Deletion of List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair (2nd nomination)

Comment: The multitude of reliable sources that report about particular presidents' facial hair and how it may have impacted their image  demonstrate the lasting notability of the topic. I understand, but ultimately do not agree with, the argument above that only an article about the more general subject is appropriate; there is no basis to omit reliable popular media in analyzing notability.  (The article is replete with sources but here are a few more examples: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/04/beards_in_politics_there_hasn_t_been_a_bearded_major_party_presidential_nominee_in_almost_100_years_why_.htmlhttp://www.mensjournal.com/expert-advice/a-history-of-west-wing-whiskers-20141113/john-quincy-adamshttp://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/name-beard-match-facial-hair-president/https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1955&dat=19860831&id=Vw4iAAAAIBAJ&sjid=aKcFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3394,5508618)  And I strongly disagree with the "delete" arguments predicated on simply calling this list "trivia" or some other belittling term, which stated in such terms strike me as a variant of |IDONTLIKEIT
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: per .  The topic is notable – see http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/lincoln-a-beard-is-born/ A Beard is Born, for example
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTAGAIN)

Comment: per . Yeah it's got some sources, but it's trivial and provides little value. There's no great "analysis" to come from this. "Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." &ndash;&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)