Deletion of Obama tan suit controversy

Comment: Maybe a silly topic for some, but Wikipedia explores plenty of similar minutiae of all types, so long as the sources are there and the article is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. I think there is an element of  with this one. There is nothing wrong with this article. It's rather illustrative of American political and popular culture, it can inform the reader and does no damage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: A prime example of how a "dumb" subject, even one primarily notable for how dumb it is, can be an encyclopedically valuable article. In this case, the importance comes from the ongoing polemic reference to this nothingburger, by Trump critics, to rhetorically contrast Obama's "scandal-free" presidency with Trump's constant norm-flauting. This use, and the conservative push-back against it, makes this an important story to record with detailed context. Certainly this is not a case where  should trump the relevant  policies. I added some material clarifying this importance https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Obama_tan_suit_controversy&type=revision&diff=949172796&oldid=948749454
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC||WP:NEVENT)

Comment: It's a dumb controversy but it passes  and . I disagree with
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NEVENT)

Comment: The Obama Tan Suit controversy caused enough noise to have it pass  and . Yes, you may personally think that it was a dumb controversy (I also hold this opinion), but it happened. I'm thinking this is a case of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NEVENT||WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: First, I note that this topic probably, somehow, passes |the GNG. That said, GNG only establishes a ''presumption'' of notability. As the nominator put it, this topic is only covered because "a bunch of... journalists were jerking each other off", not because suitghazigate (thoughts?) had any impact whatsoever
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: If we keep these types of articles, Wikipedia will soon turn into one of those sources considered inappropriate per it's own guidelines. Absolutely unworthy subject. Here it's more about common sense then 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per {{U|FourViolas}} and {{U|Devonian_Wombat}}. The Audacity of Hope|O, the audacity of taupe! Look, I'm not so old that I'm not the only person who knows that ''to this very day it was and is a huge problem for many media types on the Right''. They made it such a yuuuuuuuge issue. Now, with tens of thousands of Americans dying, it seems trivial, which of course it was. That's the point of the article: the media attacks a black man or a women over their attire. It was headline, above-the-fold news for weeks, and remains a popular meme on social media to this day. Of course it passes . Even a Chad or a Karen knows that. Future readers yet unborn need to know how the silly season used to be
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I'm going to have to pull  as a reason to delete this.  Somehow it manages to pass  and  somehow, but deleting this makes the encyclopedia better.  Completely trivial
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR||WP:GNG||WP:NEVENT)

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

Comment: with Public image of Barack Obama#Personal appearance, where it would find a good home. This |news story has sources and is clearly noteworthy, but it is too much to say that it is deserving of a standalone encyclopedia article, as others have stated
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)