Deletion of Michelle Obama's arms

Comment: The topic is highly notable and the article is already quite well-developed.  There doesn't seem to be the slightest reason to delete and the tut-tutting above seems just as stuffy as the fuss caused by her novel appearance.  Our |editing policy firmly indicates that we should keep this fine start.  We might perhaps build it into a more general article about the first lady's fashion style but that is a matter of content editing not deletion.  We should also note that coverage of fashion topics is poor on Wikipedia and that this is a systemic bias which we should not encourage.  I have cited a respectable broadsheet in Britain which has good coverage of the matter
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: or '''Smerge''' to the article about Michelle Obama. It is unencyclopedic to have derivative articles about body parts of the family members of national leaders. Organizationally, it is better to mention her arms in the article which covers her in general. Similarly, there has been about as much press coverage of the http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22michelle+obama%22+eyebrows+arch&btnG=Search+Archives&hl=en&ned=us arched shape of her eyebrows. Let's head off Michelle Obama's eyebrows. There was more coverage than this of http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=eisenhower+golf&hl=en&ned=us&sa=N&sugg=d&as_user_ldate=1952&as_user_hdate=1960&lnav=d3b&hdrange=1961,2009 Eisenhower's golf playing. But it does not need a separate article. There was far more press coverage of John Kennedy's hair, but it would be silly to have an article about it. There was http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=+%22lyndon+johnson%22scar+%22gall+bladder%22&btnG=Search+Archives&ned=us&hl=en&scoring=r more press coverage than this of Lyndon Johnson's gall bladder surgery scar, because he pulled up his shirt and showed reporters the scar. There was more coverage of Johnson http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22lyndon+johnson%22+dog+ears&btnG=Search+Archives&hl=en&ned=us lifting his dog by the ears. A photo of a hole in a shoe worn by presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson in 1952 led to the campaign motto "Better a man with a hole in his shoe than one with a hole in his head," over http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22adlai+stevenson%22+shoe+hole&btnG=Search+Archives&ned=us&hl=en&scoring=r 250 book and print discussions of the hole over the last 57 years, and a Pulitzer Prize for the photo, but it would be silly to have a separate article about the hole. http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22winston+churchill%22+cigar&hl=en&ned=us Winston Churchill's cigars got more coverage than Michelle's arms. The arms of Michelle Obama get press mention only because they are the arms of a  notable person, not because they are all that noteworthy in general, so the mentions are derivative, and the article should be deleted or merged per the essay  which expresses the views of a number of editors. Fails #Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: not all verifiable information needs to be covered in depth in an encyclopedia. See also the essay Wikipedia:News articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:NOT)

Comment: per .  Seriously, we're debating this
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTGOSSIP)

Comment: Putting |undue weight on an entirely trivial subject. Probably not even important enough to even mention in her own article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: Under , may I suggest we add Jimmy Carter's Teeth, Richard Nixon's Jowls, and Jackie Kennedy's Hair? Does  have a section on body parts? Jimmy Durante's Nose
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS||WP:NOTABLE)