Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 11

• Support --Varavour (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you support deletion or keeping the article? Please use words such as Delete or KeepTheoallen1 (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's not as notable a phenomenon, but is noticed in parts of "coal country" on the one and some anti-war or anti-multinational Leftists on the other. Plus "false equivalence", in Wikipedia terms, would be more about making unequal positions sound equal. The existence of an article doesn't have to do that. We have LGBT conservatism in the United States even though most LGBT do not poll as conservative. The existence of articles, I think, is more about whether it can be sourced and is notable enough to justify an article.--T. Anthony (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it does create false equivalence, because there is no movement against Hillary Clinton from the Democratic Party, while indeed there is a huge movement against Donald Trump from the Republican Party. LGBT conservatism is an actual thing, because there are millions of LGBT conservatives, and a handful have been elected, and conservatism among LGBT people has been covered as a notable movement of people. Democratic opposition to Hillary Clinton has not been covered as a movement apart from individual defectors, of which there is a small number. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 03:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • In parts of Appalachia, the one district of Maine, and such it has been noted there seems to be a number of Democrats going for Trump. And whether Stein will draw any disaffected Sanders voters was a topic of discussion. We can have articles on small phenomenon. In fact I think we do it a fair amount. That there is a big movement against Donald Trump, and only a small one against Hillary Clinton that's in a scattering of areas, doesn't mean we must ignore the one for fear of making it sound too big. (Although if you prefer it not being a list I'm open to renaming it
      Democratic opposition to Hillary Clinton in 2016 to avoid some of the listing issues and make it a different form of article.)--T. Anthony (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • It's such a comparatively small occurrence that psephologists could write an article about and will surely be discussed by campaign strategists in the event of a Clinton 2020 presidential campaign. But in terms of notability, it simply has none. The notable party figures are few, and the news isn't talking about it. This is creating a story where there isn't one, riding close to
        WP:OR, in the name of impartiality. Therequiembellishere (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
        ]
      • Possibly 12% of Democrats isn't that small. And as it's mostly among whites without college education it's going to be of less interest to journalists who tend to be educated. I'm not at all arguing the article should be as big as the other or that we should make articles on every small town Democratic mayor for Trump or college professor who switched to the Green Party, but something on it seems like it can be okay.--T. Anthony (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you support deletion or keeping the article? Please use words such as Delete or KeepTheoallen1 (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with the reasons offered by T. Anthony. I would add that as I was reading the Anti-Trump/GOP page, I found myself wondering if there were a comparable page for Clinton. I assumed there was, and also assumed it would be shorter. Both of my assumptions were correct. Had there not been a comparable page, I might have concluded that there were no notable Democrats anywhere who oppose to Clinton, and that would seem unlikely. Fmjohnson (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A handful of party figures will always buck the nominee for one reason or another. Trump's surge of opposition in an unprecedented and notable event. Clinton's is standard. Therequiembellishere (talk) 06:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a rule there is not to be articles on things unless they are unusual? Has the media written a great deal on this? No. Is it as notable as the Republican issue? No. (Although again the idea we can only have equally notable topics in order to make an article I don't think is any kind of rule. We have an article on USA Next even though AARP is much larger. And as makes sense AARP is the larger article by a good deal.) Have they noted this in regard to some regions anyway? Yes. Are we meaning media not linked to the candidate? Considering some of it is papers and magazines endorsing Hillary Clinton, yes.--T. Anthony (talk) 06:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 22:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete The mayor of a town of 19,000 who doesn't even have his own page. Two C-list celebs. An RFK speechwriter with a stub for a page. And Cornel West (who I'm pretty sure was never a registered member of the Democratic Party). If you removed them, you'd have a list of nine people. There is no anti-Clinton movement within the Democratic Party, despite certain elements wishing there was. Jim Webb and the probably-never-a-Democrat-in-the-first-place West are really the only people even remotely relevant in regards to the 2016 election. This smacks of people trying to create a false equivalence between the candidates. Furthermore, the GOP mutiny against Trump, especially after the convention, remains one of the largest storylines in this election. The reason we made a list article for Republicans opposing Trump as opposed to "Republican and conservative support for Hillary Clinton" a-la Republican and conservative support for Barack Obama in 2008 is because the sheer number of Republicans - and prominent Republicans, not just the mayors of towns with 19,000 people - who oppose his candidacy. Hillary Clinton is not facing any-mutiny from the Democratic Party, let alone one even remotely close to the size of Trump's. At most the people (with articles) should be listed on each candidate's endorsements page for their preferred presidential candidate. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 03:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per MAINEiac4434. Trump opposition is rampant and reaches to the highest level of government and intelligentsia. Clinton party opposition is sparse and mostly isolated to celebrities. It's an attempt to be unbiased but in reality is unbalanced. Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Polls may not really show that, though you think they would. They show Trump opposition is higher, but Democrats not voting for Clinton looked about average in the most recent one I saw. (Also only one celebrity still looks to be on it.) It might be higher in parts of Appalachia, Iowa, or parts of Wisconsin. There are journalists doing a few stories about it[2][3][4][5][6][7]. I'm not claiming it's a huge phenomenon, but that it meets a standard of being verifiable and noted. (and for the record I ended my period as a registered Republican due in part to Trump.)--T. Anthony (talk) 06:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Without any sitting federal- and state-level officials, the credibility of this article is weak. Jusfiq (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - too short a list to matter.
  soapboxen. FWIW, #ImwithHer. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete – Per MAINEiac4434. This article was obviously created in response to the well-established
  MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - I think this gives a perspective that there is an equivalent to the Trump-opposition whether it is small or not. It gives you perspective and that I think is indeed relevant – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 08:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Equivalent is a word, I agree, "keep" voters should stay away from. However there is evidence of pretty strong levels of defection in Ohio, Western Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. But "equivalence" is not why I favor keep. I favor keep because it can be valid sourced and is notable. Even if it were only of interest to Appalachia we do have articles like Mount Airy Fiddlers Convention, Vandalia Gathering, Urban Appalachian Council, and the entire Category:Affrilachian Poets as well as much of Category:Coal Wars. Articles can exist on topics not equally important to another article. As mentioned we have articles on USA Next and I could maybe add Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians.--T. Anthony (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • • Yeah I think that's an explicitly political standard. There is something on Wikipedia about "undue weight" but I think that's more about an article making one side look bigger than it is. It's not "undue weight" to have an article on a topic of less media interest or significance than another similar article. There are articles on Black supremacy, Nicaraguan exceptionalism, Category:Front organizations, and maybe others could fit. It existing isn't giving "false equivalency."--T. Anthony (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. manufactured topic. Not actually discussed as such in the Rw; the arguments here are a ,osture of OR and political propaganda. DGG ( talk ) 07:49, 19 October 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.

