Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge to United States presidential election debates, 2016#Second presidential debate (Washington University in St. Louis). The headcount is: keep 23, delete 15, merge 23, redirect 2. As a first approximation, therefore, we do not have consensus for any one option, but a clear majority against keeping this as a separate article.

Looking at the arguments advanced, the principal argument for deletion is that this is a WP:BLP1E case, and the principal argument for keeping is the amount of continuing post-debate media coverage he receives. These are all by and large valid arguments, but I note that many "keep" opinions are weakly argued: they are either pure votes (106.129.92.180, Dr who1975, Kabahaly, KGirlTrucker81, Vulpicula) or do not make arguments that address the BLP1E issue (216.100.95.193, Jump Guru, Zanski, 72.230.184.142, OlEnglish, 2601:8C:4001:DCF4:5C88:9ECA:C014:215D). I must therefore conclude that, after weighing the arguments made in the light of our policies and practices, we have a consensus to not keep this as an article, but no consensus for any specific implementation (delete, merge, redirect).

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

Kenneth Bone (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 06:21, 12 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
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
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
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
  • 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
  • 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 ( [10]). "Kenneth Bone" has 138,000 results on Google News ( [11]). The NYT even has an article on "The Kenneth Bone Effect" ( [12]). 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? WP:BIO1E exists for a reason; so does WP:RECENT. But for the debate, he'd be just another anonymous Redditor.

    And that brings up another reason we should delete this: if we don't, we will have to keep debating whether to include that or not. As I type, Vanessa Bayer is on Saturday Night Live cracking jokes about exactly that disclosure. And I do not see any reason this should be allowed to follow this guy around for the rest of his life at this point. Or, more to the point, I do not want a project I very much enjoy being part of to be part of the reason he shoots himself two years from now. Not at this point in time, anyway.

    Put it this way: we have allowed 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:NOTNEWSPAPER, which says this article under discussion is what Wikipedia is not.  Since I'm from the view that 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
  • 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
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
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. GigglesnortHotel ( 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kenneth_Bone&oldid=1180433767"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE