The result was redirect to Donald Trump#Hair. In the light of our policies and guidelines, the core issue here is whether Donald Trump's hair is notable enough to be covered in a separate article or whether, despite media coverage, it is so trivial an aspect of the topic of Donald Trump that it should be covered as part of an existing article, if at all.
I'm discounting opinions that do not touch on this issue, such as those that are just a vote or "per X". I'm also discounting the relatively few "it's an attack page" / "it's a BLP violation" opinions because they do not rebut the counterargument that these problems can be remedied through editing, as well as mere assertions such as "it's [not] notable". On that basis, a rough manual headcount gives us 29 "delete", 14 "merge", 13 "keep" and 6 "redirect" opinions (counting double the opinions of the form "X or X").
Because the question described at the outset is one of editorial judgment, and there are valid policy-based arguments on both sides, I can't assign any particular weight to either side's views. But I can determine that, at 49 to 14, there is clear consensus to not have a separate article about this topic. However, there is a significant minority - among the 49 who don't want to keep the article - that wants to either merge some content or create a redirect. Taking into account the substantial number of "keep" opinions as well, I can't determine that there is consensus to just delete the article.
Under these circumstances, I think that a redirect is the result that best reflects this discussion: It implements the consensus that we don't want a separate article, while allowing for subsequent consensus to develop about whether (if any) material should be merged from the history. Sandstein 09:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)