Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Bone: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 05:27, 15 October 2016

Kenneth Bone

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

PROD removed by an IP, concern was: Fails WP:BLP1E (event: United States presidential election debates, 2016). Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to United States presidential election debates, 2016#Second presidential debate (Washington University in St. Louis) p b p 20:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only notable for his question at the debate, and unlikely to have sustained notability. Natg 19 (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep many notable news sources and sustained notability depends on many things - he is certainly getting the invitations to become even more notable (e.g. Jimmy Kimmel) and he does not seem to be shying away from the attention, so may well be sustained. Scarykitty (talk) 00:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — He's a meme. Just merge it since he's getting news recognition regardless. He doesn't really deserve a standalone article. Aria1561 (talk) 01:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. He received a large amount of attention after the debate, but for now it seems best to merge (not outright delete, though) into United States presidential election debates, 2016#Second presidential debate (Washington University in St. Louis), at least for now. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the debate article. There has been coverage of him in RS. Whether it should stay there can be determined afterwards. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Widespread media coverage, even on Canadian news. He is considered a notable part of the debate, but not anywhere alse. Meiloorun (talk) 🍁 02:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, for now as that seems to be the consensus due to lots of news sources (even though WP:NOTNEWS and he's known for only WP:ONEEVENT. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, good coverage, but one event. Coderzombie (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, agreed, a footnote in a small part of history, better footnoted in wiki Mindme (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: If he continues to have a good public career, we could look at having a page for him. However, at this time, we're only going off of some attention for one debate. It's the same reason "Tea Lizard" was redirected. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 03:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least until after the election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.129.92.180 (talk) 03:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I agree with DarthBotto. --Thnidu (talk) 05:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or ""Delete"" Agree that it's one event, which should be the debate. Absolutely no reason to make a separate page for this. None. This goes against a lot of wikipedia policies such as only being notable for one very specific thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenSHK (talk • contribs) 06:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E, seems undue to merge into a short summary of the debate. He's not yet a Joe the Plumber. --McGeddon (talk) 09:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or merge if any of it is worth including in the article about the debates. Textbook WP:BLP1E. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and re-evaluate notability at a later date.--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge at best, even though by election day, his presence at the debate article will probably seem inappropriate. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 18:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge A pretty textbook case of WP:BLP1E, but Bone is relevant to the second debate. A sentence or two describing Bone's role in the debate should be sufficient. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't Crispus Attucks also be an example of WP:BLP1E? We don't merge him into the Boston Massacre. Just sayin.--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr who1975: You seem to believe that BLP1E can never apply anywhere. And in order to prove it, you inadvertently compared a debate to the Boston effing Massacre. I foresee your approach not convincing very many people. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 04:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can always re-create an article if the situation dictates. So if Wikipedia existed back then, Attucks would've started off as a redirect, but then eventually become a full fledged article as his historical/commemorative significance increased. -LtNOWIS (talk) 06:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crispus Attucks does not fall under BLP1E as he is, funnily enough, not a living person. (And independently notable in his own right.) Robofish (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that significant coverage is significant coverage, but for now, I think we'll need some time before this subject can have an article long enough to reach more than just ONEEVENT status editorEهեইдအ😎 22:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have added a single sentence about Bone to the presidential debate article. I reckon one sentence may be enough. p b p 00:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to article on the St. Louis debate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Might be WP:TOOSOON but look at what happened to Joe The Plumber. I think the guy is article-worthy, there are WP:RS coming out on him with every passing day. Buffaboy ^talk 03:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Merge/delete Absurd that an article was even created in the first place, negligible notability, purely news. Reywas92^Talk 04:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no mention or redirect anywhere else. This is a distraction. He's just known as a guy who asked a question on TV, currently not suitable as a biography, it's more like "Red sweater guy's question during the debate". WP:ILIKEIT but there were other "events" that happened during the debate like Trump's "Because you'd be in jail" comment [1], Bill Clinton's face at one point [2], a fly landing on Hillary Clinton's face [3] and a fat guy being there [4] that aren't mentioned on Wikipedia.

