deletion review !votes to restore this to AFD were people who still think it was should be deleted, but that it wasn't a clear-cut attack page. The BLP/attack concerns have been iterated here, and while I don't necessarily agree that this is an attack page, I think stuff like pointing out that there is a caterpillar that looks like his hair border on that. I don't think speedy is warranted, but the concerns are legitimate. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to note that WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST states: Yet a small number of debates do receive wide participation and result in a decision that is effectively final, until new evidence comes along. If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates. The Michelle Obama's arms AfD had broad, broad participation, and the delete arguments in that debate match delete arguments made here. It's not binding precedent, but it does strengthen, not weaken, the wider argument that this subject is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Mz7 (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those categories aren't very good comparisons. The entries in them are either redirects rather than articles, the article isn't actually about the body part itself (War of Jenkins' Ear, Beheading of St. John the Baptist), the subject is an archaeological relic (Heslington Brain, Manning River Skull) or the body part was continuing to generate substantial coverage decades or even centuries after the owner died (Oliver Cromwell's head, Albert Einstein's brain). I don't think there are any other examples of body parts of living celebrities with articles, and the Michelle Obama's arms is a much better comparison than anything in those categories. Hut 8.5 08:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So where are you on Hitler's testicles? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess if Trump manages to start a world war we might be able to have an article on his testicles. Hut 8.5 15:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that arch deletionists are wrong so infrequently about the outcome whenever an AfD debates attracts more than a few of the usual suspects is because there is very little appreciation among said deletionists of the importance of GNG, of the way that GNG keeps our debates rooted in the rule of law rather than degenerating into endless waves of tail-chasing and utterly unproductive acrimony. We don't need to waste words about what "seems like it belongs in an encyclopedia" as opposed to a newspaper. In actual fact, GNG reigns supreme here and that is a good thing — it protects the work of all content creators from arbitrary annihilation. If the sourcing exists, notability is met and the work is protected. We don't need to spend 40 pages chattering about what things "seem important" or "seem unworthy" — that is 100% irrelevant. This is a slam dunk keep unless for some reason there is a viable Ignore All Rules case to be made. And I ain't seein' it... best regards, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 05:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I mentioned above, WP:N very clearly states in its lead that there are two conditions a topic must satisfy in order to merit a standalone article: the first is the WP:GNG or an applicable WP:SNG, the second is WP:NOT. Our job as an encyclopedia is to summarize the accepted knowledge available on the topic, not include every single possible detail. The subject here is Donald Trump, and it is inconsistent with the goals of this encyclopedia to dedicate an entire article to his hair. As a compromise, I have no objection to merging the article to Donald Trump#Hair. Mz7 (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The subject of "Donald Trump's hair" is Donald Trump's hair, not Donald Trump. Coverage has been devoted exclusively to that topic in the mainstream press, to the point that there is a perfectly solid base of accepted knowledge to ground an article on. At that point of sourcing, having an article is neither gossip-mongering, nor breaking news, nor anything else at WP:NOT. You can argue that newspapers are stupid, but they are the base on which the notability guidelines are built and it was clear from the start that it is not the perfect base (the hope being that it is the least imperfect one). You can claim WP:IAR to delete the tabloidy stuff that crawled into the New York Times, but you cannot claim the New York Times is not enough. That topic does not fall under WP:ROUTINE or similar exemptions; there simply is too much of it on a particular point (try to remember last time a newspaper discussed Obama's or Clinton's or Romney's hair).
      Merging to the parent topic is a policy-supported alternative even for standalone-worthy topics, whereas outright deletion is not. (Though I do not think it practical in that case, see above) TigraanClick here to contact me 15:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers aren't stupid; they have their purpose. That purpose just happens to be different from the purpose of encyclopedias. It is exactly this fundamental difference in purpose which causes WP:N to have that two-pronged approach: not only must there be significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources, but the topic itself must be something appropriate for an encyclopedia to cover. (Newspapers form a part of the base for the first prong, but not the second.) Topics like Donald Trump's hair or Michelle Obama's arms may serve the purpose of a newspaper, but not for an encyclopedia. As for what the subject is, perhaps my original comment could have been better worded, but I meant that the subject of "Donald Trump's hair" is presented in this article as a subtopic of Donald Trump the man. I read the New York Times op-ed you mentioned, and it too characterizes this topic as a subtopic of Donald Trump, mentioning his "unclassifiable" ideology and even Hillary Clinton's hair. As an encyclopedia, we are responsible for summarizing knowledge about Donald Trump in an encyclopedic manner, and a standalone article specifically for his hair is putting too much weight on trivial details. Mz7 (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • A subject has to pass a notability guideline and merit a stand-alone article (WP:NOPAGE etc.). Plenty of individual aspects of highly notable subjects could pass GNG. Trump's orangeness, for example, or his money/tax records, or his hands, or any single one of dozens of political positions/trends associated with Trump. You could even say that Trump's first third of his life or upbringing (independent of particular businesses, etc.) has been the subject of enough coverage for GNG, etc. but it doesn't make sense to spin off because it's so clearly part of the subject himself. Like his hair. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:BJAODN. jps (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Donald Trump. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Donald J. Trump is the very definition of the American success story, continually setting the standards of excellence in business, real estate, entertainment, and tonsorial achievement. His coiffure has been particularly important in his ongoing attempts to reach women and come to grips with their issues. EEng 17:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC) Seriously, the subject is certainly notable. There may be a NOPAGE argument (I'm a particular fan of NOPAGE) but I don't see harm in maintaining the status quo for now. We can reconsider the merge question after the election's over and his sexual assault trials are underway. OK, that last bit wasn't serious.[reply]
I realize you are trying for the funny (at least based on your user page), but at some point you're making my point that this is an attack page. Some of your user page might also be viewed as such. Hobit (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was indeed attempting to bring some comic relief to an otherwise vexing topic area; just because it's possible to do that in no way implies that the article itself is an attack page. As to my user page, the material there is (as explained on the page itself)
meant to increase other editors' pleasure in contributing (by providing modest amusement they can enjoy during breaks from editing) or to assist them in becoming more effective editors (by illustrating various aspects of Wikipedia as a social environment). In humor based on political events, Democratic figures are featured as well as Republican, though unfortunately the former opportunities don't arise very often, because e.g. Clinton and Obama just aren't as amusing as the Republican nominee.
Obviously it's all meant in jest. I wouldn't never seriously compare Donald Trump to Hitler. That would be a BLP violation. EEng 18:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim. Cut. Merge and redirect to Donald Trump#Hair, per WP:Fart WP:FORK. And look forward eagerly to the end of the election process, hopefully in less than a year a little less than two weeks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some people trot out the article from the New York Times as if it is a reliable source. The problem is that op-ed articles and editorials are almost never considered reliable sources. Generally for the purposes of meeting the General Notability Guidelines we need to source to actual news articles, not op-eds and editorials.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Are you kidding me? A entire page criticizing a living person's appearance? This is an obvious WP:BLP violation in its entirety. Moreover, it undermines the credibility of Wikipedia when we allow an attack piece on a current political candidate's appearance (or an entire page about a person's appearance period). This is tabloid stuff. We are not a tabloid. ~ Rob13Talk 00:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • oh for Heaven's sake delete This is basically part of one sentence: "Trump has been mocked for his appearance, especially his hair." The rest is tabloid detail. Mangoe (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am sure this shouldn't be an article. It's funny but not what we do here at Wikipedia. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 05:36, 29 October 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Donald_Trump%27s_hair&oldid=1223549023"