Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:26, 23 October 2016

Donald Trump's hair

Donald Trump's hair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I feel like this has been deleted before, but I can't remember under what title. Is there significant coverage of his ridiculous 'do? Yes. Is it unencyclopedic and not independent of the rest of his body? Yes. (Unless it's a wig, in which case I guess it's sorta independent?) pbp 19:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep no reason for deletion. --SI 19:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

There clearly was a reason given for deletion. It's fine to disagree with it, but there was a reason. AlexEng 00:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Well not for Trump, but there was an AFD for Justin Bieber's hair a while ago and it had a quite lengthy discussion. Hair seems to be an important topic. :P Dead Mary (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete Even if his hair has enough notability to warrant some coverage, it should be added in the main Donald Trump article in a subsection under appearances in popular culture. JasperTECH (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep or merge into Trump. The subject clearly has sufficient notability for a standalone article, as ridiculous as that is (but no more or less ridiculous than the rest of this "campaign") but I'm loathe to examine the Trump article to see if it's adequately covered there. If so, merge and redirect, if not, keep. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• I just hope that when I fall asleep tonight I don't wake up until November 9, so I don't have to think about such silliness. And I'm not even in the US, so I hate to imagine what it's like for those of you who are. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete or merge into Trump. I don't see a lot of precedent for independent articles for body parts, no matter how notable. It's appropriate to add portions of this to the Donald Trump article. AlexEng (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

See Adolf Hitler's possible monorchism, which also may or may not be real. Emily Goldstein (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep Clearly a notable topic. Quite a bit of significant coverage. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete anything needed can be in the main Trump article. Not enough notability to warrant a standalone article. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

People have talked about his hair independent of anything else about him for years, and probably will for centuries. Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

We are still talking about George Washington's false teeth.Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Which is why, like George Washington's teeth, it is meritorious for mention in his main article. The hair is not notable apart from the person it is on. If Trump weren't a celebrity/politician, it wouldn't be independently notable. But who knows, I could be 'wrong!' TonyBallioni (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this reasoning. If he weren't notable himself, then his hair would not be notable either. AlexEng 22:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

You may be right after all.Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete I have to admit I disagree with pbp on a lot. However here I agree with him. Donald Trump's hair is worth mentioning, but in a larger article. The article on Donald Trump may at some point require splitting, but his hair is not notable enough on its own to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment There may have been a point where Trump was most known for his hair, but even then he was notable as an audacious realestate developer with a penchant for self agrandizement. I think the George Washington's teeth precedent says it all. If we do not have a seperate article on Washington's teeth, there is no reason to have a seperate article on Trump's hair.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't object. However if there was an article on Washington's teeth I would vote to keep that too. Both topics (Washington's teeth and Trump's hair) are more notable than many others that have their own articles here.Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST Jack, How about the "Adolf Hitler's possible monorchism" precedent which I linked to above? Emily Goldstein (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the difference there is that Hitler's testicles aren't notable in themselves, but the theories and nuttiness surrounding them are. To my knowledge, there are no theories surrounding Trump's hair that would be notable in itself. I wasn't using the Washington teeth link as other stuff doesn't exist, but to show that it is very much possible to have famous body parts covered sufficiently in an article. My general philosophy is that if you can validly cover something that is not-independent in the article that it is dependent on, don't create a new article. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• OMG. "It's referenced". JPL, there has never been a time when he was most known for his hair. Please delete this ridiculousness ASAP. Drmies (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

  There was a time when he wasn't known for a dumpster fire of a presidential campaign, and the "independent coverage" of his scalp was higher up on the list of things he was known for. But it never was the only thing he was known for. pbp 00:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

  I didn't say he was ever most known overall for his hair, just that he was most known in some circles for his hair. That might be an exageration, but it is a reflection of how some social conservatives have views Trump since long before his first entry into presidential politics leading up to the 2000 presidential election. In the late 1990s circles I moved in on the extremely rare occasion that Trump was mentioned it was to insult his hair, maybe followed by disparaging comments about a guy who would use eminent domain to try and expand his casino.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• Merge to Donald Trump. Artw (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• Merge to Donald Trump. His hair has been discussed a lot, but I can't imagine it's worthy of a standalone article in this encyclopedia. Funcrunch (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep 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 objectivily more notable than Hillary Rodham senior thesis. If we get rid of this we'll have to get rid of that too. Or is Misplaced Pages biased against Trump?