This one may have been pushed in the media more but it doesn't genuinely look that much more popular than the others. Emily Goldstein (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ken should get a page. His twitter account now has 250,000 followers. https://twitter.com/kenbone18?lang=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.160.157.129 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I thought I did not see correct. Much less important than the most unimportant Pokemon. Did some people here still realize, what Wikipedia is and what an absolutely short Internet hype Bone is? An Encyclopedia collects the natable KNOWLEGDE of the word and sorted ist, weighted it. To know about a fact is not knowledge. A ridicoulus "article". Shamefull for the whole worldwide Wikimedia movement. Marcus Cyron (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shamefull - It's also shameful that a senior editor can't spell correctly. --85.197.18.49 (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. This is, why I don't write articles here. 2. Always funny to see, how people like you talk to legasthenics as me. 3. I never said, my english is good. But it's good enough to understand, who depends to encyclopedias. 4. Did you speak german as good as I do it with english - or maybe an other language? Marcus Cyron (talk) 19:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with debate article. Jajasoon (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with debate article and *SMH* that this was created in the first place. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this man is an important part of the debate and he needs to have his own page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.100.95.193 (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with debate article since has has gotten some media attention but seriosly, all he did was ask a question. Who is notable for just that? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to second debate article. However, if kept, please include the results of my investigative reporting which revealed that the red sweater is washed nightly. [5].--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States presidential election debates, 2016#Second presidential debate (Washington University in St. Louis) per nom. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to United States presidential election debates, 2016. Way, way too premature. This guy's alleged 'fame' hasn't lasted a week yet. Nothing here so far justifies an independent article. Robofish (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: A tsunami of articles about Ken Bone from many highly reliable sources have appeared over the past few days. A selection of which includes the following:

CBS News

The internet's calling out Ken Bone over his Reddit history

by Jennifer Earl

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ken-bones-reddit-history/

CNN

Ken Bone leaves seedy comment trail on Reddit

by Sara Ashley O'Brien

http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/14/technology/ken-bone-reddit/index.html?sr=twCNN101416ken-bone-reddit0435PMStoryLink&linkId=29943238

CNN

Ken Bone sells out for Uber

by Seth Fiegerman

http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/13/technology/ken-bone-uber/index.html?iid=EL

New York Times

We May Be Leaving the Ken Bone Zone

By Katie Rogers

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/15/us/politics/we-may-be-leaving-the-ken-bone-zone.html

New York Times

Ken Bone Is Closer to Deciding, After Debate

By Jonah Engel Bromwich

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/us/politics/ken-bone-is-closer-to-deciding-after-debate.html

Washington Post

Ken Bone was a ‘hero.’ Now Ken Bone is ‘bad.’ It was his destiny as a human meme.

By Abby Ohlheiser

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/10/14/ken-bone-was-a-hero-now-ken-bone-is-bad-it-was-his-destiny-as-a-human-meme/

Fox News

Ken Bone linked to questionable past comments on Reddit

(no byline)

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2016/10/14/ken-bone-linked-to-questionable-past-comments-on-reddit.html

Time

10 of the Best Ken Bone Memes on the Internet

by Melissa Chan

http://time.com/4526816/ken-bone-presidential-debate-memes/

Time

Ken Bone Talks About His Conversation with Bill Clinton and Memes in Peak Internet Mode

by Cady Lang

http://time.com/4531194/ken-bone-reddit-ama/

Slate

What Ken Bone’s Porn Preferences Tell Us About Internet Privacy Today

By Mark Joseph Stern

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/10/14/ken_bone_reddit_porn_and_internet_privacy_today.html

While the article needs a lot of work (like many on Wikipedia), I believe there is now little justification for passing this AFD. I urge people who have voted "Delete" or "Merge" to reconsider. Carl Henderson (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG per Carl Henderson. Carrite (talk) 03:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge depth of coverage and length of article not sufficient to support a stand-alone article. Information about Kenneth Bone is fine, and can be incorporated well into the article about the specific debate he appeared in. Otherwise, there's not enough here to support enough text to fill a stand-alone article. Regarding comparisons to Joe the Plumber, if the situation changes in the future, we could revisit this in the future. As it stands today, there simply isn't enough to support a stand-alone article about this subject. The text written in the article is fine, and can be easily moved to the article about the debate with no loss of information for Wikipedia. --Jayron 32 04:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If Vermin Supreme can have an article, Ken Bone can have an article. 184.88.243.225 (talk) 05:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 102: / Line 102: @@
 * '''Keep''' - Passes GNG per Carl Henderson. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 03:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * '''Merge''' depth of coverage and length of article not sufficient to support a stand-alone article.  Information about Kenneth Bone is fine, and can be incorporated well into the article about the specific debate he appeared in.  Otherwise, there's not enough here to support enough text to fill a stand-alone article.  Regarding comparisons to Joe the Plumber, if the situation changes in the future, we could revisit this in the future.  As it stands today, there simply isn't enough to support a stand-alone article about this subject.  The text written in the article is fine, and can be easily moved to the article about the debate with no loss of information for Wikipedia.  --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 04:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
+* '''Keep''' - If [[Vermin Supreme]] can have an article, Ken Bone can have an article. [[Special:Contributions/184.88.243.225|184.88.243.225]] ([[User talk:184.88.243.225|talk]]) 05:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)