Deletion of Kirby Delauter

Comment: Salt''', and '''Sow the ground with plutonium''' just to be sure.  Absolutely clearcut case of , and Wikipedia should not be used to smear individuals as part of a political campaign
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: The opening comment I believe refers to , in which it also states: ''As for articles that do not conform to our basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and using reliable sources), keeping them actually can do more harm than one realizes – it sets a precedent that dictates that literally anything can go here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOHARM)

Comment: Non-notable local politician who experienced his 15 minutes of fame|Warhol moment before returning to normal life. Delete redirect, delete draft per BLP1E (yes, I know it was covered by everybody for roughly 3000 minutes, but largely because it was a a good laugh at Delauter's expense that appealed to journalists)  and general BLP provisions against using WP as a means to shame otherwise non-notable individuals who have experienced a lapse in judgment.While I appreciate the tenacity of several editors in arguing their point, this appears to be a fine example of a biography that shouldn't be included in a global encyclopedia, with the claim to notability quite literally based on 48 hours of social media coverage and denunciation of a ''single clueless Facebook post
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E)

Comment: There would be no article were it not for his fatuous attempt to assert personality rights. He does not hold national or State political office. He probably never will (and that's arguably not a bad thing). 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: I think this is a case where our notability guidelines don't serve us well: when press publicity for silly reasons is given too much weight. However, the article clearly shows  has been met with substantial, etc. coverage. Also, prior coverage demonstrates the topic does not fail under "1E" considerations. Our documented requirements for having articles should be improved. I was tempted to !vote ''delete'' on the basis that our guidelines do not lead to a sensible result in this case. However, I think for politicians especially we should stick to the "rules" to avoid any appearance of political bias and so we ought to keep the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: redirect, '''delete''' draft, and protect both per longstanding content policies such as , , , and  - not to mention  and . Boy, that guy really put his foot in it one time, didn't he? That newspaper editorial was hilarious! However, Wikipedia has longstanding rules against "biographical" articles that only commemorate transient Internet mockery - for very good reasons. Mr. Delauter is notorious only for the one screwup that everyone knows about, and the list of incidental facts in the current draft doesn't change that. If the padding in the draft were posted with someone else's name as the title, it would end up deleted as a resume. Using it to pad this particular article doesn't save it from being a  violation; only independent coverage of other things Mr/ Delauter would be notable for can do that
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:BLP1E||WP:BLP1E||WP:BLP1E||WP:BLP1E||WP:BLP1E||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: As Cunard notes, there is coverage that predates the Facebook gaffe, but I don't believe the case has been convincingly made that it's significant and sustained enough coverage to qualify Delauter for a standalone article. In general, county officials don't rate an article unless they've done something more significant (typically running for statewide office) despite the fact that run-of-the-mill coverage for their county activities can usually be found.  notes, correctly, that such coverage is no guarantee that a standalone article is appropriate, and that in-depth discussions, such as this one, may conclude that they are not. So I don't think he qualifies for a bio on the basis of his activities as a county official, and I therefore think  still applies with regards to his fifteen-minute Internet fame for his Facebook remarks
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: The draft clearly meets  in spades.  There is no BLP1E issue as there are good sources (including an editorial written by the editorial board of the largest paper in the state...) that predate the event
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)