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 delete. No evidence that sufficient coverage exists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HostWithLove

HostWithLove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete per

• Delete - Subject lacks notability and any kind of coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly not notable as sources such as whois and business databases don't support the notability of the subject. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable per coverage. --JessikaRita (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide sources to confirm your claims that it is notable. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 02:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, non-notable subject. Article creator is
  not a vehicle for promotion. Citobun (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Hardly any coverage in reliable independent sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as essentially clear advertising, from the listed company information, to services and then where to find and contact them, that's nothing but advertising and is not something we should ever think otherwise about; expected, only one focused account has started and contributed to this so that speaks for itself. SwisterTwister talk 23:22, 18 October 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.

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 delete. High Alexa ranks and Facebook likes are not evidence of notability. Insufficient coverage by reliable source on the contrary is strong evidence of not being notable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MakeUseOf

MakeUseOf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable entity. Nothing significant about this. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become blog directory. 1000s of blogs website happens every day. Just another one. Similar to The Next Web and Yourstory. Written to promote company or product nothing else. Light2021 (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I disagree that this article covers a non-notable subject. The website is listed at 814 Alexa Global Ranking and has a variety of sources listed on the article. Other similar properties like Engadget have thier own Wikipedia articles because of high traffic and notability and the one for Make Use Of is no different. The page should be updated and additional sources added as per the cleanup tags added last month but the article should not be deleted. --
  talk) 09:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Alexa Rank is not a criteria for Notability. this website is used to create WikiSpan in massive amount as misleading source of Media coverage. where it is just the form of Churnalism. Articles written here are highly questionable in nature. Written by either affiliate writer or company person. References of such website or even having a article for such website make a wikipedia place for high spam problems. Light2021 (talk) 13:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are trying to be argumentative. I am clearly not suggesting that every website should have a Wikipedia article, but a high ranking, along with high readership, high Facebook likes (which is actually a measure of success), suggests notability and makes the page not worth deletion. As I stated before, cleanup needs to be undertaken to improve the quality of the page - which should be relatively easy, but a long standing technology website with high traffic is notable. Could you clarify the term "Wikispan". With regards to Churnalism - I think its doubtful you have even visited the website as they don't even have news coverage. Having viewed your user contributions you seem to have a desire to remove all technology journalism sites from Wikipedia. --

