Deletion of Bill Clinton haircut controversy

Comment: per reasoning given by Roscelese. The subject is an , and although it meets  as shown by above, it also can arguably meet  (such as this http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1977252_1977334_1977256,00.html mention in ''Time'', https://books.google.com/books?id=Q2fhPjTJutgC&lpg=PA145&dq=Bill%20clinton%20haircut%20LAX&pg=PA145#v=onepage&q=Bill%20clinton%20haircut%20LAX&f=false this in-depth coverage in a book published by ''Three Rivers Press'', and https://books.google.com/books?id=qkjFBQAAQBAJ&lpg=PT116&dq=Bill%20clinton%20haircut%20LAX&pg=PT116#v=onepage&q=Bill%20clinton%20haircut%20LAX&f=false 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 , 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 , the article can always be recreated
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT||WP:GNG||WP:PERSISTENCE||WP:SCOPE||WP:GNG||WP:TOOBIG)