Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Bone

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]