talk) 16:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. No evidence for notability--minor notices such as every technology firm gets as a matter of course. DGG ( talk ) 19:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - certainly notable enough. There's much coverage on it, it has over 400.000 likes on facebook and the site is very popular. --Fixuture (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Facebook Likes? Seriously? Entity with no existence can have as many as 10,000,0000,000 likes. That is not even a creteria for any kind of notability. Light2021 (talk) 05:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Light2021: Yes, seriously - I think such a high number of likes is a very clear indication of notability. It's not the only thing that I named here though. Not sure what you mean by "Entity with no existence can have as many as 10,000,0000,000 likes". --Fixuture (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simply mean any random object or thing or people or company can make facebook page. You can generate as much as like you want, organic, paid or simply a likes trick. or as per real Logic can you cite any Wikipedia policy that says Facebook like even a considering point of notability. I will Believe! Links or Website such as these are source of Abundance of Spam or junk in Wikipedia these days. Any company or people are using them as source of Media coverage or notability, wherein such source itself are made to promote things and nothing else. Where there are no proof of credible journalism for such website. Merely popular or being visited by thousands of visitors, Alexa rank, Twitter Followers, or high degree of article creation in a website does not make anything notable. As per guidelines. Light2021 (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- an unremarkable blog lacking significant RS coverage. Being named "one of the 'Top 100 Undiscovered Websites' in 2007" is a dubious honour. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Created by
  WP:COI. Facebook likes is not a measure of notability. Citobun (talk) 14:30, 17 October 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.

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 delete. sufficient consensus, in line with similar articles DGG ( talk ) 07:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriele Fumai

Gabriele Fumai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Municipal councillors do not get a free pass over
  primary sources and the other two just namecheck his existence in the process of failing to be about him. This is not what it takes to get a municipal councillor in the wikidoor. Bearcat (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. NN municipal politician. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete this article because it is a public and political figure in the area in the Metropolitan City of Venice. — 79.16.27.16 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • That's not enough. Not every local politician is notable. According to
    WP:NPOL, local politicians require "significant press coverage" to be notable. There are two press sources provided in the article: the first quotes from Fumai's twitter feed without providing information about him, and the second merely mentions him in a list of other councillors. This is not enough to demonstrate the kind of notability he needs for an article. ubiquity (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep - Has many sources outside WP. Notable. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 03:33, 18 October 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.

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.

But considering that merge has the most support, followed by delete, I think that it is proper to close this, for now, as a "selective merge", i.e., merging a condensed version appropriate to the scope and size of the target article. Later discussion and consensus may have to determine whether mention of the topic there is to be reduced even more (if it turns out that coverage does not continue) or whether this article can be recreated as a spinoff article if substantial media coverage continues even after the election.  Sandstein  09:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Bone

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

PROD removed by an IP, concern was: Fails

]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected csp |username}}.

• Merge to
  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]
  • Neutral After a careful reading of the essay on
    WP:LOWPROFILE, it seems that Ken Bone is not a "low-profile individual", or at least is not trying to stay a low profile individual. He has made numerous media appearances, and had an AMA on Reddit last week. It appears that he is trying to promote himself with the publicity that he got from the debate, and is not shying from the attention that he received. I'm not sure if that means that he deserves his own article, but I am less convinced that his article should be deleted. Natg 19 (talk) 19:28, 18 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.
  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: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.
  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) — 106.129.92.180 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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
  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
  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

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 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
  ^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 [8], Bill Clinton's face at one point [9], a fly landing on Hillary Clinton's face [10] and a fat guy being there [11] 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) — Emily Goldstein (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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) — 69.160.157.129 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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) — 216.100.95.193 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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. [12].--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]