Some sources over the years:

There's too many for me to list them all but is it enough to warrant an article or will this forever be unencyclopedic? Emily Goldstein (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

It no doubt is worthy of some mention, but I think the main article is the best place for that. Also, Misplaced Pages shouldn't create spinoffs that attempt to put a positive or negative spin on a subject already covered in a previous article as per WP:CONTENTFORK. So it being a "good" article about Trump isn't a good reason. EDIT: Unless what you were saying is making the article meet the "good article" criteria, in which case disregard my previous comments. JasperTECH (talk) 00:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to put on my philosophy hat and ask if Donald Trump's hair is ontologically distinct from Trump? In plain language: are article's about Trump's hair just articles about Trump or are they something different? My answer: they are articles about a feature of Trump but they are indeed simply articles about him. I completely agree it is definitely something that should be included in the article on him, but I don't see it as being a distinct article. I also agree with JasperTech about the content fork concerns here. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Tony, that is a very goodlooking hat you're wearing. I wonder if Emily Goldstein pondered this; I would guess not. And no, I'm not biased against Trump, but I might cop to being a crusader against Trump's hair, since he's got a lot more of it than I do. Can we stop wasting our time now? Drmies (talk) 01:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

One more thing: Emily, mine can never be as big as yours, but certainly I could, with the help of , , , write a nice little article on Donald Trump's penis. There's even "A History of Donald Trumpo's Penis"! Drmies (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Emily Goldstein, the hair is no doubt noteworthy. The question, as far as I'm concerned, is: is the hair's noteworthiness independent of the noteworthiness of Donald Trump? And the answer is an emphatic "no." Even at the time of the earliest article you have posted, Donald Trump was already noteworthy for his participation in The Apprentice. Even if Donald Trump had no noteworthiness aside from his unique hair, I would arguably still put information about his hair in an article titled Donald Trump. There's little reason to demand that his hair get a separate article. AlexEng 01:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment A lot of the above just mention Trump's hair in passing and are really about other things related to Trump.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The sources from 2004 through 2011 are primarily about his hair, with the exception of: the one news report from 2006 (although it does mention that Donald is "perhaps best, or most endearingly, known for his hair"); the 2007 news reports, which give a little more info on the wrestling event rather than the hair itself; and two reports in 2011, in which the hair is not the main focus. One source from 2012 focuses primarily on the hair, as well as a couple sources from 2013, and one or two from 2014. Most of the sources from 2015 look pretty good. Same for 2016 (including one source saying that he is "almost as well known for his hairstyle as he is for his outlandish views.").  AJFU  06:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you seriously reading that literally? Drmies (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you asking me if I consider that last quote to be a serious and literal statement? That is what The Independent wrote. I have no idea if what they wrote was meant to be a joke, but that was not the way I viewed it. I posted the quote to serve as an example of news organizations that consider his hair to be a big deal.  AJFU  00:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - While there is coverage, the subject is trivial at best. Meatsgains (talk) 02:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep There are plenty of sources listed above that primarily discuss the hair, thus establishing notability. The hair has even inspired an interactive website and an Internet trend called Trump Your Cat. The article already seems fairly detailed, with potential for expansion. Merging to Donald's main page seems unnecessary, especially considering the large length of that page, which currently has over 700 references and will continue to grow. The size of the main Trump page is apparent every time I have gone to the article, as it takes a while to fully load. The main page's large size was brought up multiple times in the deletion discussion for List of books by or about Donald Trump, a page that was split off from the main Trump page to cut it down in size. That was back in August, when the main page was around 290,000 bytes in size, and it had been tagged for being too large. It is now 340,000 bytes. And the hair article is twice as long as that list of books, which had to be spun off into its own page. I don't think we should unnecessarily merge stuff into the main page (which is already huge) when the subject (in this case, the hair) can be adequately explained in its own article.  AJFU  06:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
• Either Keep, or Merge to a non-trivial section in the main Trump article, under either "Hair" or "Vanity". This is certainly notable enough to cover in a non-trivial way. In any normal context, coverage like this would be ridiculous. This is not a normal context. -- The Anome (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete - coverage is trivial. Neutrality 15:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I would support splitting the Donald Trump article into maybe three sections, one for until the start of The Aprentice, one focused on the time he was mainly notable as the star of The Apprentice and another primarily focused on his political aspirations. However a seperate article on just his hair does not seem merited.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, or to start with, the entire business career section could be put into an article titled "Donald Trump's business ventures," with the info in the main article being condensed considerably. JasperTECH (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• Weak delete - Tough call. Think I'll go with seems a 'hair too far' bit silly and political used so WP reputation gets lowered. It's already gotten pasted into infobox e.g at List of Republicans opposing Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, along with SNL link ... which looks like favoritism unless does Hillary infobox link to her [Saturday Night Live parodies of Hillary Clinton SNL skits ? Come back in De cember when that's not in play and I'd say yes -- it is in press, and I did get tempted by the clickbait.

