Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Prime Ministers of Australia with facial hair

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. They're probably going to revoke my membership in ADW for this, but I don't see any way to close this other than keep. Most of the delete arguments are emotional, and cite no real policy to back them up.

Yes, it's true that saying that List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair existing doesn't justify this existing (i.e. WP:OSE is not a good argument). But, the three (and, I see another one is running now) AfDs for that do seem to establish a precedent. In particular, the closing statement for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United states presidents with facial hair during their tenure says, But the simple undisputable fact is that the sources are there, and that applies here too, in particular, the sources presented by User:Andrew Davidson. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Prime Ministers of Australia with facial hair[edit]

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

Unencyclopaedic dross, lacking in notability, gormless minutiae bordering on original research. WWGB (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a joke, right? – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. Compare with List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair. And the one, two, three AfD nominations, all that ended in keep. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Non-notable categorisation of Australian PMs, and nonsensical to boot: unless I've missed the time we elected a cyborg PM, all of our PMs have had at least some hair on their face - particularly the blokes before they shaved. Nick-D (talk) 05:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [2] [3] WWGB (talk) 06:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a parliamentary beards twitter account Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep All are notable Australian PMs who have had facial hair where not one pm since 1923 have had one. Also keep just like the List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair. Just like there are pages of Order of service Statehood · Historical rankings · Military service · Time in office · Age · Deaths in office. so we should have a page for facial hair. the one, two, three AfD nominations, all that ended in keep. More then 20% of Australian man have facial hair so we should have a page about list of pms who have had facial hair. Nick-D said that all of our PMs have had at least some hair on their face - particularly the blokes before they shaved. But how does he know is it because there is THIS page that educated him on that matter. and Not all pms have had some hair on their face Not since 1923. NZKenny96 (talk) 07:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, because all humans naturally grow facial hair? Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The equivalent list for US Presidents has withstood repeated attempts to delete it because this topic is actually quite notable. It is easy to find comparable sources which cover this for the case of Australia too, e.g. Museum of Australian Democracy, Sydney Morning Herald, ABC News... Andrew D. (talk) 09:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As already pointed out, every person has facial hair. It's clearly a non-defining characteristic. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete To begin with "other stuff exists" is a horrible argument. I am not convinced that the "reliable sources" provide more than trivial coverage. We would have to prove not just that people had taken note which prime ministers of Australia had and had not been clean shaven (which is really the issue), and I am not sure the fact that this article is meant to be limited to those who were not clean shaven during office has been worked out. To justify this list we would have to show that the generalized topic, and not just its specific manifestation, is worth noting. That is that there is some caring beyond trivia weather a state leader is clean shaven or not. Also, when will this stop? If Australia, than certainly we can justify List of monarchs of England and Great Britain with facial hair, although how do we deal with Edward V and others who were monarchs before they had reached poverty? Why are such sub-lists of state leaders ever justified?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. US presidents are an odd exception because their whiskers, etc. have been scrutinized by scholars. The same cannot be said of the "down" under. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic and irrelevant topic and content. XXN, 08:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 09:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I know a lot people find this sort of stuff fascinating. It's a good example of how styles change over the years. Ksylatron. —Preceding undated comment added 04:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of "stuff" that is interesting, but we don't keep articles for that reason. Subjects have to be notable. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ummmm..........I don't see how this article should be kept. There might be an article about it for American Presidents, but that doesn't mean that this one should be kept either. AlphaBetaGamma^{DeltaEpsilonZeta} 13:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quirky topic, but one that, as the sources identified by Andrew D. show, has been tackled by reliable sources. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, collection of indiscriminate information, not a notable topic per references in article. This is the kind of bullshit that gives Wikipedia a bad name. Sandstein 12:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.