Deletion of Bill Clinton haircut controversy (2nd nomination)

Comment: to Public image of Bill Clinton. The US presidency is so high profile that even minor events get substantial coverage in news media, which may even persist as authors later write very detailed books about every aspect of the presidency. Per  Wikipedia is not one of these organisations. It looks to me like the lasting coverage this has later got in books either uses it as an example of how Clinton was treated by the media at the time or includes it in some larger list of Clinton administration controversies/scandals/incidents. Given this I think it would be better presented as part of a larger article. If it is kept as a standalone article then I would suggest renaming it to something other than "controversy
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per Hut 8.5. While it may not deserve its own article, it could get a paragraph at the proposed target. Since this is well-sourced and it's interesting content, we should merge it somewhere appropriate instead of outright deletion per  
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: it meets  however trivial it turned out to be. Well sourced and interesting. A possible reserve option of setting up an article for Bill Clinton controversies but the content is both good and useful
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: per Hut 8.5 or delete per , WP:ten year test
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per . ''See'' Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_sitting_U.S._Vice_Presidents_who_have_shot_people, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/George_W._Bush pretzel_incident, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/George_W._Bush_Scotland_bicycle_accident for precedents about presidents
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:OUTCOMES)