p.s. The hair seems mentioned in archive 1, 8, 7..— Preceding unsigned comment added by Markbassett (talk • contribs)

• Delete or Merge with Donald Trump - Trump's Hair is notable, but is too trivial to warrant its own article. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep C'mon. He even boasts about it at campaign events. It's one of the two or three most important factors in his notability. SPECIFICO talk 21:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• Specifico, you know it's silly. While it may not exactly be bodyshaming given the involved vanity, this is not much different from a hit piece. Not much. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I confess I have not read the article, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were in bad shape, like many new articles. I added one bit about the color and I was surprised that this wasn't already discussed. But just as to notability don't you think that this is a big deal with Trump. I wouldn't be surprised to see an article on "Hillary Clinton's Pantsuits" and it would be roughly the same. You do have a point but doesn't it unambiguously meet GNG? SPECIFICO talk 22:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

From the number of sources you might think so, but the argument above about the hair being him is valid--besides, much of the sourcing is tongue in cheek. That his hair is an important part of what he is known for is silly; much of that sourcing is tongue in cheek and gossipy. (And frequently meant to be insulting.) If we take all of that at face value, we can write up his penis as well--and one might as well say Barack Obama's ears are notable. Everybody knows his ears... Drmies (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Food for thought. But though they are conspicuous, we rarely discuss Obama's ears, and to date we only have Trump's own (primary-source) debate boast about his penis. SPECIFICO talk 00:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Merge (abridged) – And please lose the hair gallery! WP:NOT a blog. — JFG 00:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
• Deleteand/or merge. I'm going to resist the temptation to bash my head against a wall screaming "JUST MAKE THIS GODDAMNED ELECTION END ALREADY!", and try to address this honestly — but while discussion of Donald Trump's hair is perfectly appropriate in his main article, it absolutely does not need its own standalone article as a separate topic from him any more than "Hillary Clinton's cankles" (also a thing about her body that gets discussed) would. Bearcat (talk) 00:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep: There is plenty of coverage for this to be a standalone article. Even if Trump's hair were not independently notable from Trump (as TonyBallioni has stated above), the massive coverage still makes it notable enough for it sown article. It's similar to the Political positions of Donald Trump article. It may not be independently notable, but there is enough coverage to warrant its own article. This article should clearly be kept. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates