Deletion of Donald Trump's hair

Comment: 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  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
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: There are, in fact, two prongs to : {{tq|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 OT|What Wikipedia is not policy.}} The subject here falls rather neatly under the OTEVERYTHING 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NOT||WP:NOTEVERYTHING)

Comment: While there is coverage, the subject is |trivial at best
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:TRIVIA)

Comment: 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  protections
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: to Donald_Trump#Hair which IMO covers this in sufficient detail. Although this is certainly not an attack page it is a very blatant example of  and #IINFO. The mere fact that there is news coverage of some subject does not mean we should have an article about it if it is overly detailed or trivial
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NOT)

Comment: per . The content is purely trivial. I also oppose merging the content into Donald Trump per  (there is already a Donald Trump#Hair|hair section). Our articles should contain knowledge that is significant, notable and of some importance to human culture
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTEVERYTHING||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: 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  or  a reason for deletion when the topic is notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:ITSSTUPID)

Comment: First of all, not wanting to influence the upcoming election (or appear to do so) is a totally good  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: as per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Silly Things (WP:BJAODN)

Comment: I don't understand the relevance of Mr. Trump's hairstyle insofar enough to warrant its own article. At best it should be merged into the subject's main article, but even that I do not support. Useless trivia per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:TRIVIA)

Comment: 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  and . (I'm not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attack page (WP:ATTACK||WP:BLP)

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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:TRIVIA||WP:CONTENTFORK||WP:PAGEDECIDE||WP:INVALIDBIO||WP:NOTDIARY)

Comment: Reminder that a majority disagree with the speedy deletion action and that :Category:Body parts of individual people and :Category:Individual human heads, skulls and brains exist. Comments claiming that this is an attack page or  type arguments referencing Michelle Obama's arms should not have as much weight in regards to the closing decision. Also in case this gets deleted and someone wants to know more about this I will list the three most interesting things I found. There's a "Trump caterpillar" that looks like his hair. Kacey Jones made an album titled ''Donald Trump's Hair''.http://www.allmusic.com/album/donald-trumps-hair-mw0000815957 And Saturday Night Live litterally did a skit on his hair.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHq8O0ievbo
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST)

Comment: And please lose the hair gallery!  a blog
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: One dreds to consider what guideline to use in this capillose case. Fur sure, the mane question is if this doo is a cut above the |general notability guideline.  This may be no crowning glory, but this specific aurocephalous tuft has significant coverage, and has had notable effects in society.http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/truth-donald-trumps-hair-former-8460049http://www.businessinsider.com/hair-surgeon-explains-donald-trumps-hair-2015-12?international=true&r=US&IR=Thttp://www.menshealth.com/grooming/donald-trumps-hairhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/09/29/trumpapillar-deep-in-the-amazon-it-was-donald-trumps-hair-hanging-out-on-a-tree/http://www.nashvillescene.com/news/pith-in-the-wind/article/20836810/orangish-guinea-pig-sought-for-gig-as-donald-trumps-hair-in-music-videohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-hair-evolution_us_576025e9e4b0e4fe5143c597http://heavy.com/news/2016/05/donald-trump-hair-real-fake-natural-combover-hairpiece-wig-plugs
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: 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 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BIAS)