• But will he meet the threshold for
  WP:NOTNEWS. --Therealelizacat (talk) 15:19, 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. --Jayron32 04:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Vermin Supreme is not just notable for one event. --Therealelizacat (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think he's notable enough to warrant his own article. Kabahaly (talk) 10:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 13:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - it seems unlikely he will meet guidelines for
  WP:BLP1E despite Reddit's aggrandizing and apparent invasion. Wikipedia is not a place for memes. --Therealelizacat (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I have to comment here, @Therealelizacat this is just simply not true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_phenomena KingAntenor (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously notable enough for a standalone article, even if he shouldn't be. See, for instance, [13] [14] [15] [16]. That's a lot of real news organizations reporting on this guy as if he's a part of a major political scandal. This coverage has been sustained for a week and shows no signs of slowing down; it's been increasing, if anything. The coverage has moved beyond the debate entirely, so BLP1E isn't applicable. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Read
  WP:SUSTAINED. --Therealelizacat (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - people should please review
  WP:ILIKEIT and consider other comments before voting. --Therealelizacat (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge No lasting significance beyond a mention in the debate article. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He's become far more than internet famous. He's become mainstream media famous and there's still no signs of media coverage slowing down. BlueGold73 (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, protect the redirect, and speedy close. Textbook BLP1E case, and there's now a developing cottage industry devoted to doxing the guy and publicizing his thoroughly unnoteworthy, undeniably unencyclopedic, often embarrassing, internet posting history. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a two minute appearance on TV is not notability . Wikipedia notability is not driven by meme popularity. This is what Wikipedia is not.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Ken Bone has appeared on national TV for much longer than two minutes, and has been trending on social media sites for significantly longer. He will remain a permanent political meme for American politics. Therefore Bone meets WP:NOTABILITY. A merge with the debates page would just look like undue weight, this page is far more appropriate for any information about him. KingAntenor (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - I agree, he will probably remain an icon – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 03:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Uncertain - Either Merge or Keep, not sure because the man has multiple New York Times articles about himself, which is itself notable, although I am not certain how that fits in with applicable policies. Skywalker Kush (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While the idealist in me would like to merge the article, I really can't find much notability on Mr. Bone nor do I think that it fits well within the debate article. — Chevvin 00:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Uncertain - Either Merge or Keep If we have pages for people that most people haven't heard of, for example Aaron Sherinian why aren't we considering his article for deletion instead of this one but merging it would be a good comprimise — Preceding unsigned comment added by NHL36 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC) — NHL36 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep - Per precedence set by the article Joe the Plumber. "Ken Bone" has about 1,050,000 results on Google News ([17]). "Kenneth Bone" has 138,000 results on Google News ([18]). The NYT even has an article on "The Kenneth Bone Effect" ([19]). An analysis of the news links indicates that Ken Bone is not just discussed for who he is as a person, but also for what he represents (or at least seems to represent) as an "undecided voter". Of course, the media is now also tearing into some of his more negative online history, but that does not do away with the fact that this individual meets all of the standards of notability required by Wikipedia. Best.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 02:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The amount of press this guy is getting is immense, and has only been growing over the past week. He's more than just a blip on the radar at this point. Also easily passes GNG. Lizard (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge at best; delete if we're really unforgiving. I cannot at this point see how any keep !votes are justified. "He's getting a ton of coverage". So what?
  Brian Chase to get on with his life; Mr. Bone deserves no less if he wishes to retreat from the limelight. Daniel Case (talk) 04:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep It's like this: when I wanted to know more about Ken Bone, the first place I went was Wikipedia. While it's not perfect, I knew that Wikipedia was the best alternative for general, unbiased information. Perhaps we need an all-purpose "topical" category. Zanski (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:BLP1E. The only reason he is known is the single question he asked during the presidential debate; everything else he has done is non-notable and would not have been covered if it weren't for the debate question. BLP1E exists for this exact purpose. Bjelleklang - talk 11:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect  This is not a clear decision.  On the one hand we have a timely reasonable article with encyclopedic viewpoint that presents the facts that people want to know who have come to Wikipedia for this information.  The fact that the article is filled with trivia-oids (factoids of trivia) in no way changes that this is what readers want.  This satisfies WP:IAR for a keep result.  We have a huge news spike that hasn't abated, as this morning on NBC's Meet the Press, Bone's Twitter "Likes" before and after the debate were reported.  We also have the second presidential debate coverage "Reception" which will absolutely need to cover this topic as an event, and there might be reason to merge the bio.  We also have
  WP:ITN should be closed as a distraction from our core purpose, and that there is no deadline, I take the view that we can wait a couple of months before deciding if this low-profile individual should have a standalone article.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: Ken Bone had appeared on media not just on his appearance on the 2016 Debate, but also for his personal life. Per Carl Henderson. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The article seems to be fairly accurate, though brief. While the significance of Ken Bone is debatable, it is evident that there is a significant public interest in him. While the article may need to be edited, it is probably best that it be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yr1monroe (talk • contribs) 02:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC) — Yr1monroe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep This man has been referenced in national newsmagazines and newspapers, on websites, on Saturday Night Live. Some people seem to make a fetish of nominating articles for deletion. There's no downside in keeping it. Deleting it helps to slowly obliterate the enviable position Wikipedia currently has as the go-to site for all information. Moncrief (talk) 03:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your hyperbole, some other people seem to have a fetish of creating articles of short-lived news-related jokes without lasting notability. I think SNL has sketched a lot of people in 40 years, that doesn't mean there should be an article on all of them. We do not need to emulate knowyourmeme.com. Reywas92^Talk 20:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Tons of media coverage for the internet sensation, especially after the SNL cold open on October 15. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Much like Harambe, Ken Bone is an American hero. 72.230.184.142 (talk) 04:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC) — 72.230.184.142 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep. Pretty well established now as a political internet meme. -- œ^™ 07:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, probably should be rewritten as such, instead of a regular biography of the man. -- œ^™ 08:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While I don't think Ken Bone is deserving of his own page, I believe that he made a big enough impact on internet culture that he should not be completely glossed over. That being said, I don't think it is appropriate to merge this with the page on the debate, because, as fun as it was to have him there, he was not an important aspect as to the outcome of the debate. So, the best option is to keep this page. Zjschulman (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC) — Zjschulman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • We can conclude he's made a massive impact on internet culture? You mean one week of jokes and memes? HAHAHAHA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reywas92 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one week is enough to make Ken Bone an Internet sensation. Although we can't truly see if the meme will last in notability, know that almost all memes start to lose popularity over time. We still have articles on those memes as they impacted Internet culture and society at their inception and created a short-term impact. Many news stories seem to be forgotten over time (for instance, Sagamihara stabbings), but we still have articles on them as the event(s) received plenty of news coverage. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need to know any more than "we can't truly see" yet?  Is there a problem with waiting?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many people want to know information about Ken Bone when he was at his "meme peak" (this past week). Stats on the page's views confirms this. It doesn't make sense to allow an article to be created on him at a later time - Ken Bone is already receiving a lot of news coverage right now. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 03:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I see !votes from accounts with fewer than 20 lifetime edits. I'm worried given the media coverage canvassing might be an issue. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – I've heard people mention his name for the last week. He belongs on an article here. 2601:8C:4001:DCF4:5C88:9ECA:C014:215D (talk) 02:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC) — 2601:8C:4001:DCF4:5C88:9ECA:C014:215D (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep - This man is enjoying sustained media coverage and considerable prominence in one of the most important events of the 21st century. If Joe the Plumber has a page, so must Ken Bone. MTG1989 ^talk 02:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:BLP1E. Ken Bone is a low-profile individual and reliable sources only cover him in relation to his debate question. gobonobo ^{+ c} 12:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E. The only reason he is known is the single question he asked during the presidential debate; everything else he has done is non-notable and would not have been covered if it weren't for the debate question. BLP1E exists for this exact purpose. Rcsprinter¹²³ (notify) 17:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not even debatable. This is pure
  talk) 19:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Oh, it's very debatable, that's why we are having a debate. Here is a new piece in FORBES which posits the Bone case as a watershed moment in the nature of 21st Century fame. Will this Warholian "15 minutes of fame" prove to be unsustained in popular culture? Perhaps. But it is far too early to judge that. Based upon the plethora of really big time media coverage, we should err on the side of inclusionism now, perhaps to revisit this a year or two hence. Carrite (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's the funniest shit I've seen in ages, thanks for the laugh. It's still BLP1E.

talk) 20:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete
  WP:BLP1E; meme that's already suffered its death. (Do any of you remember Occupy Boston? Occupy San José? I don't, either.) Cloudchased (talk) 21:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Possibly delete or merge later, if he fades back into obscurity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vulpicula (talk • contribs) 22:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Absolutely Delete. In fact I went looking to see if someone had made an article about him, just so I could nominate it for deletion. This is an absolutely classic case of
  WP:BLP1E. Until last week this person was a totally unknown private citizen. Because he asked a question at a presidential debate, he rocketed from obscurity to internet darling to internet pariah in the space of about 48 hours. Give him back his obscurity and his privacy. The media will move on to something else soon enough. If people are still talking about him six months from now, for reasons other than the debate and his history at reddit, then we could consider restoring the article. Joe the Plumber went on to lasting fame, but most 15-minute-wonders don't. --MelanieN (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. I mean, I think he's entertaining, but it's obviously a clear
  WP:BLP1E. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:07, 18 October 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.

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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Garg

He is the author of many books like introductory micro and macro economics class 12th . He has done b.com(hon.) And ca.

Sandeep Garg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Promotional article that is severely undersourced and lacking in

• Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 03:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I'm unsure if there are more coverage of subject like this one. As it stands now, it fails
  Anup [Talk] 16:34, 12 October 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.